For all you anti-Greens....

[a_lil_wall_fly]

GREENS WELCOME CONSTRUCTIVE INPUT FROM DEMOCRATS

"Whining doesn't count"

The Pacific Green Party of Oregon today announced that it welcomes
constructive input from Democratic Party officials and strategists
with regard to the 2004 presidential election.

"We have to recognize there is a perception that Greens somehow caused
the Democrats to lose the presidential election in 2000," said Blair
Bobier, a spokesman for the party and its 1998 candidate for governor,
responding to a column in the October 12 Oregonian by David
Sarasohn. "Of course, we see things differently. For starters, Al Gore
ran such a lousy campaign he managed to lose his home state. More
importantly, though, Gore actually won the popular vote nationwide. If
our country had a more just and modern electoral system, Gore would be
president today. If Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris hadn't illegally
removed thousands of Democratic voters from the registration lists in
Florida, Gore would be president today."


However, many Democrats still insist on blaming the Greens and Ralph
Nader for Gore's defeat, so Greens have to deal with this
misconception.

"We welcome constructive input from Democrats," said
Bobier. "Basically, what they're saying in columns such as
Mr. Sarasohn's, is they can't win without us. If they want to approach
us respectfully with a strategy for removing George Bush from office,
We're willing to listen. But no more whining. I was always taught to
take responsibility for my own actions and not place blame
elsewhere. Mr. Sarasohn and his cronies obviously haven't learned this
lesson yet."

Bobier added that Greens are interested in electoral reforms such as
instant runoff voting and proportional representation, which would
benefit both Greens and Democrats, and that Democratic support for
these electoral reforms could become the basis of discussions between
the parties.


http://www.pacificgreens.org/resources/press-releases/spoiler.txt

Food for thought!!!!!

[WillyBrandt]

1. Come into the Democratic Party And Take it Over

[zonmoy]

16. One that I can agree with

a leadership with guts and a progressive agenda. rather than the whiney wimps that the current leadership is.

[no name no slogan]

40. Which we are trying to do

it's the two-pronged approach, a la Michael Moore: work within the party for progressive/liberal candidates, and also work for a progressive 3rd party too.

Problem is, we've been doing this now for over thirty years, and it's getting a little old. The Dems can't win without us, contrary to what they've been trying for the last decade or two. Yet they think that they can afford to mistreat us and take us for granted.

[genius]

61. Great suggestion. Then the Greens would have millions of voters on their

side to support a platform that both Greens and liberal Democrats support. A small party cannot win. The traditional liberal Democrats are nervous about the future of the party with so many desertions. This solution would help everyone.

[NWHarkness]

2. Well, for a start

"I was always taught to
take responsibility for my own actions and not place blame
elsewhere."


Some recognition of the irony of that statement in this context would be a nice beginning.

[JailBush]

3. I agree, BUT...

I agree with many of your sentiments. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, and I continued to defend him from Democrats' childish attacks after the campaign. However, I kept an open mind. I was troubled by Nader's education statement, which was perfectly stupid, and he struck me as somehow distant. I eventually discovered evidence that convinced me Nader is indeed working for the other side - after tracing him to an education group based in Portland, Oregon.

This doesn't mean Democrats were right; they ran a lousy campaign and offered reasons for not voting for Nader that were indeed childish and stupid. If they weren't so clueless about education themselves, they might have discovered the evidence that I followed to Nader's masters.

Unfortunately, my website is a bit scattered at the moment, and it will be a while before I can get my revised site - with all the pertinent notes - online. However, the Green Party of Seattle - which also exploits education - is extremely corrupt. I also find it amazing that a party which claims to be filled with such vitality could have such a LAME website. Do these people not have a clue about any issues, or are they simply afraid to sit down and do the homework and writing that's required of fifth graders?

Speaking of which, I visited your website. Nice design. But I didn't see any prominent mention of the word "Issues." The links at the top of your home page include "Resources," which isn't much more than a collection of links to other websites. In summary, it looks like a carbon copy of most Democratic websites - with a nicer design.

You claim to have 14,000 members. If just one out of a thousand cared enough to research some issues and put some information online, you could have a kickass website. Pardon the arrogance, but I've done far more in that area than your entire party.

Knowledge is power, and if the Pacific Green Party doesn't appreciate the power of the Internet - or is simply too lazy to take advantage of it - then how can you expect serious activists to treat you as anything more than a joke.

I'm sorry I was so harsh, but I'm sick and tired of organizations that pretend to be activists but can't even turn out articles that would merit a C on a fifth-grade report. If you want to make a mark in politics, grow up first.

[jiacinto]

8. Here is what I find most objectionable about the Greens

They are so fucking self-righteous and smug about themselves. They act in such a righteous fashion. The condacension and the smug attitudes are what piss me off the most about them.

[ErasureAcer]

10. Nader against the death penalty. Gore for the death penalty

Really, this is one of the BIG issues why I didn't support Gore.

Anyone who believes the death penalty is correct doesn't deserve to be president.

I won't vote for them!

Either change your stance or you don't get my vote. Simple as that.

[jiacinto]

11. And then re-elect Bush

I have you on ignore but I took you off briefly for this one person.

I guess that you would rather have Michael Dukakis, the last anti-death penalty candidate, who lost more than 40 states to Bush I.

Another stupid litmus test. Then again, like most Green/Nader extremists, you have to have to have everything your way; or nothing at all.

Typical Green mentality. Nothing is better than something.

[vi5]

4. Can I think both that Gore ran a lousy campaign...

AND that the Greens are a bunch of windmill fighting self centered brats?

It doesn't have to be one or the other. There is plenty of blame to go around.

If Nader had ran a campaign as a Green and spent half as much time hammering Bush as he did hammering Gore and the Dems then he would'nt get the grief he does today.

And if Gore ran a better campaign that didn't take up most of it's time and energy pandering to his critics then he would be in the white house today Nader or no Nader.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

5. Someone has to tilt at windmills

because the current crop of Dems hasn't got the balls to tell the pukes to fuck off.

If they ever find their balls, I may consider re-registering. Until then, I am proud to be a registered Green and proud to fight for our rights as American patriots. If the Dems don't have the wherewithal to stand up to the neo-faschist Repukes, God Damnit, I do.

[JailBush]

6. Good for you.

You can start by persuading your 14,000 colleagues to put together a credible website. I don't like voting for rhetoric.

[redqueen]

29. Have you checked out Kucinich?

He is a Democrat, yet seems to have retained his cajones. :)

[Redneck Socialist]

9. Excellent...

Gore ran a crappy campaign. I mean come on, losing your HOME state for christ's sake?! In the same breath any green that doesn't own up to the fact that a vote for nader was a vote for bush is deluding him/her self.

[zonmoy]

17. I for one couldnt hold my nose and vote for

the lesser evil. If there is another incompetent wimp running as a democrat again I will probably vote third party again.

[jiacinto]

7. Bull

Nader said that he ran to defeat Gore. That undercuts their statements.

The Greens need to get over themselves.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. Didn't they already rule out endorsing the Dem nominee?

In which case, they are one of the parties opposing us, right?

[mdguss]

13. Nader Also Said

He wouldn't campaign in swing states. I personally saw him campaigning in Pennsylvania (which created a mess for the Gore campaign). The math proves Nader took it from Gore; even without the math, Nader forced Gore to spend his resources on his home turf, and allowed Bush to play offense in Democratic territory.

The result: a razor thin margin for Gore to navigate. If Gore didn't have to trek to Oregon, California, Washington, etc. in the last week of the campaign; he would've spent more time in Florida and New Hampshire.

We all know if Nader wasn't on that ballot, Al Gore would be President of the United States of America.

If you Greens want to join us fine. But please don't expect the Democratic Party to cow-tow to a party that brought you George W. Bush. If you really want to get rid of Bush and the right-wing, join our party and pledge to fight for our nominee. If you really want to move the Democratic Party to the left, get behind somebody like Dennis Kucinich, and give him your votes. If he gets enough votes, he'll have to be allowed to speak at the convention.

The Democratic Party is the vehicle that has the resources, message, supporters, and reputation to beat George W. Bush. Get onboard, and don't vote, don't campaign, and come back after 4 years of a Democratic Congress and President.

[Doomsayer13]

14. Greens can't win without Dems

that much is true. Can we win without Greens? That remains to be seen. I find it hard to accept a group of people who will not only refuse to vote for the party's nominee come November if it isn't a particular person, but will also actively campaign against that nominee. Party unity is a big part of a party, and I think it's the Democratic party's right to reject people who will campaign against them if somebody like Dennis Kucinich doesn't win the nomination.

[jiacinto]

15. I agree with you

It's hard to negotiate with people who make unreasonable threats and demands at the outset.

[GreenInNC]

18. hmmmm

Isn't that what the Dems have been doing to the Greens? A candidate has to earn my vote not expect it. Gore did not earn my vote in 2000 because of his stance on the death penalty.

Why should I vote for someone I don't agree with and why should I be limited on who I can vote for?

[mdguss]

19. This makes no sense:

With Gore you got a guy that very thoughtfully stated his position in support of the death penalty. (Though if you dig deeper into his record, you might find that he has anti-death penalty leanings. If my reccollection is correct, he wanted to make sure that it was implemented fairly).

With Bush you get a guy that mocked a person who was executed; who was proud of the number of executions he oversaw as Texas Governor. And, when asked in a debate, seemed like he enjoyed signing death warrants.

Yeah, because Gore doesn't think like you on one issue, you vote for a guy that has no chance--giving Bush, a guy who is clearly your polar opposite an advantage.

So if you like having your polar opposite in office--by all means vote Green. Enjoy the next four years of crying about the "ineffective Democratic Party."

[Doomsayer13]

20. We don't demand your vote

But don't expect us to open our arms and welcome Green critisism, or welcome Greens into the caucus when Greens will campaign for another candidate if they don't get what they want. If you want to vote for another candidate, fine, if you want to not vote for the Democrat, fine, that's your choice. But it totally stupifies me when Greens cry exclusion when in 2000 they were the ones campaigning against the Democratic party.

[paulk]

21. It's attitudes like yours that have marginalized the Green Party

Democracy is never about having everything your way, it's about compromise. The Green Party's insistence on ideological purity strikes me as childish. It smacks of a totalitarianistic thought process that I find repellent.

It is this sort of thinking that put a right wing Republican in office in Colorado's 7th District. Right wing fruitloop Republican Bob Beauprez defeated moderate Democrat Mike Feeley by 122 votes. The Green Party candidate pulled over 2,000 votes - and what did those Green voters get with their vote?

Instead of a candidate who would have represented some, perhaps even most of their interests, they got a candidate who represents NONE of their interests. And that, to my mind, is pretty much the definition of stupidity.

The saddest part of all this is that I agree with most of the Green Party platform. In the 2000 election I came very close to voting Green. But 2002 changed all that. The Green Party destroyed it's credibility for me - and it's going to have to come a long way back from it's current "cut off your nose to spite your face" mentality to get it back.

[jiacinto]

25. My greatest objection to the Greens

is the fact that they are so smug, righteous, and arrogant about themselves. They act like they are so morally superior to the rest of us.

[paulk]

26. one of the main attractions of voting for a 3rd party

one that can't win, anyway - is exactly that.

You can stand back and be smug, righteous, and arrogant instead of actually participating. You can say - "I told you so!" when things fuck up.

You can opt out, then put yourself on the mountaintop, saying, "My candidate would have never voted that way."

You can take your bat and your ball and go home.

[redqueen]

33. Has it crossed your mind...

that if all the Democrats sick of being sold down the river to the right would stop VOTING for the schmucks, that we might actuall ELECT Greens?

You agree with 'most' of the Green platform? I hope to God that means you agree with MORE of teh Dem platform.

If not, and you're another Green voter who just keeps voting for Dems because of the rigged system we're in, it's just more of an example of how absolutely f***ed we are if we keep running centrists.

[paulk]

34. There are things in the Green platform I don't agree with

and things in the Dem. platform I don't agree with.

Even if I agreed with more of the Green platform, I would still vote for the Democrat. Because at least then I would have a chance at some representation - rather than throwing away my vote, or worse, helping a Republican get in office.

You could make an argument that the Greens, by opting out of the Dem. party, are themselves responsible for pushing the party to the center.
They certainly don't help their cause by year after year running candidates against liberals like Diana DeGette and Mark Udall here in Colorado. And the aforementioned Mike Feeley.

Yes, the system is rigged, but I don't see how voting for someone who has no chance whatsoever of winning changes anything. Most of the change I've seen wrought by the Greens so far has been for the worse.

[redqueen]

41. We just disagree then

Seems to me that people being blackmailed into voting for a party that doesn't represent them as well, because said party in power refuses to push for electoral reform, are being played.

Additionally, saying that the Greens leaving the party is the reason the Democrats have moved to the right is bordering on ridiculous.

[paulk]

44. why is it ridiculous?

If the left leaves the Democratic party, then the party will have no reason to represent them . The party will move toward those that stay in. If the Democrats are having more luck pulling votes from moderate Republicans (or Reagan Democrats) that's the direction they'll move. By completely abandoning the Dem. party, Greens have no voice at all in what direction the party takes.

Isn't half a loaf better than none? That's my main problem with the Green party. They're saying that if they can't get the whole loaf, then nobody gets anything.

[a_lil_wall_fly]

47. As the Rev. AL Sharpton stated before...."Time to get those....

elephants wearing donkey suits out of party."(paraphase) We shouldn't like the idea of having shift the core values of the party too attract moderate Republicans/"Regean-omic Democrats" to gain 2 or 3 percentage points to in turn lose 2 or more points from those that might go to 3th parties; as the result of the shift in idealogical pracitices.
This is why the possiblity of the Green and Liberitarian party numbers are rising faster than the Democratic and Republican!!!!!
So your statement of "Isn't half a loaf better than none? " is true but at what cost is that half of loaf worth!!!!!
Elections in 2000---hence your statement "They're saying that if they can't get the whole loaf, then nobody gets anything." is very accurate!
But truly who is too blame.. the leadership of the DNC to allowing the shift in idealiogical pracitices and not letting elected officials that represent the Democratic Party to get tooo close in the same mind set of Republican Party. (eg: Zell)

Those that are elected that have had a voting record that has been a slap in the face of the elementary core values of the Democratic Party should be shown the door!!!!!NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS ABOUT IT!!!
That would show those who members have left the Democratic party, for those reasons; truly the Democratic Party has gone back to the roots of the historical aspects of the Democratic party.
Yes we the Democratic Party would be in the minority; but that would be better than losing more members because of the idealogical shift that has cause these problems within today's party.

[redqueen]

49. It's ridiculous because

It's akin to blaming the victim!

If the left stays in the Democratic party (as we have been, for the most part -- at least I have - SO FAR), does anything change? NO.

Then if you I leave, and things still don't change, it's my fault?!

The logic you cite re: pulling votes is EXACTLY the kind of political whoredom that has cost Democrats dearly! Everyone thinks they have no real values, and a lot of them do a great job of backing up that argument!

I see the logic re: abandoning the party = giving up your voice in the direction the party takes, but I've been dealing with this for 17 years and NOTHING's changed!

Why don't Dems fight for electoral reform?

[a_lil_wall_fly]

46. Queen.. you are stating the Democratic is on the verge of ridiculous......

I thought that was the case 20 years ago. I would state that if the Democratic party does not clean up it shall fall to the ranks of the Whig party. EXTINCT!!!!

[redqueen]

50. Sadly, yes

More people are waking up to the lies we've been sold for so long.

Dems had better stand up and be counted as for the people or the powerful.

I'm doing my 'Democratic' duty this one last time, at least (voting for the Dem in the general no matter what), but God as my witness if we get another Clintonite $#*(&#@ I am OUT!

[jiacinto]

24. No

You are the one being unreasonable. You vote on one issue even though Gore would have been closer to you ideologically. With your ilk it's either everything or nothing.

You can vote for whomever you want. That's your right, but don't bitch about Bush and don't complain if/when he gets re-elected.

[redqueen]

31. I agree completely.

It seems we're being told that the march to the right is inevitable, and if we resist we're 'childish'.

Sorry, not buying.

[Scott Lee]

51. 2002 showed you that Dems cant win without Greens, either

or have you all forgotten?

[redqueen]

30. I don't know...

I think they have indicated a willingness to endorse Kucinich. :)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. I flirted with third party politics.

Specifically, the New Party. The New Party however, focuses on electing people at the lower levels, like city council, mayor, state leg., etc.

Sounds like a good way to build a party. Maybe the Greens should try concentrating on ACTUALLY ELECTING people instead of just being spoilers... just a thought.

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. We do elect folks

at the lower levels.

School boards, municipal positions, etc.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

48. I'd love to hear about it.

In fact if the Green party publicized the people it did elect, and worked to elect more, instead of running spoilers that have no chance, it might be a party worthy of respect.


So. Who have the Greens elected?

[GreenPartyVoter]

53. This is the press release from earlier this month

They do get the word out, but most papers and TV news outlets don't bother to carry it unless it affects them locally or it's of national interest, such as when Eder got elected to the Maine state house.


Below is the press release from earlier this month. If you want to see what Greens have been elected to which positions over the last few years you can see them here: http://greens.org/elections/




Elected Greens in Pennsylvania increase from 9 to 25.


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Pennsylvania Greens increased their number of local elected officials from nine to 25, leading an advance of Greens in several local races around the U.S. on November 4. Pennsylvania, California, Connecticut, Maine, Washington Greens celebrated several local victories, with California Greens especially buoyed by San Francisco mayoral candidate Matt Gonzalez's second place showing, which allows him to compete in a December 9 runoff election. (A list of Pennsylvania victories is appended below.) Altogether, 56 Green candidates were elected in 2003.

"Even though we gain the most public attention from presidential, gubernatorial, and congressional campaigns, Greens advance most dramatically in city, county, and school board races," said Juscha Robinson, co-chair of the Coordinated Campaign Committee of the Green Party of the United States. "That's how we're building our grassroots base, ensuring that the Green Party will continue to grow as a permanent progressive ecological political party."

Greens noted that Democratic and Republican candidates overwhelmingly outspent them throughout the U.S. Green candidate Tom Hutt, who lost his bid for Philadelphia City Council, was outspent 160 to 1 by his Democratic and Republican opponents.

In California, Bill Meyers won his reelection for school board in Point Arena. Green Fairfax Councilmember and former Mayor Lew Tremaine finished first in the two seat race for Fairfax Cirty Council and fellow Green Party Menber Larry Bragman finished second. Tremaine and Bragman beat a pro-development slate backed by the Fairfax Civic League, a conservative group attempting to wrest Fairfax Council away from its progressive majority.

Unofficial results from Maine give Stephen Spring a 54.71% win in his Portland School Committee, District 2 campaign. In another Maine Green victory, Erek Gaines won his campaign for Water District seat. Gaines, at 20, is the youngest Green winner in 2003; he served as a student intern for Maine state legislator John Eder, also a Green.

Corrections and updates: (1) Greg Allen, elected Soil & Water Conservation Director in Virginia Beach, is not the first Green ever elected in Virginia, as stated in a Green Party press release issued November 5. Previous Green victories for local office in Virginia occurred in 1997, 2000, and 2001. (2) David Juarez, who with Don Cooney won their races for Kalamazoo, Michigan, city commission, was not an incumbent candidate and has never been registered Democrat; this is his first term and Green is his first party affiliation. (Juarez is also the first Latino ever elected to the Kalamazoo City Commission.)

Pennsylvania victories:
Robert Cogan, Councilmember, Edinboro Borough, Erie County
Catherine Scheib, Councilmember, Ward 1, Lewisburg Borough, Union County
Thomas Davidock, Councilmember, Port Clinton Borough, Schuylkill County
Michael O'Malley, Councilmember, Sinking Spring Borough, Berks County
Kerry Nee, Councilmember, Sinking Spring Borough, Berks County
Michael Zowniriw, Supervisor, Richland Township, Bucks County
Nicholas Seigert, Constable, Ward 1, Lancaster City, Lancaster County
Nicholas Seigert, Constable, Ward 5, Lancaster City, Lancaster County
Bill Smedley, Constable, Nippenose Township, Lycoming County
Frank Divonzo, Auditor, Paxtang Borough, Dauphin County
Mary Lou Alsentzer, Auditor, Codorus Township, York County
David Brooks, Auditor, Conestoga Township, Lancaster County
Kurt Reichenbach, Auditor, East Buffalo Township, Union County
Dean Hornberger, Auditor, Exeter Township, Berks County
Mike Korsak, Auditor, Franklin Township, Chester County
April Sullivan, Auditor, Hellam Township, York County
Edward Gately, Auditor, Manheim Township, York County
John Irwin, Auditor, Martic Township, Lancaster County
Phil Getty, Auditor, Solebury Township, Bucks County

[no name no slogan]

56. I've seen the "Green Blackout" in effect on election day coverage

In Minneapolis only a few years back, there was a three-way race for a state legislative seat between a Democrat, a Green and a Republican. Minneapolis is heavily DFL (Democratic) and has been since at least the 1930s.

The top two vote-getters were the Dem (60%) and the Green (35%). However, at least one station ONLY showed the tallies for the Dem and the Repub (who got 5%), COMPLETELY IGNORING THE GREEN. Let me tell you, for those of us who knew what was going on, the returns looked pretty damned ridiculous on TV.

Since then, there's been a bit of "housecleaning" on the city council level, and at least two Green-endorsed candidates are now on the 12-member council. I also know at least one on the city council of Duluth, MN, too.

The Greens DO win local and regional elections, despite the mainstream press's best efforts to ignore it.

[NNadir]

23. For a bunch that secured a whopping 2%, they have an inflated view of

themselves.

Screw 'em. I don't care was this pixilated crowd of navel gazers says or does. The Democrats can chase this malcontent fringe, or they can win. Given the importance of this election, I'd go with win.

Without the rare event of an election turning on a few disputed votes, they don't matter. Guess what? In 2004, they won't matter. They're less meaningful than Ross Perot, and that's pretty hard to do, be less meaningful than Perot.

[no name no slogan]

28. Which is precisely what they did in 2000...AND LOST, btw.

The Democrats can chase this malcontent fringe, or they can win

Like they did in 2000, which was so close the candidate's brother could steal away a full state's electorial votes?

Nader got a fraction of what he would have gotten if more people had voted their conscience instead of voting for "the one who can beat Bush". I know of many Greens who STILL voted for Gore in my state (MN), which has been solidly Democratic since the early 20th century.

The Democrats will NEVER win by trying to be Republicans, contrary to what so many of you Clintonites, Gore-ites, etc. want to believe. The last ten years has proven that outright. We've lost governors, senators and representatives left and right because of this whole mirage of "winability", that we need "moderates" to get elected.

People will VOTE DEMOCRATIC when given the choice of a REAL Democratic candidate-- one who represents the little guy against big corporations, one who opposes the death penalty, one who opposes the continued selling off of our natural resources to the highest bidder, one that is willing to stand up to the NRA, and one that will protect our hard-fought social safety net that our parents may have died for.

I have voted for Nader in the past, TWICE, because I felt he was the best Democrat running at the time. He was against the death penalty, against NAFTA, against the war on the poor that masquerades as "welfare reform", against American imperialism abroad and many other things that Gore OPPOSED, but have been planks in our party's platform for DECADES. I find it hard to believe that so many Democrats were willing to sell out our core values for a candidate who seemed "electable".

It's like Al Sharpton said about African-Americans-- it applies to progressives too. You keep bringing us to the dance, promising us something if we go there with you, but then you turn around and leave with somebody else.

The Greens are the ones who got fed up with you "Democrats" ditching them at the dance. There are many more like them currently in the Democratic Party (like myself), who still support your disasterous candidate choices, despite the treatment we get at your hands after the elections, when we get blamed for making you look "too liberal".

If you treated the big-money "corporate-friendly" candidates like you treat us, they'd ditch you in a second-- no ifs, ands or buts. But somehow you keep thinking you can keep dumping on the progressives and they'll still faithfully go to the polls and pull that Democratic lever.

You've got my vote in 2004 regardless (because I promised it to you), but if you keep on treating me and other progressives like this, don't expect to see us waiting around for you to call next time.

[redqueen]

32. That's it exactly.

We're continually insulted and cajoled... told we have to sacrifice principle to compete. It's a mind****.

The fact is that if a real Democrat were on the ticket we might just see some increase in voting. I think Wellstone and Kucinich have proved it.

However our 'leaders' just keep picking candidates who march us further after the right...

If they think this will last past '04, they've got a hard lesson coming.

From what I've seen, they've managed to scare many Democrats away from third parties with their 'lesser evil' bargaining -- I think that era is about to end.

[helleborient]

36. It would be interesting to see what the Democratic party would look like..

If Kucinich supporters leave through one door, and Dean supporters leave through another.

Practicing inclusion is so vitally important for a party hoping to win national elections.

[no name no slogan]

39. Wouldn't it be even funnier

if we all met down the street at the same watering hole, combined forces, and then went back in and made the apologists sit in the corner?

Just a thought of course :o

[redqueen]

42. I think it will be pathetic

A party that once represented reform and renewal, reduced to pitiful sycophants, sniffing at the heels of their corporate masters.

[a_lil_wall_fly]

45. and playing "faux" politics card to "sweet talk" the minorities and ......

disillusioned to vote for them and then stick a nice hot poker up the voter's arses.

[Scott Lee]

52. What's "reformed" and "renewed" in the current DNC?

Please tell me you were kidding.

[redqueen]

54. hehe...

Nope Scott... I was referring to the party back in FDR's time. :)

[Scott Lee]

55. ....well alrighty then! LOL

Thanks for the clarification.

[a_lil_wall_fly]

37. no name no slogan ... Awesome Statement

Yes the Progressive voters and 3th parties are tired of the "misstatements and the misactions" of the Democratic party.
Nader stated that if it is a Kunnich-Sharpton ticket, he would support it.
That is not trying to get his way on the election. He stating that this ticket would not conflict with his views.
This is a country that is not a true democratic supported society if it is only a two-party system; like most you have stated that it was the greens and other parties that cost Gore the election. Typical mindset...blame others not yourselves.
The Democratic Party has to clean house to get the other party members to come back in the fold. This is like a snowball surviving in the lower planes of hell....it most likey won't do it. Since that could be the case, guess what... it is in your power to stand up and demand your local Democratic party to have the balls to call out those that are "elephants in donkey suits" and kick them out of the party.

[no name no slogan]

43. Thanks

That's the only reason I'll vote Dem for prez this year-- I promised I would, and I keep my promises.

We liberals and progressives have been fighting the takeover of our party by the corporate whoremasters for a loooooong time: think back to Jackson in 1984. Even though I'm a native of Minnesota (Mondale country y'know), I was still hoping Jackson would do well enough to steer the debate to the left, and nail Reagan on his weak spots: the economy, joblessness, wanton imperialism, etc. Even though I was only 15 and in high school, I was hoping for a nominee that would get us out of El Salvador and Nicaragua.

In 1988 I got "pragmatic" and worked for somebody who could "beat Bush" (sound familiar?): Michael Dukakis, another governor from a small New England state, a fiscal moderate and social liberal. We got our butts kicked that year, nationally AND statewide. The only shining light was that we won a critical local legislative race by only a couple hundred votes.

In 1990 I chucked my pragmatism and worked long and hard for Wellstone at the caucuses and general election. I was on the floor for his acceptance speech at the 1990 State convention. It was amazing.

After Clinton, I said good riddance to the Dems and dropped out of politics. After Wellstone died last year, and Shrub's imperial adventures, I knew I had to get involoved again.

If the Dems turn us away, it's their loss. The 4+ mil who voted for Nader and the ??mil who would have but voted for Gore are WAITING for them to accept us and make us feel welcome. If they won't it's their loss.

[helleborient]

35. When a party loses an election....

THEY lost the election.

I wish more Democrats would just get over the anger with Nader. Bill Clinton won big with Ross Perot running. 2000 was not the fault of the Greens.

I, for one, welcome the reaching out from the Greens, and welcome long-term work on expanding beyond the 2-party system.

But then I'm happy with 9 choices for the Democratic nomination for President as well...I thought democracy is about choices.

[a_lil_wall_fly]

38. Yeah...

:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:

Very true, nine is awesome.

Thou the media is getting worse about not showing the views and statements of the non-frontrunners.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[Think Globally]

58. They didn't lose!

Clinton won TWICE with Perot running, and Gore WON with Nader running. If the Democrats hadn't abandoned progressive voters, they'd have had a victory that couldn't have been stolen! If you want to blame anyone, look at yourselves!

[helleborient]

59. Isn't that what I said?

The Democratic Party has to look at the Democratic Party to examine the election...not at the Green Party or anyone else.

[Forkboy]

57. "Whining doesn't count"

:D

[genius]

60. This is nonsense but we need third party support in 2004 to win

Kucinich will get us that support.