Do we REALLY want a Dem in the White House on 1/20/2009? If so...

[dajoki]

Then we better knock off the bullshit and focus on the BIG PICTURE!! My point in asking this is simple, with the way our two candidates are going at it, and the way their surrogates continue to throw haymakers back and forth, we are making the Repubs work much easier. I can understand that they must point out their differences and make it clear who belongs in the WH, but the downright nastiness and cheap shots are uncalled for.

I am an Edwards supporter and have said all along that when the time comes I will enthusistically jump on our nominee's bandwagon and do whatever I can to see that he/she is elected in November, and I WILL. But all this infighting between them is a turnoff and worse than that it IS helping McCain. I have yet to decide if I will support Hillary or Obama, but I assure you that I will eventually choose and he/she will get my full support. However, I will not base my decision on accusations of who gave what speach and the like, I will base it on who I believe can REALLY change our country and on who has the best chance of winning the GE.

I have read many, many posts here on DU and our badgering and flaming away at each other and our candidates does not help either. Please, support your candidate to the FULLEST, but tearing down the other candidate and his/her's supporters is NOT the way to win people over, at least not for me and I'm sure there are many who feel the same as me. By saying that if your candidate doesn't win, you will not vote or write someone in, is just as good as voting for McCain. Now, I will be very curious to see what this thread turns into if anything. I just think it is important for us to unite(eventually) and put ALL our energy into putting a Dem in the White House. This is absolutely not meant to offend anyone, so if you take it that way let me apologize before we even get started!!

This article should be a reminder.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Republicans might sink Obama
In 1976, they nearly beat Carter with the fear card.
By Walter Rodgers
from the February 19, 2008 edition
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0219/p09s02-coop.html

<<snip>>

It sounds like a recipe for a big win for Sen. Barack Obama this November. It also sounds a lot like the 1976 campaign, which I covered as White House correspondent for the Associated Press. And if history is any guide, don't count the GOP out just yet.

In August 1976, after winning the Republican nomination in Kansas City, Mo., Gerald Ford invited GOP VIPs to his summer retreat in Vail, Colo., to plot strategy for the November election against Jimmy Carter, who at that time enjoyed a nearly insurmountable advantage in opinion polls. Indeed, as summer peaked, Mr. Carter was doubling Ford's support in surveys – capturing nearly 70 percent.

<<snip>>

Last in line, and almost as an afterthought, the clever Mr. Connally feigned indignation and effectively asked, "Who is this Jimmy Carter? We don't know anything about him!"

<<snip>>

By the time Americans voted in November 1976, Carter had to stay up till nearly 3 o'clock in the morning to learn if he had really won. With polls closing so rapidly in Ford's favor, had the campaign lasted another week, I suspect Ford might well have won the presidency on his own terms, despite Watergate, embarrassing revelations about CIA scandals, and the humiliation of Vietnam.

<<snip>>

Surely, if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, not long after he becomes his party's candidate, a latter-day Connally is going to ask indignantly, "Who is this Barack Obama? What does he know about keeping the oil flowing in the Middle East? Does he understand that militant political Islam is waging an open-ended war against the West? What are his qualifications for dealing with China after the Olympics honeymoon ends? And how prepared is he to negotiate with disillusioned American allies as well as a resurging and belligerent Russia?"

<<snip>>

If he cannot pass the Connally test and convincingly tell voters who he is and what he will do, the Republicans will have him for lunch in November.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

1. Amen to that!

While the little voice in my head tells me the government will never really do much for the common man (and woman) even though they tell us they will, we still have to change the agenda in DC. This current bunch has driven us into the ditch. As soon as a Dem gets in there and raises taxes be prepared for the howling and crying. But it has to be done. Therefore whomever is on the ballot with a D next to their name gets my vote........regardless! :toast:

[dajoki]

8. Same Here!! n/t

[Brother_1969]

2. I'm afraid that it'll get worse before it gets better.

If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, that will seriously degrade her (and Bill's) influence in the Democratic Party. Their power and money will both be significantly and permanently reduced. Because they put their own personal welfare ahead of everything else -- party, country, responsibility -- they are not going to go down without a fight. They won't really care how dirty and ugly it gets or who (or what) gets destroyed in the process.

IMHO, this is going to end up in a brokered outcome that will not take into account the will of the voters.

[Perry Logan]

6. Wow. You should check out their records sometime. Totally disproves what you say.

[dajoki]

12. Do you think...

that she could resume her duties as a US Senator if she loses? Or do you think she will be too embittered?

[suston96]

3. If I have a choice.....I would rather have a veto-proof congress.....

...which we ain't gonna get...too much attention to the Democratic presidentials and nothing at all to congressionals.

[dajoki]

4. I totaly agree with that...

but as this current administration has shown, Congress means nothing to them, look at the "signing statements". I think we need both the executive and legislative branches. And don't forget the Judicial, whoever wins will be able to stack our courts anyway they like.

[Beregond2]

5. Really...

I really doubt that a lot of nasty flaming on a website like this one is very important in the larger scheme of things. I see it as a relatively harmless way for Dems to get all the internecine anger out of their systems before the General Election. I very much doubt that the threats to not vote for anyone except their candidate will hold until November. In the end, we are all Democrats, and will support our party's candidate, particularly when the alternative is so awful.

I don't see any way this will become a brokered convention either. That's just the media cooking up some drama, as usual. Look at the numbers. Short of Clinton trying some underhanded power-grab, which would result in nothing but the end of her own career, it just isn't going to happen.

Yes, the Repugs will try the "he's inexperienced" line agaisnt Obama. It won't work. The voters are going to see an articulate, intelligent, principalled young man, with a vast base of support, contrasted with a severely compromised, old, tempermental reminder of everything bad about the past, who is loathed by at least half of his own party. There will be no contest.

[dajoki]

7. I hope you are correct...

about all of that. But there is something telling me that some people really mean what they say, because of the tone it is said in. And don't count out the "swiftboating" of our candidate, the Repubs WILL be ready.

[Speck Tater]

9. It might be better if we let McCain win.

With the economy headed for a big-time crash do we really want the collapse of the US economy to happen on a Democrat's watch? It's going to happen anyway, no matter who gets elected. It might be better for us in the long run if the crash happened with a Republican in office.

Just saying maybe we need to think long term instead of thinking only about tomorrow's bottom line.

[dajoki]

10. Huh?

In the meantime, how many people must die or starve or freeze on McCain's watch?

[dajoki]

11. kick