All the Democratic candidates are good

[johan helge]

Everyone of them will, if elected, do his/her(!) best to move the US towards the left. Stop trashing this or that candidate.

[Kurovski]

1. Define "trashing".

[johan helge]

2. For example

the thread below - "Rudy and Hillary - what a pair of shitty choices"

[Kurovski]

4. "Below" what?

If the thread, or whatever you are referring to has legitimate--even if arguable--reasons as to why they are poor choices, my only agreement with you would be the use of the word "shitty". It seems needlessly provoking.

[johan helge]

6. It's the thread

currently low on the first page of Genereral Discussion. People can discuss candidates, of course, it's the moaning tone about Hillary that I think is unfair and destructive.

[kansasblue]

3. ...but some are 'gooder' than others. :-)

(Animal Farm)

[johan helge]

5. Discussion about the candidates is ok,

it's the moaning tone about especially Hillary that I think is unfair and destructive.

[Clark2008]

7. Well, they're not, but that's OK.

We have many wonderful people in the Democratic Party. It saddens me that the best aren't running and I don't know why.

P.S. That said, most of them - not all - are still better than the Republicans running.

It's sad that the best of either party can't win/run because of the juggarknots of fundraising.

[johan helge]

8. Of course Hillary is good

She and Al Gore and whoever you favor have very similar values.

[Kurovski]

9. Al Gore was never for the invasion of Iraq.

Neither was Kucinich. That's a big difference in values right there.

[johan helge]

11. Was different opinions about Iraq

because of different values? Perhaps to some degree, but: At the time, many thought that if the Democrats opposed the invasion, they would give the next election(s) to the Republicans. And, of course, many well-intentioned people supported the invasion.

[Kurovski]

13. So they'd rather kill people than lose an election?

If that was their thinking, then it's most definitely about values.

[johan helge]

16. Many, me included,

thought the invasion would be a good thing for the Iraqi people, since they would get rid of Saddam. I don't know if Hillary thought so, but: Opposing the invasion wouldn't stop it. But it seemed like it would stop the Democrats from winning the next election(s).

[Joe Fields]

31. It's never a good thing to invade a sovereign nation unprovoked.

[johan helge]

36. Never say never

- e.g. Idi Amin's Uganda! Or perhaps Saddam's Iraq - if the US had just withdrawn soon after the invasion, and let the Iraqis deal with Iraq themselves? If Saddam had been better than that, I agree, they should have stayed out of Iraq. In general, perhaps the UN should have some kind of "world police", which removed crooks like Idi Amin and Saddam.

[LWolf]

10. No.

Not that you'll find any instance that I've "trashed" anyone. Disagreed with? Yes. Vigorously opposed? Absolutely. Taken off of my table? Yes, again.

Trashed? No.

Dissent is crucial, and I will not silence dissenters.

[johan helge]

12. Discussion is ok,

it's the moaning, the exaggerated negativity towards especially Hillary, that I think is unfair and destructive.

[B Calm]

14. and it's Un-American to negatively talk about Bush.....

[johan helge]

18. And, of course, if you criticize the moaners

you are as un-democratic as e.g. Cheney ....

[B Calm]

21. The moaners are the ones crying about people who criticize Hillary

then I agree...

[johan helge]

25. No, it's the ones crying about people who cry about people who criticize Hillary! (nt)

[B Calm]

32. That's it!

[LWolf]

15. Don't read it.

Threads that don't get responses sink quickly.

Let them sink. I do, for the most part.

I feel extremely negative towards HRC, and don't mind saying that I won't vote for her. I "hide" most threads that she appears in, unless I decide to step in and say something. I "hide" the pro-and anti-hillary threads both.

It helps me avoid the temptation to step in and say something, inadvertently "kicking" the thread. ;)

I have posted on one HRC thread today; an attack thread, in which I disagreed with the attack, even though it came from a candidate I like better, and I still won't be voting for her.

Don't kick attack threads. It makes for a better board.

[johan helge]

17. If you're not going to vote for Hillary if she's the candidate

you effectively advise giving the Presidency to a Republican if she's the candidate. If not for this kind of thinking, in Florida in 2000, Bush would never have happened. Some people are determined never to learn the simplest things.

[LWolf]

19. That's a two-way street.

I'm not going to "give" the presidency to anyone, and neither do I "give" my vote. My vote is earned. While every vote is some kind of a compromise, the only compromises I engage in are those in which I get something that I want in return for what I give. If the "getting" doesn't equal the "giving," I'm not doing it. As an issues voter, I have to "get" action on key issues. If a candidate has convinced me that he or she will never act on any of my key issues, he or she doesn't get my vote. It's that simple.

While Nader voters did not cost Gore Florida, they certainly were a factor. If the Democratic Party does not want the left splintering off to other candidates in the general, they won't nominate a dlc/centrist.

I would suggest that the party is determined not to learn that lesson, and that the outcome can be laid at the feet of the majority who chooses the nominee.

[johan helge]

24. It's just the opposite

"While Nader voters did not cost Gore Florida, they certainly were a factor." Bush won with a few hundred votes, Nader got thousands?

"If the Democratic Party does not want the left splintering off to other candidates in the general, they won't nominate a dlc/centrist."

The more loyal liberals vote Democratic, the less votes the Democrats need from centrist voters to win. And the more liberal the Democrats can be without losing elections, the more liberal they will be. It's the same with Republicans - the reason they are so extremely conservative, is that they could be so without losing elections. And it's the same with e.g. blacks - if all blacks had voted, the Democrats would have won more elections, with more liberal programs. That's why the Republicans don't want blacks to vote.

[LWolf]

26. Bush didn't win with a few hundred votes.

He was selected by the Supreme Court. That selection had more do do with election fraud in Florida than it did with Nader voters. Let's see: Nader voters are citizens exercising their right to vote their conscience under the constitution. Election fraud is a crime. Who is more to blame?

The rest is just nonsensical. If the Democratic Party wants liberals to be "loyal" to the party, then Democrats must be loyal to liberals. That's a 2-way street, too. When Democrats aren't loyal to liberals, they can't count on their votes.

You are saying that voters exist to serve the party. I'm saying that the party exists to serve the voters.

[johan helge]

27. With the help of Nader,

it was possible for the SC to give the victory to Bush. If not for Nader, more election fraud would have been needed for this to happen. And no one knows for sure whether the Republicans would have been able to that amount of election fraud. Just like the Democratic victory in 2006 was too big to be blown away by Republican election fraud.

And election fraud doesn't change the political effect of Nader's candidacy, of course: It helped Bush. And that's the real question here - was it right of Nader to run? The answer to that does not depend on election fraud.

[LWolf]

30. Anybody has the right to run.

It's not a matter of "right" or "wrong." To suggest that it is "wrong" for a citizen who wants to run for president to do so, or that it's "wrong" for people who support that candidate to cast their votes for him, is anti-democratic.

Election fraud is "wrong." Allowing corporate takeover of mainstream media is "wrong." Leaving the fairness doctrine behind to be replaced by the modern "fair and balanced" version of news was "wrong."

There are many things that are "wrong." Democracy is not one of them.

[johan helge]

33. You seem a little punch-drunk, LWolf!

Good! Don't let your dislike for the DLC etc. affect your voting, they are not the real bastards. Winston Churchill's attitude is a good example (http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=531): "As much as he detested the Soviet regime, he once said that if Hitler were to invade Hell he would promptly sign a pact with the Devil."

[LWolf]

34. Is that your strategy?

When you can't argue the point, you accuse the person you are arguing with to be suffering from the imaginary blows you've delivered?

You haven't landed a single punch, and attacking the messenger isn't going to make the message go away.

It's not a matter of "right" or "wrong." To suggest that it is "wrong" for a citizen who wants to run for president to do so, or that it's "wrong" for people who support that candidate to cast their votes for him, is anti-democratic.

Election fraud is "wrong." Allowing corporate takeover of mainstream media is "wrong." Leaving the fairness doctrine behind to be replaced by the modern "fair and balanced" version of news was "wrong."

There are many things that are "wrong." Democracy is not one of them.

[johan helge]

35. I don't call twisting words a point!

Only an alliance can beat the Republicans. And in an alliance, you have to include people you disagree with.

[LWolf]

38. I'm not twisting words or issues here,

although you seem to be willing to twist anything you can find to make a weak, off-topic point.

The point:

It's not a matter of "right" or "wrong." To suggest that it is "wrong" for a citizen who wants to run for president to do so, or that it's "wrong" for people who support that candidate to cast their votes for him, is anti-democratic.

Election fraud is "wrong." Allowing corporate takeover of mainstream media is "wrong." Leaving the fairness doctrine behind to be replaced by the modern "fair and balanced" version of news was "wrong."

There are many things that are "wrong." Democracy is not one of them.

As far as your point about "alliances" goes, I would suggest that a person interested in forming alliances does not start by declaring potential allies at fault. "If you don't do it my way it's all your fault when we end up with a Republican" doesn't win allies.

I would suggest that if you are trying to win allies, you might START by nominating a candidate that potential allies might be willing to consider.

[mmonk]

20. They are all better than the republican candidates

which if they win, I will leave since the framework for oppression remains. However, I have my reservations about them all being good.

[UTUSN]

22. Such it always has been!1 Look at this 2nd row. Imagine what our country would be like now!1

[johan helge]

28. Yeah, the difference between Democratic and Republican candidates

says a lot - e.g. McGovern/Nixon, Kerry/Bush, ....

[flaminbats]

23. I love all of these candidates..

I think each one would make an excellent President. but I think some of them would make sorry candidates.

everytime I watch a debate and learn more about each candidate, I end up more undecided than before. in 2000 I voted for Bradley because I was disappointed with Gore's position on healthcare reform, in 2004 I voted for Kucinich because I was disappointed with Kerry's vote for the Iraqi War resolution.

this time our primary candidates are listening, at last!!! :thumbsup:

[Xenotime]

29. Anyone here should be supporting a dem not bringing them down.

[Marr]

37. No they aren't.

Hillary Clinton is a corporate lackey who won't move this country one inch to the left in any meaningful way. She'll play around with some wedge issues, but when it comes to the real backbone of democracy, i.e., a strong middle class and restraining corporate power, she's practically GW Bush.

She's not a good candidate and if the party establishment/corporate media somehow manages to make her the nominee, she will lose. I expect the DLC would rather see Hillary Clinton lose than see a real progressive win anyway.

[babydollhead]

39. kick