Clark/Kerry/Edwards/Dean, God bless them, need to go

[no name no slogan]

Yes, you heard me correctly: these four have got to go.

Why? Because they are all campaigning as representatives of the flawed status quo: the same status quo that got us the PATRIOT Act, NAFTA, a bloated Pentagon budget, no universal healthcare, tax breaks for the rich and big corporations, and the same tired old vision of an American Empire that will surely lead this country to moral and financial bankruptcy.

I mean, come on already, we KNOW what they're going to say on the issues: they've published their position papers, given speeches, even "debated" each other, and all we get is more of the "same old, same old" centrist mediocrity we got from Clinton, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale and Carter.

For crying out loud, look at the polls: 50% of all eligible voters didn't even bother to VOTE in the last presidential election. Why? Because there was hardly any difference between TweedleDum and TweedleDumber on many key issues: welfare "reform", death penalty, "war on drugs", etc. So it really was a choice between the evil of two lessers-- and unfortunately, evil won.

What we NEED is another REAL honest-to-goodness LIBERAL, POPULIST Democrat who will not only inspire our voters, but will lead us with a vision of a future that's 180° different from the one put forth by the Repubs.

I want a Democrat who is NOT AFRAID of being called a "liberal", because he IS one. LIBERALS win elections-- "moderates" do not.

[Vampiro]

1. Looks like one can dream, eh?

We need to win 2004. I'm sorry, but if you take any one of those guys out of the equation, we'd lose for sure. I don't know what you've been smokin', but they have to stay.

[no name no slogan]

12. Bush is BELOW 50% approval now according to CNN

Cripes, an inanimate carbon rod could put the hurt on BushCo these days-- the only reason he "won" last time was because of his connections. You could probably even run O.J. Simpson against Shrub, and HE'D WIN!

I mean, seriously, do you HONESTLY believe ANY Democrat who voted for Gore in 2000 would vote for Shrub this year? And how many p.o.'d Shrub 2000 backers would vote for him again after the last four years? And what about those Nader voters? Would they rather vote for Shrub than for ANY Democrat?

ANY Democratic candidate could kick Bush's ass this year-- ANYONE.

[AntiCoup2K4]

22. Hell, let's run OJ against Junior.

Simpson only killed 2 people. Junior killed thousands, from NYC to Baghdad. The Juice certainly has the name recognition going for him, and if Poppy Bush can spend 12 years draining the economy and still get his son selected 8 years later, then the collective national memory fart will probably forget all about OJ's crime.

[newyawker99]

30. Hi Vampiro!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Cuban_Liberal]

2. Ummm. no.

I prefer to not have 2004 go down in the annals of history as the only time the Democratic party lost all 50 states AND the District of Columbia, thank you.

[no name no slogan]

3. Ah yes, better to recreate 1984 & 1988 than try to recreate 1960 (n/t)

[Cuban_Liberal]

5. Kucinich is no JFK.

So 1960 hardly applies.

[JasonBerry]

6. You'd be slamming JFK, too

Kennedy was a hawk. You would be saying he wasn't a "real Democrat."

[liberalhistorian]

7. Kennedy wasn't a warmongering hawk, though,

and he sure as hell wouldn't have gotten us into this mess in Iraq and he sure as hell would NOT have followed a "preemptive strike" doctrine.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[JasonBerry]

24. Might want to edit

"you rightwingers"

Against the rules. Anybody that knows me knows that I am far from "rightwing".....I am a proud progressive Democrat. I simply am tired of the calls for idealogical purity.

[no name no slogan]

25. Ideological purity is one thing, not supporting progressives is another

I've held my nose and voted for my share of conservative Democrats in my time-- but it makes absolutely no sense for progressives to NOT support progressive candidates in the primaries.

If you don't support progressives now and stand up for your beliefs, then when will you do it? Do you somehow think that, after a "moderate" wins an election, s/he will listen to your concerns?

Look at Bill Clinton: a good number of progressives supported him against PapaBush in 1992 because the alternative was much worse. But what did he do once we elected him?

He turned around and stabbed us in the back. Instead of fair trade, we got NAFTA. Instead of gays in the military, we got "don't ask, don't tell". Instead of health coverage for everyone, we got some half-baked corporate healthcare plan that would have made the insurance companies richer, and our healthcare system poorer.

Who's to say that after we win in November, that our chosen "moderate" candidate won't sell us down the river again? History has a funny way of repeating itself on these matters.

I would hardly call it "ideological purity" to stand up for what you truly believe in, and support candidates who best represent your views. But if it's more important to win pyhrric victories like Clinton's than to work for REAL change in this country, then maybe it's okay to ignore your conscience and vote for the evil of two lessers. :shrug:

[Qutzupalotl]

4. Get to know Wes

Opposed to the PATRIOT Act, supports fair trade, wants to cut the Pentagon budget, provide health insurance to all children, close tax loopholes for business, raise taxes on the rich, and use force only as an absolute last resort.

[democracy eh]

8. only, only, only as a last resort

I love repetition for emphasis

[MAlibdem]

10. I'm sorry...

You seem to be calling for revolution.

[no name no slogan]

13. No, not really, it's more of a joke than anything

partially in response to the "I wish (insert candidate name) would drop out" posts that have cropped up here in the last 24 hours. What better way to stir the pot than turn the tables.

[rucky]

20. E-volution

[JasonDeter]

11. So its better to lose on principle than win on necessity?

I'm hoping it is either Kerry/Clark or Clark/? I don't really think anyone else can stand up to the onslaught thats comming from the republicans.

[no name no slogan]

16. Bush is VERY vulnerable, but

continuing to play the game by BushCo's rules only means you'll LOSE by them.

DK has spent his whole damn CAREER standing up to smear campaigns from the far right. And he continues to do so today, leading the way on important issues like Diebold/BBV, the IWR and universal, single-payer health coverage.

Why are so many Democrats so goddamn afraid of the smirking chimp? It's like everybody's afraid to nominate an unapologetic liberal to lead the party again, despite the fact that the LIBERALS are the ones who overwhelmingly win elections.

Democrats are STILL the majority party in this country, despite the best efforts and expenditures of the GOP. The Repubs have hit their ceiling and can't get much bigger, while the Democrats are still competitive with them when only HALF our voters bother to vote.

Better to run a DEMOCRAT for president who's not afraid to BE A DEMOCRAT than run a Democrat who's too busy apologizing for being a Democrat.

[donco6]

14. Wasn't Clinton a moderate?

And he won twice.

I liked him. Didn't really care about the blowjob thing.

Sorry, Kucinich needs to drop out and keep donors from wasting their money.

[no name no slogan]

18. Clinton NEVER won a majority

The ONLY reason Clinton ever won was Ross Perot. Perot peeled off enough Repub votes from Bush I and Dole to keep them from winning a majority of votes in key states.

And, worst insult of all, HE GOVERNED LIKE A REPUBLICAN! He passed NAFTA, joined the WTO, incarcerated more people than any other democracy, bombed innocent civilians, deregulated the broadcast industry, and did NOTHING for liberals. Clinton was the best Republican president we've had since Eisenhower.

And don't think that, even if DK drops out, the movement will stop. It will keep going LOOOONG after this election.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[cosmicdot]

15. regrettably, it may take another 4 - 8 years

or a great depression (the sequel-but-worse) in order to get America to get serious about removing the corporate-controlled future and corporate influence out of our government ... one would think things couldn't get worse in order to get better ... but, we're trending that way ...

many people actually still live 'unaffected'... some have not gone without health insurance ... some have never been down-sized ... some have not experienced real hardship ... and, too many may, so-to-speak, 'read the book' and 'see the movie', but still don't get it until it officially knocks on their door ...

believe me ... I don't wish this at all ... the time is now ... I feel we have been in a limbo ... a haze since 1968 ... America really hasn't done much in 30 years except maybe watch our infrastructure and standard of living decline ...

many call JFK a hawk ... but, the times were different ... but, I believe he had different plans for the CIA, FBI, and America's presence in southeast Asia ... and, no one can be compared apples to apples with JFK ... no one is like anyone else ... but, we can learn and be inspired by the idealism of the New Frontier ...

he defined liberal unabashedly

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

[David Zephyr]

17. Good for You, No Name No Slogan.

LOL! :hi:

[no name no slogan]

21. at last somebody GETS IT!

okay, so I'm a little fed up with the "I think (insert name) should drop out" threads. So why not poke the bear a bit? :P

[George_Bonanza]

19. Thanks for an even-handed approach

If Kerry's the status quo, so is Dean, despite his opportunistic rhetoric.

[frogbison]

23. There IS HOPE for this country!

No Name No Slogan
Cosmic Dot

Excellent! Thank you.

[Cheswick2.0]

32. based on what?

Sorry but I will not ignore Kerry's record over the last two years.

[Julien Sorel]

26. If your liberal can't even draw 1%

of the Democratic vote, how will he win an election? If he can't win an election, how will he effect change? I don't see how your argument makes sense.

[REP]

27. Too Bad a "REAL honest-to-goodness LIBERAL, POPULIST" Isn't Running

I have another list of people who should withdraw; oddly, it is far different from yours.

[ShadowCabinet]

28. The Dept. of Peace cabinet position would hand GWB the election.

I really do like DK, but the GOP would have a field day over that Dept. of Peace proposal of his. That and his idea to reform education with an emphasis on the arts and music would doom DK in the GE.

[Dolphyn]

33. Kerry's voting record will hand GWB the election

Make no mistake, the GOP will have a field day with whoever the nominee is. The candidate with the best record and the least dirt has a clear advantage in the general election.

Compared to Kerry's record of missing 62% of votes in the Senate (or Edwards missing 36%), I'll take the hard-working guy who only missed 6% of Congressional votes, and who incidentally promotes peace and education.

Source for percentages:
http://cgi.citizen-times.com/cgi-bin/print/44796

[Cheswick2.0]

31. Dennis Kucinich is not that liberal

He only has a 40 percent life time rating with the ACLU. He is an authoritarian. His votes in the past (regardless of his huge flip flop on abortion)have caused untold misery for women not just hear in America but all over the world. He now believes it is okay to try children as adults. There is nothing liberal about that.
He is like Nader in his inability to see the trees for the forest. He doesn't connect on a personal level. I am not really sure why that it true, but my opinion is that he is a cold idealogue.

[TexasSissy]

34. I'm sure Bush agrees with you!