What If We're Wrong

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I support Hillary Clinton because I believe she offers the best opportunity to beat the Rethuglicans...I supported Ted Kennedy in 1980 for slightly different reasons...He was the brother of my political idols and when they were assassinated my devotion went to him... In the 1984 election I supported Gary Hart, in 1988 I supported Al Gore, in 1992 I supported Bob Kerrey , in 00 I supported Al Gore, and in 04 I supported Wes Clark...I supported those gentleman because I thought they would be the best candidate... I arrived at that decision by looking at polling, political history, the political environment and my gut or intuition... That being said, maybe I was wrong... I think it's good to challenge your own assumptions...

[cloudbase]

1. If we're wrong,

we'll bleed a bit more. At some point, we'll get tired of the bleeding and decide to nominate a true democrat and not some corporatist shill who calls him/herself a Democrat.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I Don't Think We Can Attribute Our Previous Losses To Nominating Corporatist Shills

And depending on your definition FDR could be called a corporatist shill...When he was elected capitalism was on its death bed...It wouldn't have taken much of a dose to kill it but yet he nurtured it and brought it back to health... He also tempered it and regulated it thus giving it a human face...

I don't really want too much from the government other than for it to leave me alone unless I ask for help, make sure the less fortunate are looked after, and make sure we are all treated equally before the law...

[brazos121200]

10. Actually, very few Democratic Presidential candidates have been

anti-corporatists. An exception was the Democratic platform of 1936, which was really a remarkable anti-business document, they were going to go after the big companies. Unfortunately, the platform was never carried out. And then there was good old William Jennings Bryan, whom the Democrats nominated three times. He was an outright anti-capitalist.

[Warpy]

13. Democrats took working class economic issues off the table

after Nixon won in 1969 in order to pursue a more conservative agenda to try to woo southerners back to the party.

How's that been working for us?

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Clinton broke with the party by campaigning on the economy in 1992. He didn't govern that way, sadly, but campaigning on it won him two terms.

It's high time to return to economic populism to energize the party's working class base. The GOP has been stealing close elections because they're not afraid to play to their base. It's high fucking time the Democratic party kicks all those inside the beltway "experts" out of the way to campaign directly to ours.

You can't win elections by a good margin without your party base, and all party conservatives want to do is figure out who to throw under the bus next to appeal to conservatives in their party.

Playing to an upper middle class that no longer exists won't win anything, nor will reforms that protect corporations more than citizens.

It's time for party conservatives to admit they've been wrong and start to figure out how to reach the party base, people who haven't had anyone to vote for in so long that they stay home in droves.

Once they start to play to the base, the party will be unbeatable.

[patrice]

2. Agreed!!

There are those of us who are thinking about going un-officially to the convention and I have not chosen my candidate yet. I will watch the numbers and decide where the party's message needs support then.

[AlCzervik]

6. i'm still undecided but to be honest i really like Kucinch but i would like to see

him in person, i'm seeing Obama on Wednesday night and hope to see all of them before our primary.

As for who can beat the gop, i have no idea, some days i think Clinton can because she's been through the shit slinging with her husband and during her own senate campaign, some days i think it's Obama because he appears to be a change agent.

[patrice]

11. I suppose it's idealistic, but I wish they'd team up!

Talk about a Change!

The only thing I know for absolutely certain is that, whatever happens, We The People ARE the **critical factor**. Who we are and what we are concretely doing will make all of the difference.

If we're a bunch of deluded babies sitting around waiting for a daddy-god-leader to do it all, that's going to be one thing. If we're out there working for constructive change and helping the next generation figure our their part in it all, that's going to be a different thing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I Don't Have Certainty

I think I have a firmer grasp on which candidates can't win than which candidates can win... As you can see by my primary season choices we will never know if my vote saddled the Democratic party with a losing national candidate...I'm not saying it as a point of vanity...It just is... Perhaps the political environment in some of those years would have made it impossible for any Democrat to win...

Also, Kennedy, Hart, Gore, and Clark were good Dems who had much to offer...

[mod mom]

3. If you see corporatism at one of the largest problems in this country, then HRC is

just NOT your candidate.

I believe she is NOT the best chance to win but rather the best hope for the GOP. There are many on the right who might not bother to vote but Hillary will bring them out. The same is true for the anti-war left (of which I belong). Her votes on IWR and Kyl Lieberman don't exactly show how she will end the war. She will incite a large write-in campaign if she is the nominee.

[doublethink]

5. Believe me ..... the Right Wing smear machine .....

hasn't even been warmed up yet, it sits idol as we speak, being fed every possible conceivable bullshit scandal or what-have-you .... lies, half/truths, twists of history .... on every one of our candidates. Once our Democratic Candidate is chosen ...... the re-thugs plug in the machine and turn it on. If the American people are still stupid enough to fall for this bullshit or not, it doesn't matter, they still have the 'steal the vote' and 'disenfranchise' machines standing by too.....

We need to overwhelm them at the polls in force, and what they come up with this time to overcome even that ...... (marshall law? suspend the constitution? or a 'I should have had a V8 moment' is beyond me?) ...... keep the faith. Peace.

[PATRICK]

7. Weigh the past mistakes

and then see how they weigh against a principled vote that at least makes the statement. Not easy and sacrificing one insticnct for the other might be very wrong. These elections give us no true democratic choice. That is the end conclusion. The election always contains an assault on democracy. Chappaquiddick and the Dem encouraged crself-critique against the "liberal wing" doomed him from the start. The GOP insures that will happen, the political instincts and "ifs" cease to apply. Keep them in the equation. There is no fair election.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I Realize In Retrospect

I realize in retrospect that Ted Kennedy's national aspirations died at Chappaquiddick...However it would have been interesting to see Ted Kennedy, sans Chappaquiddick, run as a traditional liberal with his outsized personality and family name...

[gateley]

9. K&R - nt Thank you.

[NewHampster]

14. DSB Lucky we're not wrong

But of course we always could be. Any of us may be wrong on our candidate or our reasoning for choosing said candidate.

We and they are human. It's all about trust.

I happen to trust Hillary. I don't support her for her experience and policies so much as for my trust in her. I trust her because she has stood by the same positions for 30 plus years.

That to me is what representative democracy is about.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. Recent trends have made Hillary even more the most electable Democrat because

the #1 issue in 2008 will be the economy. It will probably be really, really bad.

And the Clinton brand name is the only one people trust to improve a bad economy.

By the time the election rolls around, 2008 will be about survival, not inspiration. About security and reliability, not youth and change.

Aside from that, Edwards and Obama are both too impressed with themselves to withstand what will be even uglier than 2004. (They key is not saying just the right thing because you are so clever. The key is being clever enough to know the limits of cleverness and say nothing.)

[Alamom]

16. Well said. nt

[nancyharris]

17. All of the people you have supported

All of the people you have supported in prior elections would have made fine Presidents – certainly better than those that were ultimately elected.

However, I think basing support on an individual primarily on the perceived ability to win a general election diminishes the minute contribution each of us makes to ideals and policies of our Party. Ultimately, the most popular candidate will win the nomination (no matter who you vote for in the primary) and all Democrats (hopefully) will support that candidate with their vote in the general election. In the process some very fine candidates will fall to the wayside but their ideas (incrementally) become part of what the Party stands for. For instance, Senator Obama, Senator Clinton and Senator Edwards will all have changed the Party (ever so slightly perhaps) by their presence in the Primary regardless of winning or loosing.

This is true of both Parties. Whether they like it or not, the Republican Party will be changed (ever so slightly perhaps) by the likes of Congressman Paul and Mayor Giuliani.

[Forkboy]

18. I think about it quite a bit, but don't think we're wrong.

I think the Dems in general have usually been on the correct side of the issues.

I do notice that as I get older (40 next week!) that challenging my assumptions gets a little harder.One thing that helps me is that I listen to a ton of challenging music that makes me question why I like the music I do, and that ends up spreading to most other topics, causing me to ask myself why I believe what I do as well.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. Fork MAN