Wake up people!

[Tennessee Gal]

The most important aspect of this election is taking back the White House!

We cannot afford for the right wing agenda to have that power. It is imperative that Democrats control the White House, the House, and the Senate. That is the only way this country can recover from the Bush disaster since 2000. Think about it. Think about the rights we have lost through the Bush/Cheney grasp for power. Think about the signing statements. Think about the Cheney secret meetings regarding the energy policy. Think about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson. Think about the lies regarding the WMD and the Iraq war. Think about the lies inherrent in the firing of the US attorneys and the hidden agenda in that involving vote caging. Think about the warrant less wire tapping. Think about it all.

The Democratic Party for the sake of the survival of this county cannot afford to dissolve into a fight between the first woman or the first African-American. If one or the other does not have a clear path to the majority support of this country for their candidacy, what should the Democratic Party do?

Do we really want the right wing to have the opportunity of using the candidacy of a woman or African-American against our candidate? Don't get me wrong. I would love to have a woman or African-American candidate running for President. I would be proud of that as a Democrat. I just think that this is not the right time, not the right year.

Our priority should be to win back the White House and reverse the fascism started by Bush and Cheney. What is the best way to do that? Is it to give the right wing candidate an automatic running start?

This is not a racist or anti-feminist post. It is a realistic post based upon the times we live in.

[cali]

1. ugh.

you sure won't win any converts with that post. I'm sure it's not racism or sexism that motivates you but it's inadvertently endorsing racism and sexism.

And I've never thought that JE is more electable than either O or C. They all have their own unique set of problems in that department.

[Tennessee Gal]

4. I would expect nothing less from you.

[cali]

7. And I would expect nothing more but this lame

argument from you, that comes right out and says that people shouldn't support Obama because he's black and Clinton because she's woman. As if that re-tread hasn't been spun here enough.

Pathetic.

[Tennessee Gal]

9. Please give us your clear path for either Obama or Hillary to the White House

against any of the Republican potential nominees.

Please.

[cali]

12. I'll tell you what: First YOU give me JE's clear path to the WH

as YOU are the one insisting only he has one. I've never claimed anyone has that. I do think that it's possible for all three to win. Post your "clear path" and I'll punch holes in it and give you my assessment of how all three could win.

[Tennessee Gal]

16. I did not say only he has one.

I asked you to provide one for the candidate you support. I guess you can't.

[cali]

22. *sigh* of course you did. you said he was the only electable one.

that was your entire argument. I guess you don't see a clear path for JE, you were just bullshitting. I'll indulge you, cookie. Here's how Obama can win.

Obama has demonstrated broad appeal in three states now. The bulk of independent votes in Iowa- by a large margin went to him. He garnered large numbers of independent votes in both NV and NH as well. He's also demonstrated his appeal to young voters. In IA, a striking 24% of the voters in dem caucuses were between the ages of 18-29. Although he hasn't shown this kind of strength with latino voters, the concensus among political analysts is that the shift of latino voters to the dem party, will continue no matter who the nominee is. The economy. The economy is in pretty dire shape and does not look to pick up for some time. Voters trust dems on the economy over repukes by HUGE margins. The war. Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of the war and occupation and how it's been handled. In addition, the dem party has been adding voters to its rolls for over two years and the repukes have been losing registered voters.

Now where's your "path" for JE? I doubt you can put one forth.

[Tennessee Gal]

24. I did not say that.

I suggest you go back and read.

[William769]

25. Then your advocating for Kucinich?

[Tennessee Gal]

26. I am for Edwards.

I do not deny that.

But I also want whoever the Democratic nominee is to defeat the Republican nominee handily. That is my concern based upon the reasons I stated in my original post.

I will support whoever the Democratic nominee is.

I just want us to be very thoughtful and careful about that nominee.

[William769]

32. Then what cali said was correct.

[hiaasenrocks]

43. No, Cali is rarely correct.

And you'll notice that Cali abandoned the sub-thread below when asked for some substance. Typical. I guess this thread is done. Onward to other topics....

[cali]

29. LOL! Let's replay YOUR words from the OP.

I read for comprehension. So do others.

"Do we really want the right wing to have the opportunity of using the candidacy of a woman or African-American against our candidate? Don't get me wrong. I would love to have a woman or African-American candidate running for President. I would be proud of that as a Democrat. I just think that this is not the right time, not the right year."

Now it's pretty damned clear that you're saying that the only person who can win is a white male, and you're supporting JE. It is reasonable to assume, due to your post, that you think he can win.

And yet, you won't post how he can win, after telling people to "wake up" and listen to wise little you. I posted how Obama could win, and you seem utterly incapable of explaining why JE can win. You've told us why the others can't, but if you can't tell us how JE can, your post is even more pointless than I originally thought.

[Tennessee Gal]

33. I will support the Democratic nominee, cali.

Does that upset you?

Many, many people have posted threads here attacking Obama and Hillary based upon racism and sexism. I am merely suggesting that people think about what they are doing.

[cali]

35. You didn't suggest anything: You barked at people to "Wake Up!"

Hardly what's known as a suggestion.

[Tennessee Gal]

36. I tried to get an eye-opening discussion started.

I apologize for that.

[cali]

38. no problem. I know how easy it is to state something awkwardly

[Tennessee Gal]

45. Then why did you attack me all over this thread?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. We must realistically look at each candidate's plusses and minuses

We can't afford to say, "Oh, Candidate X is wonderful and we'll ignore these things that might make X less electable."--or, worse yet, decry a poster who posts legitimate concern about a candidate's minuses.

Personally, I like Kucinich's health care plan the best, and wish the other candidates would use it. But when I recently looked at the Republicans' health plans, I found, to a man, that they don't plan to do anything. So I want to make sure someone with a D after their name is in the White House. I've seen legitimate concerns raised over all the candidates, my own included. But that is as far as it goes. Instead of coming up with counter arguments, or ways to mitigate perceived damage, all I read is sniping and name calling. How exactly does that help matters?

[LostinVA]

3. OMFG

I like Edwards alot, but... OMFG.

[Tennessee Gal]

6. Quite eloquent, aren't you.

[cali]

8. Clueless. You are utterly clueless

in that you don't even see how offensive your OP is.

[Tennessee Gal]

11. You interpret it as offensive.

That is your problem.

[LostinVA]

14. Yes, actually, I am -- OMFGOMFGOMFG

[Windy]

5. The problem is the media and Bill Clinton's use of Karl Rove's campaign tactics..

slash and burn will not benefit our party in the general.

Hint, people are damn sick of it.

[Adelante]

10. It is a racist and anti-feminist post

Own up to it. I've seen the racism from Edwards supporters all along. Now it's joined by sexism.

[Tennessee Gal]

13. Own up to it?

Prove your point.

I would love to be able to see a straight path to victory for either Hillary or Obama. I don't. Attack me for that. Or make your case for your candidate. Go ahead.

[Atman]

19. Isn't that conveeeeeeenient.

You don't even understand the impossible position you put EVERYBODY in with that bullshit. You've made it so that merely discussing the fact that this particular woman candidate or this particular black man might cause problems for us immediately labels anyone a racist or sexist. It's BRILLIANT! Never mind the facts, never mind that there are serious, legitimate concerns with both Obama or Clinton which transcend sweater bumps or skin color, if anyone merely suggests that they're the wrong people at the wrong time, they're racist or sexist. DAMN. BRILLIANT! Shut down the debate before it even starts.

:eyes:

.

[hiaasenrocks]

15. Whoa. You're gonna get flamed over this big time.

The irony of this "electable" argument is that some of the people claiming that a black candidate and a woman candidate are electable are the same people who claim that this is an inherently racist and sexist society. Their view of this reality would suggest that they hold opposing views, but their hope overrides their reason.

And I'm sure some will say that you're endorsing the racism and sexism when all you're doing is making an observational statement on the state of this society.

Best of luck!

[cali]

18. The theory of apparent paradox:

Wherein two seemingly irreconcilable truths exist within the same construct.


In other words, it is possible to understand that racism exists and sexism exist, but that it is also possible that a black candidate or a woman candidate can win the presidency. It doesn't take all people to be tolerant- just enough of them.

[hiaasenrocks]

20. Let's see your rationale for that, based on something other than hope.

Also, it would be interesting to see an explanation of why Tennessee Gal's view is not reasonable, given the constant cries of racism and sexism that exist on this site.

[Tennessee Gal]

23. "constant cries of racism and sexism that exist on this site."

They do, don't they.

But try to bring it into a discussion of electability against a right wing candidate and you get flamed for it!

Does that make sense? No it doesn't.

[AlCzervik]

17. well it's too bad for you that you feel it's not the right year because that's who's running.

[mondo joe]

21. I'm awake, and I disagree.

No need to imply others aren't awake or thinking or whatever just because we disagree.

[THUNDER HANDS]

27. when will the times we live in not be the times we live in?

[Tennessee Gal]

28. Good question.

Does someone have an answer?

[THUNDER HANDS]

30. yeah, i do

when you nominate a woman or a black man and force the country to choose. If you lose, you lose, but you don't back down from a fight just because you think it'll be difficult.

[Tennessee Gal]

31. Okay, let's do it this year!

Do you want to? Is this the year?

Is it safe for our democracy to take that risk this year?

Is it safe for the world to have another Republican in the White House, especially if it is John McCain who is totally behind the Iraq surge and says we may have troops in Iraq for another 100 years?

[cali]

34. Why JE is just as risky a nominee as Obama or Clinton

1) He's just as easy, if not easier to frame. How? Frame him as a faux populist hypocrite flip flopper ambulance chasing flip flopper.

2) he doesn't have and won't have the money to fight back as effectively due to his taking matching funds for the primaries- which don't end until the convention. Last cycle bushco spent $255 million in that period; JK about $25 million less. JE is limited to $50 million. How much has he already spent? 527s and the DNC can take up some of the slack but they can't pay for campaign costs or candidate ads, and they can't coordinate with the campaign.

This doesn't mean JE can't win, but it does indicate that he's got his own unique set of problems.

[LostinVA]

37. I know we don't agree on much, but we agree on this

It's like the Gay Rights thing: "Oh, we need to wait another X amount of years until people can accept it... this isn't the right time."

Glad as hell Dr. King didn't think that way (oh, and LBJ, so you can yell at me about something!).

Now really IS the time, because someone always has a reason for it NOT to be now.

[cobalt1999]

39. If we are ever going to nominate a woman of a AA, this is the year.

The economy is going into the tank big time, millions of jobs are going to be lost, and the war continues to suck the life out of the federal budget along with the youth of our country.

No way the republicans win as this storm is only getting started. By November, it'll be a full blown hurricane and the republicans will be blown away.

[Tennessee Gal]

40. "someone always has a reason for it NOT to be now"

That is true.

The real question is if this is REALLY THE YEAR for it to be now.

I want with all my heart for the Democratic candidate to take the White House based upon the reasons in my original post. And I will definitely give my vote to the Democratic candidate also for the reasons in my original post.

However, the Democratic Party needs to make sure perhaps this year more than ever that we nominate the strongest candidate to run against the right.

Bush/Cheney have gotten us into a deep, deep hole that it will be very difficult to dig out of. For the sake of this country, the Democratic Pary should take care to do what is best to get back the White House.

That was my only point.

[LostinVA]

44. You're quoting me - and agree with me, yet STILL say this:

"The real question is if this is REALLY THE YEAR for it to be now."

[NastyRiffraff]

41. I see you're an Edwards supporter. So am I.

But I can't agree with your post. I've always felt that "electability" in this campaign cycle was code, at least for some people. I hope not for most.

Will some people not vote for Clinton or Obama in the GE because of their racial or sexist prejudices? Of course. Will there be enough of these people to sway the election? Unlikely.

Let's face it, some Republicans would rather chew glass than vote for ANY Democrat, so let's get them out of the picture as far as this issue is concerned.

Some Republicans, who might otherwise vote for a Democrat because of disgust about how their party has failed to govern, will stay home because of their prejudices if Clinton or Obama is the nominee.

A very few Democrats will refuse to vote because of THEIR prejudices if the nominee is either Clinton or Obama. Democrats are much less likely to vote their prejudice in the GENERAL election than Repubicans, though.

Some Republicans and Democrats, while possibly not LIKING the idea of an African-American or woman in the White House, will hold their noses and vote for him or her anyway, because like most people, they look at a range of factors before voting for a candidate.

Some Republicans and Democrats will vote for the Democratic nominee because they firmly feel that a Democrat needs to be in the White House. Of course, there are more Democrats in this group.

Some Repubicans and Democrats will vote for the Democratic nominee because they like him or her.

So, we're looking at two groups here who are driven by their prejudices, and only their prejudices. It's highly doubtful that they can sway the election, although they may narrow the margin somewhat.

I hope John Edwards is the nominee, but even if he is, Republicans will find a way not to vote for him, just as they will find a way not to vote for Clinton or Obama. Edwards is the most progressive candidate and that alone will turn off many (but certainly not all) Republicans.

The group to look at is the Undecideds, a group that gleefully skews all polls and expectations.

[Tennessee Gal]

42. If you don't believe the points of my original post ..................

all you have to do is look at the top ranking threads right here on DU Primaries.

Think about it.

[Tennessee Gal]

46. Are you watching?

Are you watching the attacking going on here?

Do you get my point yet?

[Steely_Dan]

47. This post is...

pretty much what I have posted on several occasions. This is not a time to risk the election in an attempt to make presidential history. This country is in big trouble. The Republicans will put John McCain forward because they understand that EXPERIENCE DOES count. What do we have? We have two bickering children that think they are on the playground. This is no game. It is deadly serious and if they hand the election over to the Republicans, we will ALL be very sorry that we didn't choose with our heads and not our hearts.

-P