Hey, You!

[NanceGreggs]

Yeah, don’t look behind you, wondering who I’m talking to – I’m talking to you.

I’m talking to you, the person who keeps saying he can’t vote for so-and-so if he/she winds up being the nominee. I’m talking to you, the alleged Democrat who would rather risk another Republican sitting in the Oval Office for the next four – or, heaven forfend, eight years – because you have your principles and you’re not about to cast your vote for someone you don’t believe in.

“Oh, I won’t vote for a Republican,” you whine. “I’ll just stay home and not vote for anyone.” In other words, you’ll be voting for a Republican. You can couch it in whatever pseudo-lofty idealist terms you wish. You can tell yourself, and the rest of us, that you’re standing up for your priceless principles. But what you’re really doing is handing the other side one less Democratic vote that has to be matched in the final reckoning.

Well, I have a news flash for you: It’s not your world, and it’s not all about you. It’s not about your principles, but the principles of this party, and the principles this country was founded upon. And if you think the Republicans represent those principles, or will even pay lip service to them once in office, you are obviously on the wrong board, and in the wrong party.

“Hillary is a Republican-lite, Obama is too willing to make nice with the other side, Edwards is too weak to stand up to the GOP.” Bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit.

“I know that if so-and-so wins the nomination, we will lose in November.” You know no such thing, Nostradamus. And the fact that you think you know is not only laughably arrogant, it is arguably insane.

Let me tell you what we do know. We know that the current crop of GOP contenders have supported Bush and his disastrous policies for the entirety of his failed presidency. We know that if any one of them wound up in the White House, they would continue those disastrous policies based on the mandate they will say they’ve been handed by the majority of voters.

Iraq will continue to be a fetid, money-sucking swamp that swallows our troops and our dollars. The corruption we have witnessed will continue unabated within our government, and the middle-class will be crushed into non-existence by economic policies that serve only the wealthy, the unscrupulously greedy, and the politically well-connected.

But stop the presses, hold the phone, nobody move – because in the face of all of the above, the only thing that truly matters is your so-called principles, your “hard-core beliefs”, your selfish ability to stand there and say, “If this all comes down to anyone other than my candidate, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for someone else.”

Well, you know where you can put that conscience of yours – along with your egomaniacal illusion that your opinion is sacrosanct and should be deferred to at all costs.

So take your ball and go home – and stay there on election day, along with your childish self-centeredness, your insufferable arrogance, and your inflated ego to keep you company while the rest of us get out and vote for the opportunity of a better country and a better world.

I realize that most of you my-way-or-the-highway types are few and far between in the great scheme of things – but just hearing from a handful of you is enough to make my blood boil.

Just remember that if, God forbid, the GOP prevails in November, we will recognize you immediately in the aftermath. You will be the first here to whine incessantly about another right-wing nutcase being appointed to the Supreme Court, another few thousand troops killed in Iraq, another few trillion dollars being added to the nation’s debt – and you’ll ask, over and over, how it all went so terribly wrong.

Like everyone here, I have my preference in this race. But if my candidate turns out not to be the candidate, so be it. I will defer to the choice of the majority, and will not waver in my support of the Democratic choice, whoever he or she is.

The minute the Democratic nominee is announced is the minute we get behind him or her, one thousand percent. That is how you win an election.

When the stakes are this high, everything else be damned – especially the whining of ignorant children insistent on playing hide-‘n-seek behind “principles” that are nothing more than a sorry cry for personal attention – at the expense of dire consequences for an entire nation.

[Tatiana]

1. K&R. I'm so glad I don't have a dog in this fight.

Things have really become contentious. And the media just eats it up and continues to stir the pot of $hit.

Bottom line is that we have three, YES THREE, candidates in this race who can all kick Republican a$$ and take names. Bush has lowered the bar. Even if we don't get JFK, Clinton Pt. 2 is still infinitely better than the disaster of the Insane McCain, Mittens, or Hallelujah Huckabee.

[fadedrose]

186. You're right

We do have 3 candidates and until we nominate one, all these posts are a waste of time. Until then, criticize and praise whoever you like, it's your right and duty.

The time to ask for everyone's support comes when their favorite "losing" candidate asks his supporters to support the nominee. Plenty of time for that at the convention. You're all putting the cart before the horse.

One very poor sport was Edward Kennedy who lost the nomination several years ago. I'm old enough to remember Jimmy Carter on TV getting the nomination at the convention. Jimmy happily turned around to shake everyone's hands and when he got to Ted Kennedy, the Senator turned his back and refused to shake hands. I was shocked. I partly blame the poor record of the Carter presidency on Kennedy for not ever supporting President Carter.

The real tragedy is not when some dems don't vote for the nominee, it's when the losing candidates don't ask these folks to throw their support to the winner.

[Mythsaje]

2. Setting aside the brilliant prognistication of so many prescient DUers

I'd say any of the candidates have a better than fair chance of beating whoever the Repugs nominate. Some of the comments here are completely out of left field. And they stem from supporters of ALL candidates.

[Hutzpa]

123. Democratic Underground

thats the name of this board, so the views are gonna come from the far left field, to
closer to the left.

If it gets to the center, its because of compromise, bi-partisan.

As we speak the reThuglicans are way out there on the right, (neo-fascist)
its our time for change, from a long long time, 30yrs ago, now deal with it.

[CorpGovActivist]

3. You're Truly the Best!

:hug:

K&R

- Dave

[ErnestoG]

4. This is deja vu from 2004. To - a- word.

"The minute the Democratic nominee is announced is the minute we get behind him or her, one thousand percent. That is how you win an election."

Did us a lot of good in 2004, didn't it.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. Maybe you don't agree...

But I believe Diebold helped steal the election in 2004...

And Kerry ran a poor campaign...

[ErnestoG]

126. I agree with both of your points.

That being said, this traditional missive we hear about shutting the fuck up and supporting the nom %1000 has certainly NOT won elections always, as was insinuated by the OP. In fact, I think it's a condescending and simple minded view.

I would prefer to scrutinize all candidates, then select the best one for the job and vote for them. And yes, that may even entail me holding my nose and voting for a lesser candidate who becomes the nom, though I know we will lose - for the group good. This is a very convoluted predicament, not lent easily to such black and white (non)solutions.

[NanceGreggs]

13. And staying home and NOT voting ...

... will change that exactly how?

Everyone here is more than aware of the Diebold Factor - which makes VOTING IN UNPRECEDENTED NUMBERS more imperative than ever.

[ErnestoG]

16. Where did I say I was going to stay home and not vote?

Try not to make those assumptions.

I'm simply telling you that this rah-rah call for everyone to get behind the candidate to insure an election win, is not only eerily reminiscent of 2004, but its wrong. Getting behind the WRONG candidate is clearly a disaster.

And before you ask, yes, I do believe that if HRC is nominated, we are looking at four more years of a GOP White House.

[NanceGreggs]

20. And the "right" candidate would be ...?

If it's Hillary, she automatically becomes the "right candidate" - because she's OUR candidate, as opposed to THEIR candidate.

Got it?

[ErnestoG]

35. "Got It"? What is that, a command?

Neither you nor anyone else can tell me who to vote for. That's my business and it will stay my business. Unless you think we live in Stalinist Russia, by chance.

Honestly, who the fuck do you think you are?

[NanceGreggs]

40. Hey, sweetie ...

... I ain't telling anyone who to vote for. If you want to vote Republican, go right ahead.

(BTW, a reference to "Stalinist Russia" is a dead giveaway. Might want to watch that.)

Who the fuck do I think I am? I'm a DEMOCRAT, on a DEMOCRATIC website, promoting voting for the DEMOCRATIC nominee.

Still confused?

[ErnestoG]

52. Listen, SWEETIE, Obama is a Democratic candidate.

Are YOU still confused?

[NanceGreggs]

53. And what led you to believe ...

... I was advocating NOT voting for Obama?

And if Obama doesn't turn out to be the Democratic nominee, we should all stay home and NOT vote?

[ErnestoG]

121. Where did you get that?

Ms....Gregs, is it?...you have a real penchant for leaping to conclusions and building straw men. Why not stick to the facts and ask questions based on that, rather than presume things that you'd probably like to be the case?

[stickernation]

129. totally funny

:rofl:

there is a commanding officer style to all of this, but I think it's all part of the DU mix.

[ErnestoG]

130. That could be - I'm just discovering this

but they should learn that condescending pedagogy like that doesn't make many converts.

[The Wizard]

74. Dear Mr. ErnestoG

Have you tried any products made by Fleet?

[karlrschneider]

119. He needs a little red tractor...

;-)

[karlrschneider]

118. Did you take prick lessons?

Or is it hereditary....?

[ErnestoG]

122. No, did you teach yours to type?

Neat trick.

[HughMoran]

48. Yikes

You've got some anger issues.

[dothemath]

62. Wrong again, Ernesto

Who the fuck do you think YOU are?

I, or anyone else in the world, can tell you who to vote for. You don't have to do it.

But, get this straight. The freedom you just exercised to state your opinion
is the same one I exercised in the sentence above these two.

If you have any questions, keep them to yourself. There, I did it again!
Is this a great country, or what?

[ErnestoG]

127. Republican style word games? Cool...

so let me smash that gameboard for you...

Sure you can TELL me who to vote for when...but you cannot force me to do so, and using language to that effect reveals alot more than you would like about your motives, and also how far you are from understanding a free, democratic system.

Now, go ahead and spin that one, Karl.

[verges]

139. What else?

Then what else do you suggest? Staying at home (I'm not saying you will) is a 1/2 vote for the Republicans! To avoid the Diebold factor, we must have EVERY vote possible. A slim 53% to 47% (made up numbers) margin is waaay too close. Remember, if a Democrat loses in November, it means a Republican wins. It seems obvious, but some folks seem to be missing the point. The best way to not lose, is to vote! And vote Democratic. No matter who the candidates are on either side. It's not a guarantee that we will win. But if enough people don't vote on our side, it's a guarantee that we won't.

[desertflamingo]

110. right on!!

EDWARDS '08

[George II]

162. Hey buddy

By November 2008 there will be only TWO candidates, this isn't multiple choice after the conventions.

There will be a republican candidate and a Democratic candidate. Which one is the "WRONG" candidate?

[ErnestoG]

164. The one who will lose to the Republican.

That's who the wrong candidate is.

[George II]

166. Very good attitude, you must really excel in your career if you go into it with that mindset, huh?

[ErnestoG]

You mean with an eye on reality? Yes, it serves me quite well.

Thanks for asking. I'll make sure you get a Christmas card.

[George II]

193. So why do you even post here and comment on the Presidential election?

You've already ceded it to the republican nominee.

[George II]

196. OK, who IS the "right" candidate to you?

It sooooo easy to just say who is wrong, so much more difficult to say who is one's preferred candidate. Unfortunately around here it's gotten to be an atmosphere of negativity rather that positiveness.

[SammyWinstonJack]

82. I don't like being called an "alleged" Democrat, either.

x( Simply because I am not willing too go along with the status quo and the media hype. I'll vote in the GE for the congressional candidates(D) I'll simply leave the presidential choice out. My right and my privilege as an American too do so.

[ErnestoG]

131. Most people don't. Pedagogues don't understand this.

And never will.

[George II]

163. And you'll whine for the next four or eight years about how lousy the president is.

Thing is, if you don't participate you have no reason to complain about what's going on. "Got it"?

Gee Nancy, I like the ring of that "got it".......Thanks!!!!

[ErnestoG]

180. If its McCain because we got stuck with Hillary as the nom, yes!

[George II]

159. I would have done a lot of good in 2004 if people really DID that.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. My dear Nance!

Ah, you just did it again, sweetie!

Another one out of the fucking ballpark...

I'm with you 1000%, and no mistake.

K&R of course!

:hug:

:patriot:

[SammyWinstonJack]

92. "K&R of course" Calling those who won't go along with the status quo and the media hype,

"alleged" Democrats is just fine and dandy right? :eyes: "and make no mistake" :eyes:

[MissDeeds]

116. Valid points

The kind of vitriol on this thread is really helpful, isn't it? The notion that if you don't march in lockstep you're not a Democrat is eerily reminiscent of "If you're not with us, you're against us and you are giving comfort to the enemy." Sound familiar?

I am a Democrat and I WILL vote for a Democratic candidate for president, but it will be the Democratic candidate of my choosing, even if that means I write his/her name in. We do still have some freedoms in this country.

[verges]

142. THINK!

And if Edwards does not get the nomination, how will writing his name in keep McCain/Huckabee/Romney out of the White House? The goal should be to keep the Republicans OUT!!!

[MissDeeds]

146. THINK yourself

And right back at you.

[verges]

149. Okay...

Okay, I'm rubber your glue etc. (Geez, I expect better here.) How does a write-in keep the Repubs out of the White House?

[Kajsa]

161. You're entitled to your opinion.

Peggy's entitled to hers.

[NastyRiffraff]

6. Another great one, Nance

The "I won't vote if my candidate doesn't wiiiiiin" REALLY makes me angry. I'll be very sorry if MY candidate doesn't get the nomination; obviously I think he'd be the best president of the three, but if either Obama or Clinton wins, I'll work my for him or her, and certainly vote. The alternative is unthinkable.

[NanceGreggs]

47. Hmmmm ...

Just wonderin' who your favourite might be. You've given NO CLUES, so we can only wonder ...

(GREAT man, GREAT wife, GREAT photo!)

[Jackpine Radical]

97. Thanks for saving me the bother

of typing all that. Works for me.

[InvisibleTouch]

7. Love it, thanks!

I've been trying to say something like this for weeks, but not nearly so well-focused. I'm not one of those "hey you"s that you address, because it never crossed my mind to stay home sulking instead of voting for the nominee, but it was still a great read. I suspect there are actually not that many "hey you"s around here, but their noise level makes them seem more numerous than they are.

[The Magistrate]

9. Home Truths, Ma'am

"I am a man of principles, Sir, and chief among them is flexibility."

[Plausible]

10. well said Nance nt

[Suich]

11. I'm thrilled with our choices!

The snarkiness level here is ridiculous, considering this is only January! At least the political posts are out of GD!

Great post, NanceGreggs!

Recommended!

[ruggerson]

12. Right on

thank you.

[rpannier]

14. Recommend

I'd give you 100 if I could.
Nice post

I see one defeatist, wet blanket has already jumped in.

[HughMoran]

15. This article is right on target - I bookmarked it immediately

I really appreciate someone of your writing ability being able to put together a piece that encapsulates many of the thoughts I have had when reading some of these "my way or the highway" posts. :thumbsup:

[LiberalHeart]

17. Principles do matter, whether you want to think so or not....

We all choose to protect our party in our own ways. I believe that both Obama and Hillary would damage the party long-term if elected so there's no way I will vote for either. You're so caught up in having the world exactly as you want it that you can't tolerate a difference of opinion about the best way to be an American. That's sad.

[NanceGreggs]

22. Yes, principles DO matter ...

... and in the end, the Democratic principles matter MORE than the Republican principles.

That's not sad; that's reality.

[greyghost]

27. Amen to that !

[peace frog]

138. AMEN to that, sister

"Principled Republican" is an oxymoron. :thumbsup:

[rpannier]

39. And those principles could very easily give us a Romney or McCain presidency

Which means more of the same.

You're not in Iraq and no one is shooting at you.

So, I guess you have the luxury of your principles.
How about thinking about those people over there, or the people who could wind up in Iran in another war.

[Der Blaue Engel]

43. "You're so caught up in having the world exactly as you want it..."

...that there's no way you will vote for either of the top two candidates in the Dem race if nominated. The irony here isn't even funny anymore. x(

[sojourner]

111. It was the people with high principles that allowed

Bush the Fuck-up to get appointed in the first place.

Of course you are free to do as you wish, but recognize that any of our nominees wouldt be far better than ANY republican would be. If the choice of the people results in GOP-lite vs. GOP-neocon I'll take the first any day. Not voting is just a way of enabling stupidity to prevail, and no wailing or angry stomping of one's feet will change that.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. Brava! Well said.

[saltpoint]

19. I'm happy and relieved that the person who wrote this post is on the blue

team.

We'd be in a heap of trouble if she was a Republican.

Splendid, Nance. Right-on & Bravo!

[argyl]

21. Voted for every Dem. nominee since McGovern and will do so again in 2008.

[Tulkas]

23. Mindless devotion is just that Mindless

I won't vote for Billary!!! Never!!!


I don't care what you think of me.


We need to end the Clinton era and move on. Keeping the party stuck in the past is harmful to both t party and the nation as a whole.


If you want to stay in lock step go ahead. My vote needs to be EARNED, feel free to give yours away no matter the conditions. Just look at what good that attitude has done us.


If you want to win elections then EXPAND THE BASE!!! Don't shrink it. Clinton will shrink the base. That is bad for our party. Deal with it.

[NanceGreggs]

28. Whoever the Dem nominee winds up being ...

... is the person who gets my vote.

You call that lock-step? FINE!

Consider that my middle name: Nance "Lock-Stepping Citizen Who Votes for a Democrat AGAINST a Republican Every Time" Greggs.

Has a nice ring to it, don'tcha think?

[cboy4]

32. ......

:spray:

How does your middle name fit on your driver license?

[NanceGreggs]

38. It just so happens ...

... that my driver's license is three inches high - and twenty-two inches long.

Got a problem with that?

:hi:

[cboy4]

42. Wow! Now I know what to get you for your birthday!!

[Tulkas]

34. not bad. yes, I kinda like it

[rpannier]

41. Ladies and Gentleman... The Amazing Krelburn

He can see into the future and knows what will happen if Clinton gets the nomination.

I don't care if you know people who will never vote for Hillary.
They do NOT constitute the country. They merely constitute a cross section of your friends.

BTW: Join the military. Go to Iraq. Get shot at. Then tell me it's not that important that we get a Democrat elected.

[Tulkas]

44. Go check Hillary's negatives

[HughMoran]

50. You're a real sourpuss

What a grump

[Tulkas]

56. I am when you talk about the Clintons

Bill Clinton was my president, I supported him and I feel betrayed by his behavior while in office.

His "indiscretion" hurt the party badly. Al Gore then lost a very close election to Bush. It is reasonable to assume that if Bill had not .... well you know..... then Bush would never have been president.

Yes I am making unfounded assumptions here but I still feel betrayed by a president I supported who disgraced his office and his party.

[verges]

143. Hillary's negatives?

Look at McCain's, Romney's and Huckabee's. You'd rather have one of them than Hillary? Which one? Or maybe you think all of them are better than Hillary? Because not supporting the Democratic candidate (chosen by due process) enables a Republican win!

[swoop]

80. Many times...

I think Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton in office again would hurt the party more than any other candidate--on EITHER side of the aisle. Having lived through quite a number of elections, I am not looking at just the next one or two, but I am thinking of the long-term damage a Bill & Hill presidency could do to the entire party, for all time. She could almost-permanently scotch another woman ever being elected to the White House again.

I have VERY strong feelings for not wanting to EVER see another Clinton in the WH.

[Buzz cook]

178. History lesson

The Clinton era has been over for almost 8 years now. Surprised you didn't get the news.


imho letting a Republican win by inaction would do more to shrink the base than voting for which ever candidate becomes the nominee.

But remember that Al Gore is just like George Bush.

[greyghost]

24. On the mark as usual. eom

[Invidious]

25. It's my vote...

I'm TIRED of holding my nose and voting...and I won't do it again. You want my vote this fall..FUCKING EARN IT!..I can't believe this is so hard to understand!!!

[NanceGreggs]

30. Oh, so sorry, poor baby ...

Can't "hold your nose" and vote for a Democrat? Try holding your nose and voting for a Republican then - or don't vote at all. THAT will really prove your point, don't you think?

[Invidious]

36. Whatever...I'm just going to shut my brain off and vote DEM

like I have since 96...do you have the OATH for me to sign?

[NanceGreggs]

45. Honey, if you have to shut your brain off ...

... every time you vote Democratic, there are three possibilities you might seriously consider:

(a) You're not really a Democrat
(b) You don't really have a brain
(c) You're really a Republican-at-heart (which is kind of the same as (b))

I sincerely hope you find yourself sometime soon ...

[Invidious]

90. Thanks for that...

It's all clear now...even though I've voted DEM in every election I've ever taken part in. I must be a Republican because I don't like every Democrat in the party. You are so wise.

[beezlebum]

115. sorry nance

i was moved by your obviously heartfelt post, but the further down i make it, your "if you don't do it why dontcha just vote republican" snarks kinda come across as bullying.

i can't blame those who say- and i know a lot of em personally!- that they will never vote for candidate a or b (namely hillary or obama). i am an 'edwards or uncommitted' voter at this stage in the game, but i have nightmares of mccackabeemney and have often thought perhaps i would cast a vote for clinton or obama. i simply can not get past my feelings that both are, yes, i'm gonna say it, republican lites. in my observed opinion, hillary-obama represent the democratic version of mcackabeemney, just not so blatant.

when i made the switch from kucinich to edwards, i observed that i was going against a few convictions by voting for a less liberal candidate, but acknowledged that i am never going to agree 100% with a single candidate, nor will i agree with every decision said candidate makes or has made, and that a liberal liberal will not be elected in this climate. does that mean i could feel the same way about supporting clinton or obama? nah...maybe eventually, but i doubt it. i mean, they do say you get more conservative as you get older...*shudders*

forgive me for seeing hillary and obama as wolves in sheeps clothing, as puppets propped up by corporate media douchebags, the republican-placeholders, assuring that corporations will continue to rake in the dirty bloodstained profits under the table until the next brazenly murderous cabal steps in. those two represent a depressing doldrum, edwards represents the possibility that america could someday be reclaimed by the people and for 'em too.

alas...i will ultimately likely- beyond reluctantly- "hold my nose" and solemnly vote for either anyway- the thought of john "100 more years!" mccain in office does indeed nauseate me, after all. but i won't be proud to have done so, and i won't scold my friends and family who refuse to make it to the voting booth either; i will see it as another 4-16 years of the same old bullshit.

[asdjrocky]

26. Thanks Nance-

I'm for a call to sanity too. K&R!

[kid a]

29. yes..i'll proudly vote hillary or obama (or edwards if that happens!!!

McCain???
Romney???

[countmyvote4real]

31. Amen.

I needed that.

I am too much of a cynic to have much hope in the undisclosed agendas of the top 2 Democratic candidates.

Here's my current snapshot:

HRC
Why are the Clintons so desperate to return the WH? Has their post-WH public service been that meaningless to them?

All I can say is that it's been pretty meaningless to me to have HRC represent my position since she became the junior senator of my state. She hasn't at all. And then Bill has gone all loony-tunes attacking progressive principals because he feels personally attacked by other candidate's remarks that had nothing to do with him. I guess if the shoe fits, they must wear it.

OHB
God bless him and all his supporters. He has a great stump speech, but I'm not signed up for the change he "naively" promises. If he is that secure in his ability to cross the aisle then he has no idea of what he is up against.

SO?
Why should I vote for a vagina over a black penis when both are only interested in fucking me? I know, we should take it once again in the long run for the good of the Democratic Party that has responded so well to our 2006 mandate. (not)

I will ultimately hold my nose to vote for either of these charlatans, but if given an opportunity to vote for the fantastical Bloomberg ticket, I know that I will only have to block only one nostril.

Maybe it's time for me to move off this ranch. All the same, I love your perspective.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

33. K&R bookmarked and saved

O8) Saving your post as a reminder, for when I get an uncontrollable urge to SCREAM--(Hell No, I'm not Voting For That Corporate Owned, Dis-Empowering Piece Of Crap!):evilgrin:


Right now, we must persevere, we must not give up HOPE, not just yet!

There's still a long time to get John Edward's message out! There's too much at stake to settle for American Idol or the status quo!
Fasten your seatbelt! Here's a great music-video for the long road ahead...
:applause:"THE JOHN EDWARDS REVOLUTION" Has Just Begun! :applause:
DUer-lame54 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZxOYF9ZAe0

[question everything]

37. Just as happened in 1968

Many anti-war stayed at home, were not going to vote for Humphrey and the rest is history.

It is not just Iraq. It is the Supreme Court. Two or three justices will retire, the liberal ones. So it will be ironic that those "stand on principles" will be the one to provide Bush's "legacy" of a Supreme Court full of Thomases and Scalias.

[stickernation]

132. we should definitely study humphrey 1968

i really think that the reason rove could retire in serenity was that he was an avid student of history and that the current repugnican strategy is "whoever for president, as long as the * team is still in charge" and to leverage an understanding of every single democratic implosion since roosevelt.

rove's grandfather built the birkenau death camp for hitler: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1006-08.htm

these are NAZIS we are up against. we haven't won world war II yet, apparently, there's a fifth column right in the heart of the US government. :tinfoilhat:

[bluesbassman]

46. Pleas do the math!

To you folks who feel you are somehow being violated by having to cast your vote for a Dem who doesn't meet your requirements: Please do the math. As Nance has pointed out, your un-cast vote means the repugs are plus one. It's as simple as that. If you have not been paying attention for the last seven years, we can't afford anymore repug rule.

While we may not end end up with the "perfect" president, they will be a Democrat if we vote that way. Whoever it is may be too right leaning or too corporate or MAY even be a disaster, but make no mistake, if we don't put a Dem in office this time it WILL be a disaster for this nation.

So, I implore any of you that feel your principles are being trashed if you vote for a candidate not to your liking to suck it up and "take one for the team" (our nation). You may not LIKE who you have to vote for to put a Dem in office in November, but I guarantee your going to HATE the alternative.

Great rant as usual Nance. Keep 'em coming!

[NanceGreggs]

49. "... but I guarantee your going to HATE the alternative."

Amen.

[maximusveritas]

51. This whining happens every election

In the heat of the primaries, it's easy to develop a hatred of other candidates.
But in the end, after seeing how awful the GOP candidate is, everyone ends up voting for the Dem candidate.

[hfojvt]

54. "you say you wanna change the world

well, alright, with me there's no regrets
it's my turn, the circle game has brought me here ..." Bachman Turner Overdrive "Hey, you!"

"When somebody in the factory says 'hey, you'
I don't wanna be the guy who says 'who me?'
I wanna be the guy who says 'yeah, you!'" Archie Bunker

There are some things in the world that are all about me. My vote, for example. My choices and my efforts, for another. Those are mine to make, not another person's to command. If I had a steady girlfriend, she probably could and would do some commanding, but otherwise no friends or relatives can order me around, and certainly not some writer on the internets.

There are many things wrong with this country and world that go beyond electing Republicans or Democrats. I would say one is, people who have a 'zero tolerance' attitude. They are no gonna tolerate X, Y, or Z and there is no understanding or consideration for anyboyd who differs. Another problem would be a tendency to call names or hurl vitriol instead of discussing or persuading.

[avrdream]

55. Shit, Nance, I should have saved my 1000th post for this one.

Tell it like it friggin' IS!

I am absolutely sick and tired of hearing about ABC......with a few less ABO and ABEs. Should be ABR's, for fuck's sake.

[Yuugal]

57. way to show the love

Rather than waste my time typing my anger, I'll just direct you to this guy. He is ranting about FISA but just jump to 6:45 of the vid and watch until the end. There are millions of us and if this party doesn't wake up and address our concerns on democratic issues like poverty and privacy, THEN WE ARE GONE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXp4HwCfp8&NR=1

[hayu_lol]

58. We have a Constitution and SCOTUS depending on any one of three...

people:

Clinton
Edwards
Obama

to take charge and protect both.

If you stay home, turn up your nose at any of them, you are helping to insure that America will self-destruct. It is just that simple.

Nader voters stayed pure in Florida in 2000. What followed was 8 years of BushCo.

Stay home and pure...and you may have to leave the country. This one may not be habitable.

[puebloknot]

59. " It’s not about your principles, but the principles of this party..."

Shades of Nuremberg, circa 1939.

It is the individual principles of grassroots American citizens that have, over time, made up the principles of the Democratic Party. And the day when individual principles cease to matter is the day the Democratic Party is dead! Some of us are still reeling over the failure of our Democratic representatives to remember what the principles of "this party" actually are.

And again, the spectre of who is a "real Democrat" raises its ugly head.

Any thinking Democrat knows the difficult choices we have in front of us. Allegedly, this is still America, and we the citizens maintain the right to make our own choices, without benefit of a lecture which fails to honor the intelligence and integrity of everyone who reads it.

Clearly, I'm in a minority in this thread, but my principles are mine to do with as I prefer. One man's "whining and complaining" is another's right and responsibility as a citizen to demand that those who would be President be required to answer detailed and substantive questions about their intentions to honor our traditional laws. Cheerleading is not going to accomplish that! And "whining," I think, is a free speech issue. To each his/her own perception in that regard.

I wish, very sincerely, that solutions to our nation's dire situation were as facile as you make it sound. It is a sad pass that this country has come to when loyal and thinking Democrats are *almost* as concerned about our future under a Democratic administration as they are over the prospect of a Republican one.

Any of the three Democrat candidates *could* make a fine President. Will they, if elected, end the war, restore habeus corpus, stop torture in our name, see to pressing domestic issues, restore our good name in the world? Whose dollar is going to answer those questions?

Principles matter! An electorate that takes a pass at this early stage in holding the feet of the candidates to the "fire" is in direct contradiction to what the electoral process is supposed to be about.

My rant, for your consideration!

[JTFrog]

71. I lean the same direction on this.

Principles do matter and standing up for them should NEVER be discouraged.

The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor.

[antigop]

72. pueblonot, I share that minority status with you...but I'm an independent.

If the Democrats want my vote, then they will have to run someone whom I can support.

(Yes, progressive independents do exist. I'm one of them.)

And this "Shut up, sit down, do as I say, support the nominee" is really getting tiresome.

[The Wizard]

75. A thought

"Any of the three Democrat candidates *could* make a fine President. Will they, if elected, end the war, restore habeus corpus, stop torture in our name, see to pressing domestic issues, restore our good name in the world? Whose dollar is going to answer those questions?"
We already know that any of the Republican candidates will just be a third Bush term.

[puebloknot]

155. I agree about the Republican candidates. But what I want to see...

...is, right out loud, and in detail, what the Democratic candidates are going to do to really turn things around. The performance of the Dems since we elected them in 2006 has been beyond the pale in terms of complete cowardice.

[f the letter]

84. Amen n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. Bravo! "The principles of the Party" aka "The Leaders Know Best"

[OneBlueSky]

60. the problem is that it won't make a dime's worth of difference . . .

no Democrat is going to end the war . . . no Democrat is going to provide universal healthcare . . . no Democrat is going to seriously address global warming . . . and on, and on, and on . . .

no matter who the president is, he or she will spend the next four/eight years responding to the most disastrous crises this nation and this planet have ever experienced . . . and they'll try to do it while preserving the thoroughly wasteful and unsustainable "American way of life" . . . and they will all fail miserably . . .

until people start seeing and addressing the REAL problem -- rule by the corporatocracy -- nothing is going to change . . . Democrat or Republican, it won't make any difference whatsoever . . .

sound defeatist? . . . maybe so . . . but it's also realistic . . .

[HughBeaumont]

145. Duh.

:think:

Only sane post on here, it seems.

Unbridled corporatism needs to be stopped, and wealth inequality needs to be reversed.

One party will fail us and the other will fuck us even worse. Nice menu.

What we need to do is start taking elections seriously starting with the PRIMARIES. We're going to let their media pick OUR candidate for us once again.

[MD_BLUE]

61. WOW, Just WOW

I must say that I have lurked for many years on DU. I have read a whole bunch of great articles. Nance has always been my favorite. This though by far is the most powerful, and yes spiritual column I have read. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have been wondering the same thing for the last few months myself. Though I do not have quite the way with words you do, please let me applaud. You are so right. Any Democratic candidate is better than a Repug. Saying one is not democratic enough is like saying Obama is not black enough. NO MORE REPUGS, please. Let's vote to make sure.

[NanceGreggs]

76. Welcome to the discussion, MD_BLUE!

:hi:

[rasputin1952]

63. My preferred candidate is out, (Richardson), such is the way

things go.

The bottom line is, regardless of who winds up w/the nomination, they will receive my support. I hold my principles dear, and I find the principle of stopping the destruction of my country far and away higher than the flaws of a single candidate.

Some people don't understand that stopping the neo-cons benefits everyone in the country. This is not the GOP of 40-50 years ago. This is a bastardized version that even Barry Goldwater said consisted of "shitheads". They are out to turn this nation on it's head, they began w/Reagan, but bush has really run w/the ball, and now we are in desperate straits. Another neo-con administration would be disastrous.

This election is not just about the WH either...we need a stronger more determined Congress, firmly in the corner of the People. A Congress that will reverse the policies of self destruction. These really are the "times that try men's souls".

The naysayers and the "hold my nose" crowds should be able to see this far easier than the rest of us. One who speaks so highly of a Principled stance, should be standing on one of the highest principles of all...a chance to get this country back to a nation that will be, of the People, by the People, for the People.

We are at a point in our history where we can truly make a difference. This does not happen often in a civilization. I plan to be an active part in making that difference something we can all be proud of.

[Apollo11]

Thanks Nance for another outstanding rant!

Thanks for reminding everyone what is at stake, and why we should not say or do anything that will make it more difficult for us to come together after the Convention (at the latest).

[caseycoon]

64. Absolutely Nance! Vote for the Dem nominee even...

if you have to carry a barf bag! Staying home not only deprives our nominee of a vote but also every other Dem running for all the other offices.
Yeah we have to worry about Diebold... BUT the more people voting Dem the better in that case & any other case you can think of for staying home. ALSO, and maybe even MORE important is the fact that if we don't put a Dem in the WH the Supreme Court will have even more judges ready to take our rights away from us. I don't want that on my conscience!
ANY Dem will do more for the 'little guy' than any repub! PERIOD! Staying home & letting the repubs have it certainly will not help the very people y'all keep saying you WANT to help.
So PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE VOTE DEM!
PLEASE VOTE!

[JohnnyLib2]

65. Thanks, Nance, and get out the hickory switch as needed.

Overheard recently: "some of them treehuggers get lost in the woods...."

:thumbsup: :kick:

[racaulk]

66. Reading your rants is like reading poetry, Nance!

Another great one! Thanks! :hi:

K&R

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

67. K & R. The R's have nothing but "dirty tricks" . The Dems have people power,

no matter who secures the nomination.

I personally can't WAIT for the first debate between our nominee and theirs. Whichever of the three it is, the R nominee will be stuttering, stammering and generally verklempt, I can't wait!

:bounce:

Nance, :heandbang: MKJ

[Fiendish Thingy]

68. "It’s not about your principles, but the principles of this party,..."

"... and the principles this country was founded on"

The principles of the Democratic party have not been represented by the PRACTICES of the Democratic party for some time, but especially during the past year. And those practices have NOT reflected the principles this country was founded on, particularly the rule of law and upholding the Constitution.

Without taking unpopular, principled stands, this country would not exist. We'd still be British subjects with a choice between Tories, and Tory-lites.

Me? I won't be voting for a candidate, or a party, I'll be voting to uphold the Constitution.

[Fiendish Thingy]

69. "It’s not about your principles, but the principles of this party,..."

"... and the principles this country was founded on"

The principles of the Democratic party have not been represented by the PRACTICES of the Democratic party for some time, but especially during the past year. And those practices have NOT reflected the principles this country was founded on, particularly the rule of law and upholding the Constitution.

Without taking unpopular, principled stands, this country would not exist. We'd still be British subjects with a choice between Tories, and Tory-lites.

Me? I won't be voting for a candidate, or a party, I'll be voting to uphold the Constitution.

[Demeter]

70. I'd Feel Better About the Majority's Choice, If I Thought The Majority Knew What It Was Doing

But falling into that class of people whose only satisfaction in the political process comes from being fully capable of truthfully saying: "I TOLD you so, but would you listen?" and mopping up as best as we can the bloodbath that ensues, I have my doubts about lending support to total failure of either party.


And as for taking it on faith that all the candidates have our best interests at heart, I give you two words: Nancy Pelosi.

No, the word has to get out that some positions, some plans and some behaviors are inconsistent with Democratic principle, not to mention democratic principles, and that we expect and demand that those who would lead us follow OUR lead.

[amb123]

73. Amen! Tom Tomorrow gets it.

[fenriswolf]

77. Alright already

I will vote for hillary but I will do it kicking a screaming and cursing my horrible misfortune for having to vote for her. I will do so against my will but will do it just because I would rather have her in office then mccain.

[acmavm]

78. We will not be winning ANYTHING if Obama gets the nomination.

And don't you lecture me on what to do, who to vote for. Take care of yourself. I'll do EXACTLY what I think is best with my vote.

Obama is NOT an opportunity for a 'better' country. He's dishonest. He's armpit deep into lobbyist money. His scheming bullshit with his 'present' votes show what a damn opportunist he is. And he has been very evasive on what he would do with the troops in Iraq. He's told more than one story on that issue. Of course, he's done that on every issue.

I don't like Hillary, but I could vote for her. A hell of a lot sooner than Obama.

I don't think we win a god damn thing with Obama. And don't tell me what I'll be whining about. You have a lot of nerve talking about people and their sorry 'cry for attention' when you do so much of that begging for attention here yourself.

edit: Here's some more money that bush** wants for his war. Since Barrie votes consistently to fund the damn thing, here's his next vote. If he shows up.

[Buzz cook]

182. Well that's a first

I'd yet to see someone that would refuse to vote for Obama if he became the nominee.

I may not care for Obama (I think he's a stuffed shirt, closet fundi) but I'll vote for him because even a bad democrat is better than the best republican.

[acmavm]

189. Then you have NOT been paying attention. There are lots of us out there

who are sick of lying opportunists who have a big feeling of 'entitlement', that they are owed the nomination. He lies, he takes money from anyone, he's a lobbyists wet dream, he changes his stories as often as most people change their underwear. We have already been through seven years with a clown who feels he's 'special', who thinks he talks to God, and who's constitency is corporate America.

[f the letter]

79. This is your first post that i really have to question.

i love your posts and usually agree with you, but this argument is nonsense. You paint anyone voting on principles rather than fear of whichever bogeyman our or their party trots out. That's bullshit.


i will very likely end up supporting whoever our party nominates even though at this moment it's damned-if-you-do/don't.

i'm no 100% idealist, but i hope i'm not so centered on the 'party' that i would put someone who doesn't represent the party in the white house. To put forth the ol' argumentum ad absurdum, if Pol Pot was the nominee would you vote for them? Hopefully most of us would agree that we would not.

When it comes time to vote, i will probably have to admit my party has used me for its own purposes, silenced or outmoneyed the best voices within the party, and used the fear of republicans to scare a leftish Democrat into working for them, only to produce right-of-center 'viable' candidates. And i will probably have to put a check next to clinton or obama's name even though i know i've been used. In either case, i will vote and i won't be voting republican.

But:

If i don't vote for our nominee then i am not a whiner, an ignorant child, someone out for personal attention at the expense of the nation, or an egomaniac with illusions of grandeur. i am neither arrogant nor self-centered in this hypothetical vote, or any of the other epithets you fling at those who disagree with you. This is very unlike what i understand of you from your previous posts.

Casting a vote based on the candidate best suited to receive that vote is patriotic, not stupid or evil. A major reason that we are trapped between this "vote with us or you're a monkey" is because people think about voting like a football game, wanting to be on the winning team even if their man is a really bad choice. The argument about the stakes is nonsense too. The stakes are always extremely high with the election. And principles are most important when the stakes are highest.

My candidate was silenced and shunned out of the race, and i won't be boycotting the party over it. But i'm tired of this "go our way or you are obviously unfit for a free society" politics of fear and polarization and this is not helping.

"A courageous vote is the only one worth casting." - Kucinich

[TankLV]

81. You are entitled to your OPINION and I respect that...

but in the end, it's a personal decision, and if the candidate hasn't made the point of why we should vote FOR them, or if there are some SERIOUS issues that goes against our very existence, then NOT VOTING is a valid choice, and you have ONLY the deficient CANDIDATE to blame, not us for deciding to hold our votes.

Sorry, you'd only have YOURSELVES to blame.

I'm tired of this bullshit...

Maybe if they KNEW they couldn't AUTOMATICALLY count on our vote, no matter how disgusting some positions are, or how much they are AGAINST our personal interests, then maybe, just maybe, they would STOP the insanity and actually LISTEN and RESPOND ACCORDINGLY if they want our vote...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

83. We all vote for "our" principles. As we should.

To say otherwise is nonsensical. You seem to believe that voting for the "lesser of two evils" for the supposed common good is worthwhile.

I don't.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

[NanceGreggs]

88. As things stand now ...

... I don't see any of our candidates as the 'lesser evil'. Some do, and they're entitled to feel that way.

But even if I was totally unhappy with our nominee, I still want to see a Democrat in the WH rather than ANY Republican. So I would consider my vote not 'for' the Democrat but a vote 'against' the GOP.

Sometimes you vote because you want to see that particular person in office. Sometimes it's simply a preventative measure to keep the other side OUT of office. Either way, it takes a vote to do it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

94. I fully intend to vote.

But, I feel no compulsion to do so based on the fear of the "other" candidate. I have held my nose and voted for the Democratic candidate on more occasions than I voted for him/her.

I'm a de-facto (our state doesn't register by party) Independent. I am not an "idealist" or a "purist".

I happen to believe that political parties of any stripe are only vehicles to advance whatever principles/agendas they proclaim. When, because of political necessity/expediency they fail to do so, they are no longer useful.

To my mind, it is the candidate's job to convince me that voting for him/her will coincide with what I think important.

To date, the 3 front-runners have failed to do so. Therefore, I reserve the right, and will probably use that right, to vote for whomever I believe to be the best person for the job.

Even if I have to write one in.

[NanceGreggs]

96. After BushCo, I DO have a very healthy fear ...

... of what another four or eight years of a GOP in the White House will do to this country.

[f the letter]

95. i disagree

Regardless of the lesser evil argument, a vote for somebody is never a vote against someone else. By that logic your vote is just as much against me as it is against them, since i am not them either.

Further, i don't like the idea of voting against anybody. i will always use my vote to support the best candidate. It seems like both of us agree that a vote should be cast no matter what. But _if_ a vote doesn't go for the democratic nominee, that is not a vote against the democratic nominee. It's a vote for whoever they're voting for.

i hear the pragmatic side of your argument but it goes too far. None of the people dissenting your post want a republican in office (dissenters please correct me if i am misrepresenting you). What most of us want is for people to vote for the candidate who they believe is right. If people weren't so 'pragmatic' about the whole affair, this wouldn't be an either/or race in the first place.

When i cast a vote for Kucinich in NH last November and watched the results come in, i had a pang of "oh shit, did i just give (candidate i dislike) a better chance at being the nominee?" But then i remembered that it was really all the people who thought they were voting _against_ a republican, or _against_ the possibility of someone they disliked being the nominee. It's not me in this case, it is them (not in a paranoid sense). If voters voted for who they wanted to get the vote, there would be a much broader dialogue happening in our party.

Is this viewpoint fitting me into one of the insults in your post? If so, which one(s?)

[NanceGreggs]

98. I'm not sure I'm following ...

... (and that's me, not you - I'm a bit sleepy right now).

But I think we are basically agreeing. Everyone should vote. Frankly, I'd rather hear someone say they are voting Republican because they think their candidate is better suited to the job than the Democrat, rather than not vote at all.

My rant is really aimed at those who say, "Well, my candidate isn't the nominee, so now I'm not voting for anyone."

[Zookeeper]

86. As the parent of two sons nearly of draftable age....

I'll be damned if I give up my chance to keep a Rethug out of the White House.

The Democratic nominee will get my vote even if I have to hold my nose while voting.

[Mz Pip]

87. SCOTUS

lather, rinse, repeat. SCOTUS

"I won't vote for ________________ because he/she is/is not __________________," may appear to be principled but keep in mind that absolutely none of our candidates will nominate a Scaliathomasalito clone to the SCOTUS.

Just remember how much power the SCOTUS has. The hope, dreams and rights of many lay at the feet of SCOTUS.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[lame54]

89. My butt hurts...

:spank:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QUiEd0IHaDs

[Kurovski]

91. K&R. (nt)

[Joe Fields]

93. please don't give me that fucking "alleged democrat" bullshit.

You have placed the cart squarely in front of the horse on this issue, Nance. It is the democratic leaders who are the "alleged" ones.

I'm sick of people telling me I'm not supporting my party, when it's clearly the other way around. My party has abandoned me.

And I'm supposed to be loyal for that?

Yeah, I'm good and mad. Feel like I have nowhere to go. It's damned if I do, and damned if I don't. But don't fucking lecture me about not being a "good dem." I've been one all my life, and where has it gotten me? I feel absolutely NO allegiance to these corporate bloodsuckers that call themselves MY democratic leadership.

[solara]

99. Yes, yes and YES!!

:loveya:

You are such a powerful thinker and writer, I am so glad you are not a republican!!

INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT IMPRECATE INCARCERATE :patriot:

[Q3JR4]

100. To be completely honest I'm not with

any of the current candidates 100%. That being said all of them are head and shoulders above the republican version, therefore whomever gets the nomination on the democratic side gets my vote.

Being from Idaho that might not mean much, but sometimes you have to let principle go and do what's best for the country.

Q3JR4.

[NanceGreggs]

101. I hear ya.

Of the three, I am a LOT less enthusiastic about Hillary than I am about the other two - but she's still light years ahead of any of the GOPers.

I don't think there is anything unprincipled about voting for whoever the Democrat turns out to be - because the alternative is too sickening to contemplate, and I believe everyone should vote.

[swimmernsecretsea]

108. I just saw the link to your collection of essays!

I'm so pleased you are here and writing on DU. It makes it so worthwhile.

[littlecryinggirl]

102. Hillary vs Romney vs McCain

Hi everyone. Frankly I think a vote for Hillary would get us nothing much different that a vote for McCain or Romney IMHO. Why would I do that? I won't. I will keep my fingers crossed for Obama or Edwards (not in that order)if that does not workout I will everyone else decide.

[Harry Monroe]

103. Some of us feel disenfranchised...

...because of the state we live in. Don't get me wrong, I am voting for the Democratic nominee, no matter who he or she is, white woman, black man or white man. (BTW, can somebody recommend a black woman who may be Presidential material?? I wish she were in the race as well, so we have both races and genders covered) But..I live in Mississippi. It is a forgone conclusion in this red(neck) state, that the Republican candidate, no matter what clueless white guy he may be, will garner all the electoral vote of this state. in this regard, my vote isn't worth a hill of beans because of the Electoral College. My vote may only matter in the "popularity contest" known as the popular vote, which should be the main criteria in determining the President in this date and age. Alas...

[southpaw]

120. As an Alabamian, I know exactly how you feel

I, too, will go to the polls this November to vote for the Democratic candidate for president... knowing all the while that my state's electoral votes will go to whichever repellent puke is on the other side of the ballot.

I harbor no illusions that Alabama will go blue this year, so my vote may be more symbolic than meaningful, but I can always console myself with the idea that I will have added one more vote in the nation-wide popular vote tally for the new Democratic president!

[sojourner]

104. Thanks for this post. May more DUers please follow your lead.

[swimmernsecretsea]

105. Thank you, Nance. Again you make me proud.

I don't get tired of saying that, nor of reading your work.

[DeeDeeNY]

106. Three words: Supreme Court vacancies!

That is what all the whiners should keep in mind when they threaten not to vote.

[butterfly77]

107. One more thing..

what is going on about getting rid of the blue dog democrats who have enabled Bush and the republicons..,

[desertflamingo]

109. ummm... no.

:wtf:

we didn't have to have another rightwing nutcase on the supreme court - but the democrats who were so afraid of the "nuclear option" backed down. i personally will NOT vote for obama who is being chosen for me by the msm. i will NOT vote for hillary who is also being chosen by the msm. THE reason we are still a two-party country is that we are told over and over if we don't vote party we will get screwed. the two-party system is RUINING this country.

"we" voted party in '06 and we're still getting screwed. we still have troops in iraq, right? so how's that majority we voted in doing? still got criminals running the country. how's that party loyalty workin' for you? it's all bullshit and until people wake up and stop supporting who "the man" tells us we should support, we will get exactly what we deserve. no thanks. i will not be bullied and guilted into voting against my country's best interests - not by you or anyone else. if edwards does not get the nomination i will NOT vote democratic. that's not being a whiny baby. that's being an american who crossed party lines (i was NOT a republican) to put my support behind edwards. though i voted straight across D in '06, i will never again. you can thank pelosi and reid... and the beloved ted kennedy... and dianne feinstein... and lieberman (oh wait, that would be reid again - sorry)... and every other dem who has bent over for bush. i'm fed up with a party that would let our kids die in iraq to make sure bush and the repubs get saddled with the blame. and if they're not playing politics then they're even more pathetic than i thought.

and before i start getting stoned for being anti-democratic on a democratic website... i'm not - anti-democratic. i love this site. i love the debate, the info, spirit. i am a democrat at heart. i know that the party has done great things in the past and can possible do great things in the future. but i am very very very upset at how the party has been behaving over the past many years. i'm very upset at the anointing of candidates that in my opinion are either going to get destroyed by less than stellar repubs, OR are going to give us essentially another 4 - 8 years of the same shit. for too many years i have voted party like a little sheep. i'm saying no now. and i resent someone feeling as if they can tell me how to vote. i'm a rabid edwards supporter, and i will argue and debate for hours on end to convince anyone to share my support for him - but i will NEVER tell - demand - that someone vote for my guy. THAT's unamerican.

EDWARDS '08

[GAtomboy]

112. The lines between repukes and Dems are getting blurry

The last thing I want to see is another republican in office, but are we really voting for Democrats here? Nancy Pelosi is a sorry excuse for a Democrat and Hillary voted for the war! I would love to see a woman in the White House but I fail to see her Democratic stance on issues. Anything less than removing the troops and ending this ridiculous right wing corporate driven war is unacceptable. I'm not going to vote for a canidate who keeps feeding the war machine.

[desertflamingo]

113. exactly my point.

we got john roberts and alito and the dems could have played hardball like the repukes always do and they didn't. and now we have a majority and they keep funding the war. we have a prez and vp who are considered war criminals by the world at large and there are piles of evidence against them for treason and yet... the MAJORITY will not even hold hearings where they would eventually get the support WE THE PEOPLE need to impeach, indict and imprison. party over country? yeah, i don't think so.

EDWARDS '08

[cottonseed]

114. Now this is a post I can get behind n/t

[robbedvoter]

117. I'm with you!

[TechBear_Seattle]

124. So being mindless sheep is the way to win elections?

I've asked before and I'll keep on asking: What value to win the world, and in doing so lose our soul?

[NanceGreggs]

140. There is nothing mindless about voting ...

... to put Democrats in office, and keep GOPers out.

[Yuugal]

148. SOS

different party. What good did putting dems in do in 2006? Pretty soon now voters are going to learn they need to send a message to the dem leadership that they either support the lower classes or they wont get our votes. Its either that or we lose the dem party completely to corporatists who have already bought most of the people running for office.

Given how the congress has been acting(no stimulus for poor people, giveaways for the rich, endless war funding, the cowardly bootlicking of everything corporate) and our choice for president possibly being Hillary who could not be more sold out to the same corporate interests, I'm going to send my message to Nancy and company this year.

Many of us warned the Dem party back in 2006, we are kicking them bums out, but if you betray us we will kick you out too. Do you feel like the party got the message? I don't. Pelosi and Reid have been laughing in our faces from day 1. Its not my loyalty that is the problem, I've voted straight dem in every election since I was old enough to vote(84).

It is corporate dems loyalty that is in question and many of us have figured out they are alot more loyal to corporate cash than they will ever be to America.

[NanceGreggs]

150. I apologize in advance if I am misunderstanding ...

... but what this sounds like is: "Let's risk the GOP winning in order to teach those Dems a lesson."

Given the damage done in the last seven years, that is not a risk I am willing to take. After another four/eight years of Republican power, there won't be much of a country left to argue about.

[verges]

151. Naderism

Wasn't that similar to what Ralph was trying to do? Prove there was no difference and teach the Dems a lesson? It worked out, didn't it?

[Yuugal]

167. I'm poor

When they decide to use the national credit card to help out "America" and have a stimulus party and I'm not invited, what does that say? These are dems doing this. We have both houses. The best they can do is lend some middle class people some of their own tax refund from next year and completely ignore the disabled(me), the homeless, the dirt poor? At the same time they are gifting billions to the rich? This is stimulus, dem style?

My kids, who will be expected to pay this debt back with interest, deserve no "stimulus"? Screw these corporate dems, I'm done with them. If its going to take harder times to get change, I'm ready for harder times. Our lives are already hard so we already have the coping skills in place to deal with more corporate rape. Its the white collar class who is next on the chopping block and when they are reduced to my level then, AND ONLY THEN, will they understand why this country needs to help poor people first.

If you want to know something about a country's heart, just look at how its treats its poor people. How low can you go in America? Straight to hell. I remember the days when this party stood for helping the disenfranchised, now my family doesn't even exist to these people and yet people say I owe them my vote? The "Let them eat cake" corporocrats like Pelosi need to understand my vote is off the table until she gets her head out of her ass.

[TechBear_Seattle]

152. Should we not vote on SUBSTANCE?

Why vote for Democrats, when the Democrats we elect (Pelosi, Reed, etc.) refuse to provide any opposition to the Republicans, who in fact give every appearance of actively collaborating with them? Why vote blindly and mindlessly merely because of an initial after the name, with no promise that it will not -- yet again -- be the exact same corporatism, disregard for the poor and working class, bigotry and hawkishness that has ruled this country for so long?

If the Democrats we elect will not stand up to treason, will not reign in an out-of-control Executive branch, will not actually DO THEIR FUCKING DUTY to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC, then are we really better off electing Democrats? Given the strength of character and nobility of purpose shown by Congressional Democrats this last year, I have absolutely no faith that voting blindly on party lines will make any difference. I dare say that today I am less inclined to vote a straight ticket, because 2007 showed that the "we are not a majority" excuse used since 2001 was just a big fat lie. Things have not changed and show no likelihood to change.

The one and only tool I have at my disposal is to withhold my vote when and if I feel it is necessary. This is a free market, capitalist society, correct? If I can "vote with my wallet" and decline to buy this brand or see that movie or attend some other event, why can I not do the same with my most important posession?

Nance, I usually quite agree with what you right, but this time.... You are telling us to stand there and bleat like the sheep chorus from Animal Farm. That is not patriotism or brand loyalty; that is an abrogation of our most solemn duty as citizens.

[NanceGreggs]

177. Thank you for this reply ...

... it was beautifully written, and you have stated your case with intelligence and eloquence.

I understand your point, and it is by all means a valid one. But the fact remains that this whole process - like it or not, fair or not - comes down to one Democrat and one Republican. And because I believe all should vote, I must choose between the two. I choose the Democrat.

Change is needed within our country, and within our party. But change of such magnitude is not an overnight process, and we must play our parts along with those we choose to represent us. Non-participation, on the other hand, brings about nothing.

My idea is simple: Get your team into the Big Game first; then start picking off the weakest players and replacing them with who you really want in the game.

[TechBear_Seattle]

191. So how do we hold Democrats accountable?

If they can depend on our blind support of them solely because they are Democrats, if they can depend on us mindlessly putting them in office soley on the grounds that they are marginally less evil than the Republicans, how do we bring about change?

[NanceGreggs]

204. That's what re-elections are for.

I don't think of voting Democratic as mindlessly putting certain individuals in office, but as supporting my party as a whole - and my party consists of you, and every other Democrat.

We talk here incessantly about putting our reps' feet to the fire. Well, if they're no longer in office, or if they wind up being in the minority again, putting their feet to the fire is pretty pointless, isn't it?

Want Pelosi and Reid out, for example? Vote them out when they are up for re-election. Replace them with more progressive Democrats. But first things first. Put US (the party) in a position of power - then, once there, WE can play from a position of strength rather than weakness.

[TechBear_Seattle]

205. But in your post, you were telling to re-elect the people we need to boot out

How do we boot out the people who deserve to be fired by re-electing them when the alternative is, apparently, to "let the Republicans win"?

What are we supposed to do when, time after time after time after time, the Party ignores the progressives and pimps itself out to the increasingly rightward "center"?

How do we deal with the situation of entrenched incumbents like Lieberman who can betray the party and STILL get elected with the Party's blessing, and be richly rewarded for doing so?

And how do we throw out people like Pelosi and Reed, when they are able to use their incumbency, the promise of graft to political supporters and the vast power commanded by their close ties to the media and ultra rich to guarantee their re-election no matter what the voters want? For that matter, how do we throw out people like Pelosi and Reed when they can get so many people bleating that any opposition will "split the party and let the Republicans win"?

Yes, I am feeling very despondant. If you have any realistic solutions beyond an extremely naive "vote them out," I'm all eyes.

[crispini]

125. RECOMMENDED!

And more than happy to do so!

[stickernation]

128. YEAH !!!!!!

karl rove has been cackling for weeks as the fighting between candidate supporters has continued. you just shut him up !!!!!!!!

you are allowed to have misgivings about candidates, but consider the alternative, hold your nose, and VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT THIS NOVEMBER !!!!

[TooBigaTent]

133. I would say that the "alleged" Democrats are the corporatist candidates who

may throw a scrap or two to the liberal base of the party but will continue the essence (with cosmetic changes) of the puke agenda.

Not one of the remaining big three have called for * to be held accountable for his crimes. Not one has been out front calling for a verifiable election process. Not one has shown me their Democratic bona fides. Only JE has made any sound about the fact that corporations have become the real citizens of Amerika and people have been relegated to second-class status.

They have called for compromise with the enemy. They have pitched their appeal to try and draw cons and right-wingers to support them. They have not even stood up to the corporate "debate" sponsors to demand that all candidates be included because (1) they crave power more than anything, (2) dare not do anything to piss off their corporate handlers and (3) do not want certain topics brought up.

The more this unending campaign goes on, the more disgusted I get at the party powers. They obviously do not want progressives at their table. They have totally blown a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make significant changes in the direction this country is taking. Instead of pushing a progressive agenda, they cater to the right.

But we are supposed to fall obediently in line and press the button for them because they have that magic "d" next to their name. If I ask how "it all went so terribly wrong" - the answer is that the Democratic party has not done enough (anything) to fight the * regime. They will not earn my support by continuing to sell out for the sake of power.

[harmonicon]

134. -1

[Brundle_Fly]

135. thanks Nance

been trying to say this several times in the last week, but your summary is much more fitting and well written.

[juajen]

136. Thanks, Nance!

As usual, you are right on!

[MasonJar]

137. Thank you, Nance! I am hoping that this diatribe convinces some of the

naysayers here on DU. Sometimes it (DU) is not distinguishable from what I imagine a GOPer site would be. I tell everyone who asks me now whom I support that I support whomever the majority of Democrats select because that is how I feel. We have great candidates and I will work hard for whichever is the nominee. This country literally will be lucky to survive another year of the Stump; another 4 to 8 years of GOPer rule would bring the immediate demise of our system of governance, not even taking into account the environment and the officious impact the PUGs have on the world and its people and creatures. Where did all these greedy bastards come from? Egad!

[InternalDialogue]

141. Hell, yeah!

Nance, you got me to yell out loud at my screen again.

You're a gem.

[Timbuk3]

144. I support the only candidate who can beat the GOP

The other two aren't polling that well against McCain.

[HughBeaumont]

147. Two Americas had a great post regarding this sort of thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4173163#4173243

[Kajsa]

153. Any one of our Democratic candidates is a

hell of an improvement over what's been in power
for eight years.

I have a candidate, who I will vote for in our primary on Super Tuesday.
Whatever the outcome is, I will vote for our nominee.
Again, refer to my first sentence.

[JAbuchan08]

154. Ummm.... isn't choice the point of voting?

I'll find someone to vote for even if Hillary Clinton is the nominee. I haven't ruled out voting for her, but I certainly won't take pleasure in it, and I won't celebrate it if she wins.
That being said I don't think that anyone owes Clinton their vote. It's that presumption which keeps the Democratic party from moving with any significant effort on changing the system.
In other words without the risk of losing my vote Democrats in general (and Hillary Clinton in particular) have no incentive to work in my interests.
Yes, perhaps Hillary will lose to the Republicans on account of their imitation conservatism, but it won't be because Democrats such as myself are consciously withholding support, but generalized apathy at the fact that the system won again.

[puebloknot]

156. We know that the candidates are watching what is going on...

...on the Net, and especially right here at DU. Every time someone says "I'll vote for the Dem no matter who it is, no matter what their platform," a message is sent that we're all just going to sheepishly go to the polls and be good Dems, so they don't have anything to worry about. They can take all the corporate dollars they want, they can play their "bipartisan harmony" game, and there will be no consequences for them.

At some point, this country is going to have to reach a tipping point and try something new, if it's going to survive!

[vanboggie]

157. Yeah, I suppose, but

though I will go cast a vote, that'll probably be all I do this time around. I need to believe in a candidate and have my heart in it to work for a campaign, put up signs, phone bank, etc.

So I'll end up voting D even though the candidate may be a DLC. Doesn't mean I'll be happy about it. We've learned from the likes of Pelosi and Reid that you can look like a Dem and talk like a Dem, but not really be one.


In the meantime, I'll be working for this guy because I do believe in him.

[George II]

158. Great post - THAT is why everyone here loves you!!!

Great perspective on being a REAL Democrat.

Thanks.

[ToeBot]

160. When ever anyone questions your maturity, it's 'cause you ain't doing what they want you to do

It's a ploy to manipulate you. No, thanks mom, I don't need your lecturing.

[Canuckistanian]

165. "my-way-or-the-highway". Where have I heard THAT before?

Oh, yeah. In every Bush speech.

[Skittles]

168. you get 'em Nancy

I'm disappointed with ALL the candidates but dammit right now I'd vote for a ham sandwich if it was a Democrat. :D

[Guava Jelly]

169. Will you Marry Me??

OMFG!!
This is perfect.
Thank you!
K&R

[Fire Walk With Me]

170. You are speaking directly to me.

Considering the lack of interest of the 2006 Congress and the current "big 3" candidates in topics such as impeachment and prosecution, an immediate end to the Iraq invasion and the Mil-Indus looting of the Treasury, as well as an end to corporate control of the media and politics, I cannot muster the breach of integrity required to vote for them.

None of them will get us out of Iraq, and shut off the open tap of our tax dollars into the cups of those who profit from continuous war and the war economy. I'm talking about "our" candidates as well as the Republican candidates. I do not understand. Are they afraid of the Military/Industrial power base, as well as Bush's ultra-rich friends across the world, who are benefiting from the manipulation of the oil market (and others)?

We voted for change in 2006 and have had none. They have failed to do the will of the people. Aside from Kucinich, I cannot see how any of the "big 3" will be any different from the 2006'ers. Are we fully capitulating to the concept that the change we've all voted for, is impossible?

It is only impossible because none of them will stand up and do something about it.

[Fire Walk With Me]

176. And even worse, not spend the last seven years on these subjects. Why should I believe them NOW?

[BobTheSubgenius]

171. Right out of the park.

As always. :thumbsup:

[crim son]

172. Hmmm. Interesting thread.

It looks like some Democrats are willing to sacrifice their country - and perhaps other countries - so that they alone may live by their "principles." Now there's a concept that has me holding my nose.

[MadMaddie]

173. Nance - a breath of fresh air...

Thank you for writing it clearly and easy to understand.

K & R

[DFW]

174. While I have nothing against someone who votes their conscience,

I just hope all consequences of that vote are considered. If your conscience
says a Republican in the White House wouldn't be so bad, let's just say our
consciences differ.

I think there is a contest on out there as to whether Republicans can shout
"LIBBRUL!!!" the loudest or Democrats can shout "CORPORATIST!!!" the loudest.

The winner gets............nothing.

[drm604]

175. Right on Nance.

I'm with you 100% on this.

By the way, it seems like a disproportionate number of your critics have low post counts. Hmm... how strange. I wonder what that could mean.

[Beregond2]

179. hey you

Well said. The tone of this board lately has gotten very childish. All this melodramatic posturing about so-and-so being too this or not enough that to support. Look, I'm an Edwards man. But I can also see that Obama has qualities of charisma and a gift for oratory that we cannot lightly dismiss. I also respect the intellect and abilites of clinton. It seems to me that this primary process is about deciding who best fits the roles we need them to play at this point in time. There has never been, and will never be, an ideologically perfect candidate. What matters is getting a Democratic administration in power. And then doing all we can to influence them in the directions we want, and giving them all the suport we can.

[NanceGreggs]

181. Again I find myself having used thousands of words ...

... to express what you have just said in a few, well-chosen sentences.

Thanks for adding this to the discussion, Beregond2!!!

[Buzz cook]

183. I doubt you'll find converts to "can't we all get along"

Once people fall in love everyone except the object of their affection is an evil troll.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

184. Kick for the best thread in GDP

Aw jeez. Damned by faint praise.

Kick for the best thread on DU!

[NanceGreggs]

185. Thank you so much ...

... SWMBO!

:hi:

[D23MIURG23]

187. Garbage.

If I really wanted you to think for me I'd be listening to Rush tell me who I am to vote for and when. Your OP is insulting and furthermore you have the cart before the horse. It is the responsibility of the party to select a nominee capable of drawing support, not the responsibility of the ideologically sympathetic to exercise doublethink every time the party nominates a turd.

And yes I do plan to support the nominee (even if it is Hillary who I consider a hawk and a panderer) and I managed to come to that conclusion on my own, independent of your self-important tirade.

[NanceGreggs]

188. I don't think that telling people ...

... to get out and vote is self-important - I think of it as nation-important.

[Lilith Velkor]

198. This rant did not make me want to get out and vote, though

It made me want to leave this country. Far too many Democrats have anti-democratic sentiments like these, and there really is no point if both parties are reduced to McCarthyite bullying of voters instead of, oh let's see, how about EARNING our support.

I know there are many here who agree with this crap rant, but it's still ugly and undemocratic, and antithetical to the values that used to make this nation worth a damn. (Nation-important, my ass.)

If you had any decency at all, you would be ashamed of yourself.

[D23MIURG23]

200. Its in the way you make your case.

Encouraging people to support a candidate on merits on or contrast is one thing. Chastizing people for daring to uphold their own thinking or principals if they conflict with the will of the party is quite different. You are insulting people, telling them to shut up and fall in line like some kind of self appointed commandant, and you wonder why I think you are self-important?

Although the fact that you think that your rant will have any measurable effect nationally really says more than I ever could on this...

On a separate note, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Next time you are sharpening your pen for some bloodletting you might want to consider who is and isn't an ally.

[NanceGreggs]

201. I wasn't chastising anyone for daring to uphold ...

... their principles - far from it. I was chastising those here of late who are only willing to vote for their choice of candidate, period.

What people fail to realize is that WE are 'the party', and as part of a collective that includes people of many thoughts, many ideas, and often differing opinions, each individual is going to have to compromise once in a while for the good of the whole.

I was very pissed-off when I wrote this - and still am - over people here who only want to participate in the process if things go exactly as they want them to go, as they see fit, as they have decided things should be.

I believe it's important to vote - VERY important. I also believe it is important to keep Dems in office, and Republicans out. We have to work together to do that. We started this primary season with many candidates who are no longer running. What would our chances be in November if every Kucinich supporter, every Biden supporter, every Richardson supporter threw up their hands and said, "That's it, I'm not voting for anyone because my choice is not on the ticket"?

If Hillary winds up as the nominee, I will be far from pleased. But I'll vote for her anyway, because we'll all be a lot better off with President Hillary than we would with President Romney, or President McCain.

People constantly complain about having to vote for the lesser of two evils. Well, that's the system we have - like it or not. And if those are the choices, isn't voting for the lesser evil the obvious choice?

Yes, you catch more flies with honey - but I wasn't trying to catch anyone or anything here. I was venting, which is my prerogative, just like everyone else's on this board. What it comes down to is, IMHO, very simple: If the Dems have the WH and a strong majority, we have a shot at getting them to do what we collectively think needs doing. If the GOP (heaven forefend) winds up back in control, we have NO SHOT at even being heard, no less achieving our goals.

As for: "Although the fact that you think that your rant will have any measurable effect nationally really says more than I ever could on this...", you misunderstood me completely.

I was not implying that my rant, or my opinion, is of national reach, but that getting the vote out for Democrats IS of national importance.

I am not ashamed of being what some would call "a party loyalist". That's because I don't see my party as Pelosi, or Reid, or any one individual. They are only a small part of the whole, and that whole is made up of fellow citizens who believe in the same goals that I do. It is those fellow citizens to whom I will always be loyal - and that means voting with everyone's interests in mind, and not just my own.

[More Than A Feeling]

190. You forgot to mention the most important thing.

One thing that might ease the pain of voting for a nominee that is unacceptable is gleefully plotting the progressive populist primary challenge four years from now. We've learned that this works pretty well on a congressional level, except on weasels like Lieberman (and even he got kicked out of the party).

More Democrats (including presidential Democrats) is only the beginning, and this election is only the beginning. If we progressives, we populists are truly committed to remaking our country in the service of the very highest ideals a country can aim at, then we can't accept a one time, "win or go home", "loser leaves town" mentality.

Instead, we need to have a "loser comes back stronger the next time" mentality. In this case, next time is the very day of the inauguration, as we apply unrelenting pressure to shape and mold our new president, whether it be John, Hillary, or Barack, into the image of our ideal.

That's how we get to the second part of the phrase, "better democrats."

"More and Better Democrats" is my motto. What's yours?

[lateo]

192. Hey you.

It isn't enough just to win elections if you are selling the soul of your country and people away in the process. I just shake my head when people make statements like this. Winning isn't all that matters. Winning and having a candidate who will actually take care of the people is what matters. Maybe you have been asleep these last 20 years. The American people are getting fucked left and right by the people they are electing. The attitude "winning is all that matters" has just made the country worse.

[mac56]

194. As always, Nance, right on the money.

I must confess I saw myself in this post. :blush: I suspect - I hope - some other people do too. Thanks!

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

195. Wow. . .goodnight.

[Lyric]

197. Oh my god, THANK you Nance.

I am so fucking tired of these whiny, self-absorbed Me-ists going on about how their vote has to be "earned". Me, me, me, me ME dammit!

A Democratic president is going to sign the Democratic bills that a Democratic CONGRESS passes, and is going to appoint Supreme Court judges who won't strip the Constitution of the freedoms we all enjoy. When it comes down to the practical, whoever that President is will have a big fat "D" beside their name. That's damned well good enough to earn ANY of our potential nominees my vote.

Supporting the Dem nominee is NOT "marching in lockstep", because we hold our Dem Presidents ACCOUNTABLE, unlike the Republicans. Do you think your civic duties end after casting a vote?? Stay as involved as you are now, and get OTHER people involved, because the members of a President's party ALWAYS have ways to rein in a President--activism, public opinion, lobbying. Stay loud and stay involved, and you have nothing to fear. A President can only be what we allow him or her to be. The other half of the country allowed THEIR President to be a psychotic, warmongering robber baron. We won't make that mistake--we are not so easily forgiving of our politicians.

[saltpoint]

199. Kick -- for clarity and age-appropriate insight.

:thumbsup: :hi: :yourock:

[MadHound]

202. The trouble is that no matter who wins this next election, Dem or 'Pug,

We all lose, and corporate America will have installed another puppet in the White House. Sure, if it's a Dem, that puppet my put a kinder, gentler veneer on, but the fact of the matter is that the Democratic party is just as corporately compromised as the Republican party, and which ever party gets the top job, they are going to put corporations first, not we the people.

So the question becomes how long do you keep voting against your own interests? We express utter astonishment at how many people voted for Bush, against their own interest, but the fact of the matter is that Democrats do the same goddamn thing.

My vote isn't owned by anybody except myself, it is the responsibility of the Democratic party to put up a candidate and craft a platform that I can vote for. If that isn't done, then my vote goes elsewhere, it's that simple.

[NanceGreggs]

203. If your vote goes "elsewhere" ...

... I may not agree with your choice, but I can't help but respect that having weighed the options, you have done what you think is right.