Idealism...

[Cleetus]

As I carried signs of protest during Viet Nam, so do many of you today. Please understand something before we go on, I'm on your side. Refusing to consider an opinion you don't share by simply brushing it off demonstrates at least a bit of narrow-mindedness.

Which is what I frequently see when this subjsct pops up:

Hillary Clinton.

Despite my opinion that her resume is a bit thin, that she chose NY as a springboard for a presidential bid, despite my opinion that there are many with superior credentials, there is a larger component worth considering-

Winning the war is more important than winning the battle. Please tell me what is more important than dethroning the chimp and those that would follow in his tracks? Absolutely nothing. That's what. So long as the United States remains under autonomous rule, the system of checks and balances that the Founding Fathers intended will remain buried under a pile of corruption and dictatorial policy making and enforcement. Americans will continued to be spied on, the United States will continue to engage in clandestine torture, our kids will continue dying in a war that is nothing more than the insane desire of a man who, without Congresional oversight, acts above the law. Despite his wishes, the 22nd Amendment will probably (hopefully) limit the chimp to less than 1000 days.

But what after the chimp is gone. Our next republican president (you may shudder here) may be sane, but if he, like the idiot-son, acts without fear of repercussion or accountability, it will be more of the same. Tax breaks to the rich, urination on the working class and the poor.

We simply must take back the White House. Nothing is more important.

And here's where the idealism part comes in.

I have honestly cried over this. We finally have a chance to dethrone these bastards and what do we do? We seriously consider giving Hillary the nod. What the fuck are we thinking? Remember, winning the war is more important than winning a battle.

Will Joe Six-Pack in Andalusia, Alabama, vote for Hillary? Even if he despises the chimp, will he vote for HIllary?

No fucking way.

How about we find a candidate that has a chance of winning? With so much at stake, we're ready to put a woman named Clinton into battle with some good ol boy?

Is the United States ready for a female President? Of course. Will a female, by virtue of her gender, have a disadvantage when battling a male? Absolutely. Is now the time to experiment? Fuck no. Not with all that is at stake. A female, northern Democrat named Clinton begins that battle at a real disadvantage. How about we find a guy who fits the mold of the last few Democratic Presidents:

Southern
middle of the road politically
trustworthy
charismatic
good looking
male

When marketing a product, (or a person) it is wise to consider the demographic, your potential consumers. For the Democratic candidate to win, republicans will have to vote for him. Me, I have never voted for a republican, I fucking hate the bastards. Now, put yourself in the place of a republikkkan who is sick of the way things are going, knows it's time for a change, but is tasked with voting down the party line, or for Mrs. Clinton. Jesus, just getting them to vote Democratic is enough of a challenge. How about we serve up someone who they may actually vote for. The simple act of voting Democratic is challenge enough, maybe we should make it a bit easier for them to join us?

The time is right. Fuckface is at 29%, which implies that even his solid base has had enough of him, as well as his cronies. After more than a decade of these bastards having their way, the time may finally be right for us to usurp the scuzballs. This could really be our time. And it will be, if we put ourself in the shoes of republicans who are ready for a change.

These are people we need.

Go ahead and flame away. I've seen threads deleted for less than this, so delete away, if that's your inclination. Flames, deleted threads and forum banning pales in comparison when considering the possibility of four more years of single-party, republican rule.

[marmar]

1. I hear you, but....

When is it going to be time? When will it be OK for the first woman, first African American, first Latino, first Jew, first openly gay person, first whatever to run?
We can't keep putting it off forever. The country is already mostly female and will be majority minority in 25 years. Change has got to take place.

:think:

P.S. - I'm not even a Hillary supporter. I want Al Gore to be our 2008 candidate.

[Cleetus]

8. When will it ever be the time?

When will it ever be the time? I addressed this, specifically my comment about winning the war being more important than winning the battle. If the choice is running a female, northern Democrat named Clinton, or taking back the White House, I say we postpone the social experiment and do what we have to do to regain power. The United States is at stake here. I want my country back first, then I'll be the first in line in a "Hillary for President" rally.

Don't get me wrong, if Hillary gets the nod, I'll vote for her, but if we're serious about dethroning these bastards, we're going to need to do better than Hillary Clinton.

Personally, I would vote for Obama in a heartbeat. Or Feingold. These men speak my language. So does Boxer and Pelosi. But let me ask you something. Would an Afican-American have a snowballs chance in hell of becoming President here and now?

Sadly, the answer is no. For the same reasons that middle America fears to death the very notion of Gays adopting, or leading scout troops. Much of the country is incredibly narrow minded, to the point of outright predjudice.

I would vote for Obama, but he would never win. Not now. I would vote for Hillary, but she would never win. Never. Polling data indicates that if the election were to be held now, McCain would have a double digit lead over Hillary, more than 20%.

Face it. A republican who is disgusted with republicans, who is ready for a change, would have (much) easier time voting for McCain than Hillary. All I know is that we're asking republicans to vote Democratic. Me, I couldn't ever imagine voting republican. Ever. But that'e exactly what we're asking them to do. We're asking them to vote Democratic.

"My Grand-Daddy voted republican, my Mom and Dad vote republican, I vote republican". This is what we're up against.

[blm]

2. Expose GOP control of media and voting machines and we can have a GREAT

progressive Democrat - preferrably from the anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic party.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. No flames here

the very fact that the rwing uses Hilary as their strawman so much of the time makes her, imho, a difficult sell amongst those who are looking for an alternative to Republicanism. Some have been so brainwashed as to believe she would be a real threat and would stir themselves to vote against her instead of staying home in disgust.

In my personal opinion, we need a fresh face who can frame our ideas in a way that is understandable to mainstream Americans, and who can get the word out, even if that means bypassing the MSM.

[Vincardog]

4. Right ya are. We are no better off with a Democratic Corporatist

than with a Republican one. Why don't we concentrate on getting a FAIR vote in 06 and taking b back both houses?

[Cleetus]

9. Amen

The deck is already stacked against us. Voting irregularities and fraud is becoming the norm, honesty and integrity is becoming the exception. The bastards are making their own voting machines. A close election is a lost election. If it's close, the bastards will cheat to win.

They did it in 2000, they probably did it in 2004. I believe they gave themselves Ohio.

Yep, for us, a close election is as good as a lost election. We need to beat them, and we need to beat them bad.

We need a candidate with mass appeal, that's what we need.

[Jason9612]

7. I know I'll get flamed for this, but our leadership just isn't cutting it.

They are appearing too "off the wall" and a bit too extreme for mainstream America. We need a new head of the Democratic Party, one that will appeal to the masses and get Dems the support they need to take the elections.

I'd rather have a more moderate Dem like myself in office than trying to get a far left-wing Democrat in office, who WON'T get support from the majority of people.

[Vincardog]

11. Dr. Dean is fine by me. He is not liberal enough. Obama on the other hand

is a disappointment.

[987654321]

5. And just what war are you talking about?

I won't throw flames. However, I'm just curious as to what war you are talking about. It sounds to me like you have it reversed. You want to win the battle, which would be the White House in 2006, even at the expense of the war, which is one between our values and ideals and the Republicans'.

What you seem to be saying is that, no matter who the person is, or what they truly stand for, you just want a Democrat to run who can win. You want someone who can be packaged just right so the voting American public will buy it. Well, on the other side of the political isle that is exactly what the Republican party did in supporting Bush. Look how well it has worked for them. Their party is getting torn apart because they sold out their own core ideals and values to get some ignorant schmuck elected.

I just don't want that to happen to our side. I know we must win back Congress and the White House. I too am afraid of our country being dragged even lower by the hateful, unethical, corporate tools that run their party. But I would never sell out my ideals as a liberal Democrat because of that fear. I believe in those ideals too much. And there is no true victory when it is at the expense of one's own self-respect.

And by the way, I do not support Senator Clinton. I believe she is selling out, not unlike John McCain on the Republican side. My support for her waned because of the stance she had stated on the war in Iraq, and the support she had given to the Bush. She then lost any chance with me when she let Rupert Murdoch host a fund raiser for her. Talk about pandering to the corporate political machine!

[SmokingJacket]

6. Actually she doesn't have a ton of support here.

She kowtows toward the imaginary middle.

I'd certainly vote for her over ANY republican, but she's not in my top ten for the Dem primary.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. You're kind of preaching to the choir here.

You won't find very many people on this site who want Hillary to be our candidate in 2008.

Myself, I happen to support a Southern
trustworthy
charismatic
good looking
male
who's very progressive, but is percieved as being middle of the road politically.

There are other women that I would happily support, like Barbara Boxer, but not Hillary. I don't have issues with the fact that she's female, but I don't like her politics and apparent lack of principle. I also agree that she's not electable.