Am I a lousy Democrat?

[charlyvi]

I've been a Dem all my voting life--as were my parents and grandparents. But I am REALLY sick of hearing the names Clinton, Gore and Kerry. I think we need someone else to run in 2008--we need to go forward, not back. With all respect to the wonderful public service they have done, I don't see the value in repeating the same ideological warfare--I want an alternative. Does that make me a bad Democrat?

[BamaLefty]

1. Hell No!

So you don't want Hillary, Al, or John to run for Prez.... how does that make you a bad Democrat at all.

-- The honest opinion of a proud, 17 y/o Democrat :hi:

[charlyvi]

7. Well. Those names seem to be the main ones

being discussed for party nominee in '08. I have battle fatigue with them, but in no way do I dismiss their service to our country. Just want a new crop.

[GetTheRightVote]

2. I am not sick of hearing those names, they represent many things

that we are fighting for these days, fair elections, no war, etc. The names represent so much yet but not thinking so does not make you a bad party member, no way.

:kick:

[charlyvi]

3. Thanks.

I was beginning to wonder.

[mitchtv]

4. as long as the new names are not

Biden, Lieberman, Feinstein, Bayh, Warner, or Landreau

[charlyvi]

Oh yes. Those names make me....

:puke:

Though, to be fair, they woundn't be elected if they weren't FAR to the right of the mainstreat Dem party. Sad, isn't it?

[pocket]

5. THEY are the lousy Democrats

not you.

[charlyvi]

13. I don't think they're lousy dems,

I'm just sick of the same names over and over. We need FRESH BLOOD! INNOVATION! We need a modern day FDR.

[blm]

29. Really? That poster uncovered IranContra, BCCI and alerted the nation to

the threat of terror as far back as 96? That poster helped to END three wars?

Please use some perspective when you speak like that. There isn't a person on this board or a Democrat in office today who has investigated and exposed more government corruption than John Kerry has.

John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich and Henry Waxman may join him in that distinction some day, but even they are not there yet.

[charlyvi]

30. I agree. He has a sterling senatorial career behind him.

But he lost. He may have been robbed, but he is not in the WH right now. I mean no disrespect toward Kerry, Clinton or Gore. Not at all. But doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity--we need new blood.

[blm]

34. I'll work to expose the GOP control of media and voting machines and YOU

pretend that the only problem is the Democratic candidate or the Dem platform.

Good luck with that. btw...would you prefer us media and BBV activists drop our efforts so your candidate of choice can compete on the same media and voting machine playing field as Gore and Kerry?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[blm]

37. The point was that NO Democrat wins without dealing with and exposing the

GOP control of the media and the voting machines. And that goes for SouthernGovernorFourStarGeneralJesusChrist, himself, if he existed.

I was being somewhat abrupt and dry but not rude. Just weary of people misdirecting blame - because if it came down to it, would anyone disagree that if we had a real media and secure voting machines that Gore or Kerry would still have lost based on their campaign performance?

They both won with 90% of broadcast media working to prop up Bush in 2000 and 2004 and 80% of the voting machines controlled by Bush loyalists in 2004.

[charlyvi]

38. Um. I'm not aware I blamed anyone.

In fact, I went out of my way to extol the service of Clinton, Kerry and Gore. I realize the problems involved--that doesn't mean I want the same people trying to overcome the obvious problems.

Nowhere in my post did I claim that fresh blood would solve the media or blackbox problem, did I? I was not even speaking to that aspect of any dem's uphill battle. What I did state is the need for new people to take up the mantle. I'm tired of the shrub/clinton paradigm, the shrub/gore paradigm, the shrub/kerry paradigm. I don't think any one of those folks could win, respecfully. We need a winner. That's all I meant.

PS--You were rude.

[blm]

40. With media and BBV, 4StarGeneralJesusChrist would lose to Frist, if that's

the result BushInc wanted.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Kerry is a good man who ran a mediocre campaign.

So is Al Gore. Both were victims of widespread vote fraud and election theft on the part of the GOP. Al Gore, in particular, has impressed me in the past year or two. If he remains feisty and willing to fight, I think he will make an excellent candidate in '08.

Hillary has been pissing me off lately with her transparent DLC "centrist" positioning and her hawkishness. I'm not writing her off entirely, although I think she would be an astoundingly bad candidate for several reasons.

But to call them "lousy Democrats" is more than a stretch.

[mandyky]

43. The OP did not call anyone a lousy Dem

The OPer asked if they were a lousy Dem.

People need to read before accusing!

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Yes, people really DO need to read---

if you bother to look, the post I was responding to (#5)... called them lousy democrats.

[Ysolde]

6. I don't think so.

I agree. I'm tired of the DLC and its ilk. I want a leader that actually knows what its like to worry about losing your job (and the oh-so-necessary healthcare coverage because you'll never be able to get your chronically sick kid insurance on your own), thus worrying about losing your house, your car, etc. I want a Democrat who couldn't ever bring themselves to vote for the bankruptcy bill, or Rice, or Gonzalez, or compromise on the filibuster (thus giving us lifetime appointments for some of the most extreme judicial activists ever). Don't know who at this point (I like Conyers, but I think there are still too many bigots in this country for him to win), but someone else!

[Montauk6]

8. Well, I see your point if you're referring to the need for fresh blood

But if you're going on the notion of "the Dems need to change their strategy blahblahblah," I think it's moot.

The ONLY strategy that needs changing is this goddamned idea that we have to tread lightly to the point of sheer avoidance when it comes to the voter fraud issue. Gore and (possibly) Kerry won, even with their flawed campaigns, but got BEAT by a corrupt system.

[charlyvi]

15. Sometimes I feel as though this is the same battle

over and over. We need someone to change the parameters.

[Terran1212]

9. Kerry, clinton, gore -- all war makers and corporate hounds

That's just the truth.

Democrats are just as much stuck in the status quo as the Republicans.

[charlyvi]

18. I wouldn't go that far.

I think Dems are pragmatic--but I don't think they are nearly as corrupt or idealogically subversive as repubs. Since they are the only party that could realistically win the presidency, I will stick by them. WOW. I guess I answered my own question!

[Terran1212]

24. Under Bill Clinton, we were still the most militaristic nation on earth

We still had a huge discrepancy of wealth, still a government controlled by a rich elite, still a massive secret police force at home, still a policy driven against the poor of the world

Face it, both parties have very little to offer for anyone except the elite. We need to get out of this party system and make a government of the people.

Revolution?

If that is what it takes.

[ReverendDeuce]

31. But... but... I'm progressive... and I support a strong military...

And by strong, I mean effective. Be it man-power, technology, smarts, etc. I especially like what the Air Force has been doing with anti-matter warheads (not sci-fi -- they are researching this), their devestation is very real but they have none of the environmental impact like nuclear weapons.

Anyway... that's just me.

[bowens43]

10. I'm with you (almost)

If they're the best we have we may as well resign ourselves to many more years of Republicans holding the presidency.

However , I see the problem differently. I think that it was a lack of ideological warfare that caused our losses.

Kerry, Gore and Mrs Clinton all worked hard to blur the core differences between us and them.

IMO we NEED idealogical warfare.

[charlyvi]

22. True.

What I meant by "ideological warfare" was pretty much Repubs demonizing us and Dems trying to counter it. We need someone to run who speaks directly to the public from our roots--not just in defence of ridiculous accusations.

[mopaul]

11. you're a realist

we are not marching zombies, we are democrats with minds of our own. we need new names representing us.

[Just Me]

44. As "realists", we MUST prioritize our common interest to DEFEAT,...

,...the criminal regime that controls our nation. WE are NOT going to advance any of our causes if we fail to unite against the BushCo/neoCON regime.

Once we gather our united forces to take these bastards down, then we can advance and progress. But, if we fail to unite against them, we will lose EVERYTHING.

If my position doesn't make sense, practical and REALISTIC sense,...maybe, I should voice my appeal elsewhere.

:shrug:

[LightningFlash]

12. Totally agree.

I am not interested in any of those characters or Joe Biden. We need someone who's a true democrat and we need to get rid of all democrats in name only. We need someone who will back up everything they do.

We need someone like Barbara Boxer, who stands up for what is right no matter what the cost is.

[charlyvi]

14. Yep. Boxer is good.

I have a feeling she would make a kick ass president--she would do the right thing. (Even if it went against popular opinion).

[LightningFlash]

27. Yes and she has never taken corporate interests seriously.

Unlike all these other copouts she stands by her conviction. And does what is best for her constituents not the corporate businesses who run the world.

[charlyvi]

28. We Need Her!

Before we become a robber baron society. I fear for our children and grandchildren--will they know what America once was?

[longship]

16. The Dem Purification Court finds you...

guilty of being an unpatriotic, unDemocratic buffoon.
We sentence you to five years in an unpadded cell with
G. Gordon Liddy tapes piped in 24/7.

Seriously, the only thing you are guilty of is being a Democrat, regrettably something that too many people in this country equate to a capital crime.

Stay the course, we're all with you.

[charlyvi]

19. LOL!

We are a rather diverse group, aren't we?

[SouthernDem2004]

17. No. I personally am tired of Democrats that have lost once trying to run

again. I do not want to see anyone from last elections Primaries run again. I would like to see new blood and not a bunch of losers.

[charlyvi]

20. Exactly. Even if they were robbed!

We need new blood. New ideas. Guts.

[kliljedahl]

21. I agree, is there another Wellstone out there?

We need someone who challenges, not acquiesces.


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[charlyvi]

23. Yes. Yes. Enough said.

[kliljedahl]

25. Just read your sig line

"you're either nuts or a Republican."

That's redundant, isn't it?


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[charlyvi]

26. Bwahahahaha! Yep.

[salin]

32. I think we should be focusing on 2006 long before 2008.

Public is getting restless. That works in our advantage. I'll start worrying about 2008 in the second week of November of 2006.

[charlyvi]

36. Yep. Buyer's remorse.

I have a feeling 2006 will be good to us.

[sendero]

39. I feel exactly the same way..

... these folks who've been in government too long get sucked into the process and they cannot think for themselves any more.

This is one reason I'm such a huge Dean and Clark supporter - as cliched as it sounds, they really do think outside the box, and that's the only way we're going to get out of the box the GOP has put us in.

[mandyky]

41. If you are, I am

I voted for Nader in 00, Gore was a turn off.
I voted for Kerry because Dean asked us to.
And Hillary is not ready to be President. She is a ONE term senator, and no experience before that of her own.

I'll be rooting for the best Gov of the bunch, once we know who's running.

[Just Me]

42. I think you should focus on taking down the treasonous assholes.

Just my opinion.

Until we REMOVE the bastards who control this country, I will not be distracted by the politics within the Democratic or Independent or Green parties.

As far as I'm concerned, until we ALL unite against the criminals-in-charge, none of us can advance our causes.