The Dungeon's Super Tuesday poll

[Anarcho-Socialist]

Poll question: The Dungeon's Super Tuesday poll

This is not about 9/11 but the poll is for those OCTers/Truthers who frequent this forum.

[salvorhardin]

1. Edwards was the only one I was rooting for

Both Obama and Clinton leave me cold for various reasons though if I had to pick, Obama would edge out Clinton by a small fraction. On the other hand if it comes down to electability I'd say Clinton would be the choice, but only that I think she stands a better chance than Obama. Personally I'm pessimistic and don't think either one is electable against McCain. I hope I'm wrong.

Anyhow, I chose the third option.

[CGowen]

2. Hillary would have allies among the crazies to beat McCain, in the form of Coulter for example

Ann Coulter: McCain nomination would make me a 'Hillary girl'
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Friday February 1, 2008


It seems as though the latest game among some conservative pundits is to play "can you top this" in seeing how far they can go to proclaim their distaste for Senator John McCain.

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh drew media attention to himself last week when he suggested he might not support McCain if he became the Republican nominee. Now Ann Coulter has upped the ante, telling Fox News host Sean Hannity that if John McCain is the Republican nominee, she's supporting Hillary Clinton.

"If he's our candidate, then Hillary's going to be our girl," Coulter asserted. "Because she's more conservative than he is. I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism. ... I absolutely believe that. ... I will campaign for her if it's McCain."

Coulter went on to enumerate the areas in which she finds Clinton preferable to McCain, saying, "He has led the fight against -- well, as you say, interrogations, I say torture -- at Guantanamo. She hasn't done that."



...

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_Ill_campaign_for_Hillary_if_0201.html

[BeachBaby]

3. That tells me only one thing.

It tells me that Coulter has been thinking of the best way to make sure the Democrats don't win this election.

A Coulter-endorsed Democrat is a sure loss.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

11. It's a two-pronged message

She's saying she doesn't like McCain by saying he's worse than "Hillary", who is considered to be synonymous with Satan by Freepers. This message is aimed at Republicans.

The so-called "endorsement" for Clinton is actually also a smear which is indicated by the following two paragraphs from the article.

"Conservative bloggers in general reacted to Coulter's remarks by calling her an "idiot" or a "lunatic." However, one commenter at a conservative blog may have been more perceptive in offering the suggestion that "it is possible that Coulter said this to cause trouble for Hillary."

It does seem that Coulter may have been deliberately smearing Clinton on the torture issue. Despite claims last fall that she had been vague on the matter, Clinton clearly said at that time, "I think we have to draw a bright line and say 'No torture – abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed.'" A year earlier, Clinton had decried torture in announcing her opposition to the Military Commissions Act."

[BeachBaby]

14. Ack! Didn't see the article link at the bottom of your post.

Thanks for pasting the quotes.:) I see your point.

[CGowen]

16. I don't really know what her intentions are,but this whole Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch thing is

interesting.

And I don't know who Rush is going to endorse if McCain gets the nomination.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-stark/hillary-and-bill-clinto_b_41823.html,

[Anarcho-Socialist]

21. Yes it is

It could indicate a number of things. Firstly that Murdoch thinks that Senator Clinton has a strong chance of winning and as such doesn't want to deal with a Congress and President who is pissed off at him. Murdoch stuck his colours closely with the GOP for a decade or so but as a pragmatist and opportunist he sees the political landscape shifting.

Secondly, one needs to consider to what extent this Clinton-Murdoch relationship will go. Whether it is just some cozying up by Murdoch, or some sort of unwritten agreement where News Corp doesn't hassle Clinton so that a potential President Clinton doesn't scrutinise Murdoch's media monopoly.

[CGowen]

24. GOP sources: Romney to suspend campaign

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3172312&mesg_id=3172312



So what are Rush, Coulter and Beck going to do now?

[Bolo Boffin]

25. I just read last night that they were pressing on!

Maybe Tagg's gonna have some inheritance left after all.

[CGowen]

27. FOX News labels McCain as a (D-AZ), I wonder if that's not "a surrender to terror"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2833869
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/07/fox-news-labels-john-mccain-a-democrat/

...
"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney said in a speech, excerpts of which were first published by the
..
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/AP_Romney_to_suspend_his_presidential_0207.html

I don't really know what the plan is, some suggest that someone wants a Bloomberg/McCain or Bloomberg/Lieberman ticket.

Either way, if there is one FOX viewer left in this world, they can't think FOX is a serious news outlet.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[JackRiddler]

5. Hm, apparently my first answer was too snarky.

I wish there was a feature that at least sent the rejected text back to us by mail.

This poll lacks obvious alternatives, is therefore invalid.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. The only other Democratic option would be Mike Gravel.

Should we assume that he is your choice here?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

7. Lighten up

This poll is for fun, it's a web poll after all.

[JackRiddler]

9. Sure - then my comments are for fun, too.

If you had the first two choices only, it would be reflecting reality.

The third implies a form of political correctness. As though the only option if you don't like either is to support the winner in the general. Third party, non-voting, willingness to vote in the general for one but not the other - these are also options, no?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

10. ...

Considering that participating posters here do so under the agreement that they will support Democratic candidates, a voting option for third parties or refusal to vote should be surplus to requirements.

[JackRiddler]

12. Here's the most specific rendering in the rules.

"You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

"Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate."

---

Now I dispute that to vote against a Democrat in a "fun" poll (or to acknowledge that the option even exists in reality) is equivalent to "work for the defeat."

In practice, hypotheticals in advance of there being a nominee are clearly allowed, as a glance at the GD : P forum shows. There, many people say they will never vote for a given candidate if s/he is the nominee.

Advocacy activity aside, is one allowed to criticize the Democrats or even *reject* given Democrats as frauds of one kind or another? Clearly, it's what about half the members do regularly, speaking of DINOs and sell-outs and enablers, etc. It's practically why they come here - to bitch about how the Party is a pathetic shadow of what it should be, at any rate of what they would like it to be.

And who defines what it should be? You, me, James Carville?

Tell me, if I said I would never vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a Bush enabler, would you advocate my tombstoning, were she to become the nominee-designate?

It is because I believe in the professed ideals of the Democratic Party, and in the ideals normally associated with it, that I come here, hoping to one day see the Democratic Party actually come into existence (in the same way that Gandhi when asked what he thought of Western civilization said, "It would be an excellent idea!")

There are also those who would say anarcho-socialism, if I may bring that up, is contrary to Democratic Party goals. I disagree, or would want it otherwise.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

13. Two points

I can appreciate your feelings about Senator Clinton. But if she were the nominee and you felt that you couldn't support her, then I imagine that you would be best posting elsewhere. Although you might want to talk with admin about it. If you feel that you can't support a Clinton candidacy but you would support Democratic candidates elsewhere then you could ask if you could continue to post as long as you didn't promote or express support for other party candidates.

If she does become the nominee then I hope you would change your mind. Any of the Democratic candidates is far more preferable to any of the Republican candidates. My preferred candidate was John Edwards, and felt disappointed when he withdrew from the race. I don't find many policy differences between Clinton and Obama, but would desire either to win the presidency. Having a Democrat in the White House would allow a Democratic Congress to function more effectively.

Secondly, you are right of course that anarcho-socialism is contrary to some goals of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a pro-capitalist party. However, since the time of FDR the Democratic Party has been the most progressive party out of the big two for the most part. I support the election of Democratic candidates to offices out of pragmatism and realism.

[JackRiddler]

15. I just had a funny thought...

If we elected presidents for life, I would fight that system, obviously.

But weirdly enough, if this was a president for life being chosen, I would prefer to live under Hillary Clinton over any of the Republicans.

However, I am aware that there is going to be an election in 2012.

Based on my observations of US politics since around the 1976 election - not to suggest mere age grants wisdom, but in fact to admit that I think I know what's coming, based on experience, even if I'm wrong.

A second Clinton presidency would be a disaster. Voting for Clinton today is asking for the equivalent of a third Bush in 2012, and Republicans and the right wing to run things through 2020 (after which there will be no illusions left about the American state).

For the crisis that's here, she's really the worst choice, not because of any lack of talents on her part. It's just too much baggage. Too many enemies. Too much capitulation in the past, by her and by her predecessor in the Clinton dynasty. For every fart that happens, she will be blamed, and it will stick, and worst of all she will be blamed as a LIBERAL (which totally appalls me).

She's the perfect set-up for Jeb, or worse, in 2012.

[Fainter]

26. Please Elaborate On "the crisis that's here"...

I believe the Constitution is in extremis, as is the credit driven nightmare in the U.S. that we call an "economy". Feel free to give us your views on how our failing economic policies are exacerbating our failing foreign policy and vice-versa. I'm not asking too much, am I Jack? :>)))

[CJCRANE]

8. Gore, Clark, Edwards, Kucinich.

Shame they were either not running or dropped out.

The two left in the race are OK too, I like them both almost equally but for different reasons.

[eridani]

17. Of course Kucinich has been calling for reopening 9/11 for some time now n/t

[biermeister]

18. what happened to none of the above?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

19. Are you on the right website?

[biermeister]

22. I hope so-

I was wondering what I should do if neither appealed to me (which they don't).

[AZCat]

20. Do we need to check in when we've actually voted?

6:00 AM, bright and early (ok, maybe not the "bright" part).

[number6]

23. I prefer

Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton for the nominee

and the Plane / no Plane theory (no plane at the Pentagram)
and Planes hit the towers aided by explosives ....
(modified controlled demolition)