Does it matter which Democrat wins the nomination?

[progressivebydesign]

Okay. I have been writing back and forth with a few Democrats on another board. There has been a rash of discussion lately on DU and other places in which people are trying to guess who is the one to beat Bush, and vote in their primaries accordingly. That is what supposedly happened in Iowa, to some extent. I want to toss in my position on hedging our bets in the primaries, and see what you all think.

I think we have an AMAZING, AMAZING pool of Democratic candidates. We may not prefer this guy or that guy, but I have to admit we are filthy rich with talent this year. Do you ever remember having all these good candidates to choose from? I don't. No one, absolutely no one can predict which one will defeat Bush. Polls don't help us. There are too many polls now, and the sample groups are too small to really mean anything. And, they change hourly. The opinions of people all over the country last election had very little to do with the enormity of Florida voter's opinions. I think ANY of the candidates can defeat Bush. They all have their strong points, they all have their weaknesses. Rather than beat each other over the head about whose candidate is better, or how much someone else's candidate sucks, we should realize that any of them can beat George Bush. It has more to do with the mindset of the electorate, rather than the overused term, "electability". As Democrats WE can make sure the nominee beats Bush if we dedicate ourselves to it.

So.. here's my point. Support your candidate. Vote for the candidate that resonates with your heart... Don't try to guess who is "electable" and who is not. We mere mortals cannot foresee that. Vote with your heart in the primaries.. and commit yourself to fighting just as hard for the eventual nominee, even if it's not your first choice. Defeating Bush is not about a candidate.. there is NO perfect candidate. Defeating Bush is about our power as Democrats to make it happen. United.

Thoughts??

[coloradodem2005]

1. No.

We have a great pool of candidates, and while I lean Dean, I would be happy to support any of these people. John Kerry is good and has a goo record, at least until Bush II came in. Clark definitely has his head on straight and Edwards has a positive message. I also like a lot of what Kucinich says. I do have reservations about Lieberman.

[Quixote1818]

2. No as long as Clark is some place on the Ticket for

Defense and National security and his being from the south. We need him to win even if he is not
#1 on the ticket.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Electing Kerry is a mere change in personnel

Kerry won't change Bush's imperialist PNAC policies because he also shares the same goals, he only disagrees in how Bush went about them.

With Kerry we will still have PATRIOT Act on the books, and First Amendment Zones for demonstrators, and an endless war in Iraq and elsewhere.

Kerry will never give us universal health insurance.

Kerry will never give us full civil rights for gays.

Kerry will be the liberal version of Bush's "compassionate conservative."

[NNN0LHI]

6. Would Kerry keep Ashcroft as AG? n/t

[IndianaGreen]

10. No, but PATRIOT will remain on the books

It is like replacing Hitler with Goering, different personnel, same policies.

[NNN0LHI]

11. Will Bush have to give up the Nuclear Football if Kerry becomes president?

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/c3i/nuclear-football.htm

The Football

The Football is a secure briefcase that contains the information needed to enable the President to authorize and initiate a nuclear weapons strike. It follows the President where ever he goes and is never more that a few steps from his side. A military officer carries the Football and undergoes the nation's most rigorous security background check, "Yankee White". The contents of the Football are believed to include:

The "black book" of nuclear weapons launch options as formulated in the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). The current SIOP is SIOP 04.

The Emergency Action Message (EAM) or "go codes" needed to authorize use of nuclear weapons;

A booklet on "Emergency Procedures White House" outlining secure locations to which the President could be directed and describing use of the Emergency Broadcast System;

A secure telephone.

The concept of the football came about in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Kennedy was concerned that some Soviet commander in Cuba might launch their missiles without authorization from Moscow. After the crisis, Kennedy ordered a review of the U.S. Nuclear Command and Control system. The result was the highly classified National Security Action Memorandum that created the Football.

more

[LostInTheMaise]

13. But Kerry will ban leaf blowers!

Won't that eliminate the huge danger to many Americans? What more could we ask for?

[newyawker99]

15. Hi LostInTheMaise!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[THUNDER HANDS]

16. nobody will give you universal health insurance or gay rights or

anything like that as long as the Republicans control congress.

And if you think that Kerry isn't an improvement over Bush than you're probably either blinded by your support for another candidate or you haven't paid much attention to Kerry's career and the things he's fought for in his life.

[creativelcro]

18. Agreed on all counts...

And he's my senator... please, senator, stay that way...

[schultzee]

4. No. Getting rid of that Corporatist is priority number one.

[countmyvote4real]

5. Great post and I am there except for Lieberman, but

I don't think that we'll nominate him.

My head tells me Clark.

My heart tells me either Edwards or Dean.

And if it turns out to be Kerry and the alternative is * ?

ABB

[angee_is_mad]

7. Yes it does matter

but in the end it would be ABB and I will support whoever the nominee is.

[mikehiggins]

8. Each candidate has weaknesses and strengths

I have heard that we have a great field of candidates and I'm not interested in debating that. What I see is a candidate having to go up against a well financed incumbent, in an arena where our opponent benefits from a lap-dog, ball-washing media, whose own corporate interests are best served by keeping their mouths shut and following the morning memo.

I honestly think we have very little chance of beating Bush, despite all of the terrible, terrible things he has done, and is doing, and will do again. I know you can't fool all of the people all of the time but all Bush has to do is fool enough of them to get back into office for another four years. I think his chances are good, especially if facing a traditionaly politician whose life and career are centered on a position of power within the Beltway.

I believe that Clark has a fair shot.

I believe Dean has little chance at all, but more than Edwards

These three men are all outsiders but two of them have widespread grassroots organizations and the ability to raise large sums of money from lots of people, which pretty much guarantees those people will come out and vote for them. Admittedly there weren't as many of them as Governor Dean thought there were in Iowa (he should check his mailing lists and send all his Iowa supporters a personal thank you, by the way--in writing and without a fund raiser attached)

Edwards might not have such a widespread base of support but there are trial lawyers in every state and they are well known for supporting and financing someone who is likely to put their interests way up front in the crowd. So Edwards might be able to raise nearly as much money as Bush, and he's twice as smart and three times as good looking.

I beleive John Kerry has too much baggage on too many fronts to be able to defeat Bush. Even after all the crap Bush has done he will still be able to portray himself as the "outsider" when compared to Kerry, and that's just to start.

I believe Lieberman is literally too right wing to defeat Bush at all. As Truman remarked, the voters aren't likely to replace a real Republican with a make-believe Republican. Lieberman has all the democratic credentials you could wish for--and if you ask he'll tell you about them--but the fact remains he is very ineffective as a spokesperson for the values of the party.

So yeah, to me it really does matter who wins the nomination. I am ABB and will support whomever the convention awards the prize to.

I just don't think any of our candidates has a shot except Clark.

[SheilaT]

9. In some ways, no it doesn't matter.

In a free, fair, and honest election, I think any of the top four (Clark, Dean, Edwards, and Kerry) would win hands down. The real question is whether we will have a free, fair, and honest election.

[fabius]

12. I think our top four are all awesome.

Really a good field this year. Usually we just get one or two "stars"

Now we've got four stars in my opinion as well as some very principled "message" candidates to keep the discussion lively.

And they are speaking more truth this year than I've heard from politicians in a long time.

[AntiCoup2K4]

14. Hell yes it matters

You have one candidate who's more committed to the PNAC agenda than even Bush is. Who has an insane outburst in the middle of a debate where he repeats every lie the Fraudministration has told about Iraq. Thankfully his chances of being the nominee are very slim.

You have another candidate with a PNAC'er on his campaign, who also happens to be a member of the same "secret society" as most of the Bush Criminal Empire and their cronies. Unfortunately, he's currently the front runner.

Then you have the guy who sounds good with his stories of being the son of a mill worker and all that, and who might be a genuinely good guy - but who's in his first political job as a Freshman senator and is in all likelihood, far too young, politically to handle the job under the conditions the current regime has created.

And these three candidates are the ones that have the backing of the machine controlling our party. A machine that's far more concerned with trying to pull in more corporate dollars than the Republicans than they are with carryin on the long established values of the Democratic party.

Fuck yes it matters. None of the above is going to turn this country around.

[democratreformed]

17. To me, it matters also

It's a matter of wanting the best versus just getting by.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. It does matter, but not for reasons of "electability"

Given the fact that even the corporate polls are showing disillusionment with Bush, I think that any of our guys could get elected.

The question is what they do once they're in office. If they go all Bill Clinton on us and act as if they're afraid the bullies in the Republican party will give them swirlies, then 2008 will be a disaster, because they will not have done enough to undo the damage wrought by 16 years of Republican administrations.

The highly coveted swing voters will conclude that nothing much has changed, and the base will be increasingly tempted to go Green.

We need someone who can draw lines in the sand and make it clear that he will stand up to the bullies among the R's and motivate the wimps on the D side. We need someone who is as skilled as Reagan in motivating supporters to badger their Congresscritters.

In looking at the candidates, I rank them on the basis of how well they have done this in the past. The last thing we need is someone who plays Mr. Nicey-Nice with the neocons.

[MidwestMomma]

20. Yes, we need someone who will stand up to the bullies

That's why I'm concerned about electing as President someone that voted yes on IWR. Not only because it authorized an unjust war, but because in my opinion they voted yes because they were afraid of getting 'swirlies' and looking bad to the public. I really would like to see candidate willing to go against public opinion to do what is right for the country. I would like to see a president less concerned with getting re-elected and more concerned with what's best for our country.

The Right is so good at deciding what is good for the country and then convincing the country that they are right. When are we going to figure out how to do that? I'm tired of the people of influence and power in the Democratic party sitting around and letting the Republicans frame every issue their way.

We have got to quit being the party of reaction to the Right and become the proactive party. I'm tired of always being on the defensive.

It's corny but all I can think of is a football analogy. The Right always has the ball and keeps scoring and then when we do get the ball, we just immediately punt it back to them without even putting our offense on the field.

I am fed up with the far Right defining what this country stands for and wanting to shut up and exclude anyone they perceive as different. I like that our country is made of diverse people of every race, color, creed and sexual orientation. And guess what, if the people on the far Right and the Fundies don't like it, it's time for them to GET THE HELL OUT.

I'm sure they can find a country where intolerance and hatred is better accepted and the norm. But I refuse for MY America to be that way.

But all that being said, at this time it does come down to beating Bush in the fall and I will do all can to support the eventual nominee and make sure they win the election. But whoever it is, once elected, I expect them to perform their duties to a higher standard than we have seen in the past. My hope is they will exceed all our expectations.

Thanks for listening.

[progressivebydesign]

23. My thoughts on IWR vote and the candidates..

I am mellowing a bit on that vote. Not because I suddenly endorse this war.. My candidate was squarely against it. BUT.. I have to give some leeway in my criticism of those that voted for the IWR because, they are public servants.. they try to vote as their constituency would want them to, but balance it with their own beliefs. With the majority of Americans (seemingly) in favor of the IWR (based on BS from Bush), their votes seemed correct to them. That had to be a very difficult decision. I respect those that did not vote for it.. much more than those that did. I'm just trying to be understanding about the circumstances around that politically and emotionally charged vote.

[MidwestMomma]

24. I haven't based my candidate support soley on the IWR vote

Not because the war is not important or that I support the war, but because it's just one of many issues important to me. I pretty much have cut all the candidates slack on the IWR vote from the beginning based on just what you've stated. I remember how ugly this country was at that point about dissent of any kind from popular opinion. But I guess that's what I'm not sure about. Did the candidates vote for IWR because their constituency wanted them to or because they were afraid? There's a difference to me.

I remember it being very difficult to speak out against the war last year and I think it would of been easier if some of our party leadership would have spoken out even if it would have been political suicide. But then again, if they had and lost their elections, we could be worst off then now. This is something I am really conflicted about. How much must we compromise and at what cost. I'm still searching for an answer. Thanks for your response.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Hell yes it matters. At least to anti-war voters.

And, to all voters who think that the Democratic Party should be something other than the moderate wing of the republican party, ready to blow with the wind even if it costs lives.

I, for one, will not vote for a pro-war candidate in the GE. Nor do I believe that a pro-war, DLC, not "too-liberal", candidate can win in November.

The IWR vote by the supposed "liberals" Kerry, Dean and Gephardt, shows the rotteness eating away at the Democratic Party where moving to the right is excused as "electability" and "smart politics" papered over with rationalizations that smack of absurdity. i.e., "I was too stupid to know that bush was lying to us." Or, "The war is a good thing, just not run properly."

I'll not vote for them if they're nominated and will work against both them and bush 'til November.

[progressivebydesign]

22. Quick correction for you. Dean didn't vote for IWR.

Dean is the anti-Iraq war candidate, too. I think you mean Edwards.

While I understand your point. I still believe that not one of the Democratic candidates would start a pre-emptive war, if they were in office... regardless of their IWR vote.