I know it hurts

[aspberger]

when your favorite candidate loses, but let's agree to support a proven winner for the next election. Don't we all deserve to taste victory? If you believe this, look at winners only for this next election.

[quiet.american]

1. Ah, that it were so easy.

Like art, who looks like a winner is largely subjective.

[aspberger]

2. how about if they lost in a presidential election or

never won more than 30% of the vote in any previous presidential primary.

[quiet.american]

40. Well, that old disclaimer comes to mind.... :)

"Past performance may not be an indication of future results."

Based on their pasts, no one expected Lincoln or Truman to win, and they turned out to be two of the strongest presidents we've ever had.

[blondeatlast]

3. I'll campaign like hell for anyone who meets my standards, then most

likely campaign for the nominee, unless they are a major league DINO.

Too soon to tell, and my eyes are on another prize--the House and Senate. they mean more than ever with this damn SCOTUS.

[CWebster]

4. Gee, I wonder who you could mean?

:eyes:

[aspberger]

6. i do have a candidate in mind

but that's not the point. We have really battled hard in 2000 and 2004 and both times come up short. If we pick a winner, a bluff of invincability, just might be enough to push us over the top next time. Also come election season, disgruntled big mouths must hold their tongues. A "if you can't say something nice, say nothing at all" policy must be implemented at election season.

[ProudDad]

15. You can't win

if the deck's stacked against you.

In 2000, there was a coup -- finalized by the right-wing supreme court.

In 2004, there was a rigged election -- engineered by the co-chair of the bush reelection machine in Ohio.

We battled hard, won and had the elections stolen from us. Face it. We live in a country that not only resembles a third-world dictatorship in terms of the insane inequality of opportunity and income distribution but we live in a third-world dictatorship that makes sure that the elections come out "right".

It doesn't matter WHO the dems run. If it's another capitalist stooge who doesn't talk about the true class divide in this country, the result will be the same. Another pres from the two right-wings of the business party.

[xxqqqzme]

41. '00 was a rabid rong wing coup;

'04 was a corporate coup. All is now settled. Two states w/ large electoral numbers have now been rigged - successfully. This pattern can now B duplicated in any state w/ a compliant Sec of State.

I'm sorry, I would hope otherwise but I fear Hackett will lose 2morrow cuz the rabid rong rethugs control the machines.

[saskatoon]

95. Stacked deck

I hate to say this but I think the only solution is a Revolution, we did it against the the British and this is JUST as bad as back then. Think about it. Just finished reading "Who Will Tell the People" look up the title and get summary. It will hit you between the eyes. I was so unaware I thought all this had happened recently but it has been eroding our rights under the Constitution for some time.

[Larkspur]

19. Disgruntled big mouths must hold their tongues? Ha Ha ha ha

And what is the penalty for those of us who abhor the DLC corporate whores?

And don't you remember this policy was implemented in 2004 and it still did not produce a Dem Prez winner.

The problem is leaders, like Hillary, consider themselves princes of the people and that mentality breeds resentment and revolution. Maybe Hillary will end up like Marie Antoinette. Both were liked by the people intiially.

Even if Hillary manges to eke out a win in 2008, assuming she's the 2008 Dem nominee, she will still face opposition within her Party and the Nation. We may have to put up with her but real change comes from the grassroots up. Just ask Marie Antoinette.

[mattclearing]

5. Again?

Is this even a topic? What's a winner look like? I'm not even sure what the OP is talking about, but if it's anything like previous posts, I can guess.

I got my thread locked the last time I said anything about it.

It's not DLC-bashing to knock this content-free post, though.

[aspberger]

7. how is not wasting time on previously failed candidates

a content-free post?

[mattclearing]

11. You didn't say anything about previous failed candidates. n/t

[aspberger]

14. I feel some

vibes coming from you. What gives?

[mattclearing]

18. Are you high? n/t

[Bridget Burke]

8. Hilary's not my current favorite....

But are some folks trying to make her look bad by association?

[LittleClarkie]

9. Problem darling is the differing opinion on who that would be

I imagine from you avatar you have yours picked out.

But she's no more proven than anyone else. Just her husband, and Hillary is NO Bill.

[aspberger]

12. that's fair

but WHICH candidate will step up? Evan Bayh perhaps?

[ulysses]

10. can't imagine who you have in mind.

:eyes:

[election_2004]

13. Are you talking about when the primaries are over?

Are you simply calling for party unity when one person comes out victorious in the primaries?

Or are you trying to discourage people from supporting their preferred candidate before the primaries even begin?

[aspberger]

20. if I can help people turn the light switch on in their own minds

I feel like I have helped the cause. Why run a William Jennings Bryant for President? It is a simple question. I do not want to get bogged down in peripheral b.s..

[ulysses]

22. speaking of causes

your hubris isn't helping yours any.

[aspberger]

28. after enduring the cold welcome here at DU

I have accrued some good karma.

[election_2004]

32. Thanks for not-really-answering my question

Are you saying that the process of having a competitive primary with multiple Democratic candidates is "peripheral B.S."???

[aspberger]

34. no

What I am saying is have a plan to win by showing discipline and having the foresight to forgo candidates that have had their 15 minutes of fame. Of course if the majority chooses a divisive, futile spectacle, I can't stop anybody.

[blondeatlast]

43. Then why waste your time on us undisciplined, divisive, futile types? nt

[aspberger]

57. because I know

there are a few here who will thank me for pointing them into the right direction. They will never post such sentiments, but I will hear their soft whispers of thanks and be warmed by their spontaneous illuminations.

[enough already]

59. Your candidate is quite possibly the single most divisive person in the US

Nice try, though.

[blondeatlast]

42. Gee, golly, thanks... I'm so completely unable to think pragmatically

for myself.

good to know you have my best interest at heart. :sarcasm:

[Larkspur]

16. I see the Hillary supporter are trying to pave the ABR path already

A Hillary victory is not a victory for the Dems and progressives. She's a war crimminal for supporting the Iraq War and wanting to expand it. She's only interested in satisfying her ego and she'll sacrifice the Dem party and the country to do so.

[aspberger]

23. you will be drinking champagne

when Hillary wins the 2008 Presidential election me thinks.

[Sentath]

36. no, I'd merely be on my knees pleading,

instead of on my face sobbing.

From the policies I've seen, her election would be more of a palatable loss than a victory.

[blondeatlast]

44. Palatable loss--exactly. That's how I see it. nt

[CTLawGuy]

64. she won't win the nom if I can help it

she voted for IWR. and that proves that she's a spineless DLC wimp. I have yet to hear any signs of regret from her for that vote.

You'll have to excuse me. When 1700 Americans die unnecessarily, i tend to get a little upset.

[Larkspur]

84. I don't drink alcohol and I won't be voting for Hillary in '08.

A Hillary Presidency does not guarentee Dem success elsewhere. Bill Clinton won the Presidency and he didn't stop the Dem Party from sliding into minority status. In fact, his pro-Big-Business policies helped split the Dem Party.

Even if Hillary wins the Presidency in '08, she will not be praised by the progressive wing of the Dem Party. She'll be pressured by us to implement a progressive agenda as much as she will be pressured by her corproate robber baron donors to continue the graft they are addicted to.

Hillary would not have an easy time as President. The Iraq debacle will tear her down, just like it is Bush.

[Bridget Burke]

31. Hillary supporters?

Or sowers of discord?

[aspberger]

35. to have the audacity to support Hillary

automatically sows discord to those who hate Hillary.

[Clark2008]

52. I don't hate Hillary

I just know she can't win a general election.

Making her the nominee is an exercise in futility.


NOT ONE RED STATE!

(Get it, yet?)

[election_2004]

87. Your point about red states....

NOT ONE RED STATE!

...is what I keep pointing out.

Of course, then I'm accused of uttering "hollow talking points"...

[Clark2008]

98. Not hollow.

I live in a red state that was blue until 2000.

It probably won't turn blue in 2008, regardless of the candidates, BUT, I do think that some of the other reds states might pivot a bit - Arkansas, Arizona, New Mexico and Virginia, to name a few (Florida doesn't count because of the fraud. Same for Ohio).

We need to turn at least two red states to win. Period.

[election_2004]

104. I'm in full agreement there...

I also think (and this is what Hillary Clinton's supporters are just plain NOT UNDERSTANDING) is if a likable uniter can emerge as the Democratic presidential nominee, even if he/she doesn't carry a particular red state, he/she could still provide positive downticket momentum to other Democrats who are running for U.S. Senate seats, U.S. House seats, statewide offices, local races, etc. in that red state.

Instead, the Rah-Rah Hillary crowd is acting as though their queen will somehow magically sweep Democrats into lower offices all across the country just because she's a woman and she has a well-known name.

In the words of Rosie O'Donnell:

DE-LOO-SIONAL!!!

[marions ghost]

17. next selection

:boring:

[ChiciB1]

21. I Don't Happen To Think That The Democrats Lost Either Election!!!

[aspberger]

25. we need to convince all of America that the Democrats won a Presidential

election. A sweeping victory by a superstar candidate is the best way to insure that this will happen.

[Texas_Kat]

75. So are you just a bandwagon jumper?

or do you have a real committment to your potential candidate based on some deep-seated belief in her stand on the issues (or any issue?).

If so, it would be more persuasive if you tried to make your point on that basis.

Democrats tend to be independent thinkers..... respect that.

[aspberger]

80. my point is "don't talk about the issues"

leave it to a battle-hardened professional politician so the hopes of millions and the ambitions of one can converge and synthesize into an energy that achieves a critical mass sufficient enough to whip the GOP and take back our country.

[AuntPatsy]

90. I understand where your going with this, and in all honesty I

think your right no matter how much she has seemingly dissapointed me lately on the surface. She knows these people as does her husband, I think people should give her a chance, not that they should bow down and be quietly except her views as their own, to do such makes us no better than our counter parts, but their is a bigger picture here not many are viewing as passions filled with rage are running at an all time high, as well they should be considering from any normal person, but sometimes, a calmer perspective mindset is needed in such times as we are at the moment facing...

[aspberger]

81. self-delete

[mikelewis]

39. They lost - even though the otherside cheated, they still lost.

Maybe our people don't have the balls to call them on it or maybe it wouldn't have done any good if they had, who knows. What I do know is Bush still hasn't requested a change of address card from the Post Office. That looks like winning to me. It doesn't matter how the votes are cast, it's how they are counted that wins elections.

In '08, I say we cheat our motherfucking asses off. If that's the game, we should get better at playing. If you want to rig an election, just surf the 2004 election topic here on DU, it's a virtual treasure trove of how to steal an election and not get caught.

[ret5hd]

24. i thought you were saying we should get the cheaters on our side:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1973258&mesg_id=1973258

[aspberger]

26. cheaters cheat

I cannot stop them. Just don't put them in the position of cheating against lame candidates.

[Bridget Burke]

29. Neither Gore nor Kerry was a "lame" candidate.

Not that either was perfect, but they were both far better than the alternative.

[mattclearing]

49. Agreed.

I'm tired of hearing this kind of stuff from Hillary/DLC supporters.

Hillary hasn't proven shit. She's won a single election, and might not have won it if not for her opponent's prostate cancer.

She hasn't proven anything, and her DLC buddies haven't proven anything in 9 years.

For the OP: Why not try getting her re-elected to her senatorial seat, instead of flamebaiting on an issue that won't even be relevant until then?

Even so, the 2008 election is still three and a half years away. Campaigning for the presidency now is not going to encourage New Yorkers to re-elect her to her seat in 2006.

[enough already]

60. Who does this guy think he's fooling?

Let's be honest, my dog could get elected Senator in NY if he had the (D) behind his name. This "proven winner" stuff is a load of bullshit. We don't need any more DLC crap in this party. I'll never support her.

[ChiciB1]

27. I Used To Use A Phrase That Was Taught To Me A Long Time Ago...

Cheater's NEVER Win, Winner's NEVER cheat!

My clock has bonged, my desire has waned, and my faith is LOST!!

[aspberger]

33. Well

you must embrace the political system as it is, without the sugar coating of childhood mythology. This is hard to do but as a human, that choice is yours if you so choose.

[ChiciB1]

38. Well, Hon...

My childhood mythology happened a long time ago. I'm a BOOMER, and I've seen much much better! I've seen it when SOME laws worked, and I've seen it when CROOKS got caught!!

And I've seen it when Protests were taken seriously!

BUT, being a glutton for punishment, I WILL be in D.C. for the September 24th Impeachment Rally! Just to say that my belief in ACTIVISM is alive and well. But I do WONDER, if it will even be covered by the Corporate Whore MEDIA!!!!

[Vinca]

30. Everyone needs to take a pledge to support the candidate no matter what.

No blabbing about faults, no whining if our candidate isn't "the one." Call it the "Bozo" pledge. "I, (insert name), vow to support Bozo the Clown or any other individual nominated by my party. I promise not to criticize or otherwise demean said candidate in an effort to squash any joy said criticism would give the miserable, life draining, dishonest, conniving Repukes."

[ChiciB1]

37. Sounds Good...

I'm not much for betting, and I don't even know how the ODDS work at the race track. Having said that, what d'ya think them ODDS are???

[MaggieSwanson]

46. Can't do it.

It's a like saying criticizing the Occupation of Iraq is aiding and comforting the terrorists.

If criticism is warranted, you will hear it from me.

[madfloridian]

48. No more.

Not any more.

[ulysses]

53. I think I'll keep my mind handy,

but thanks.

[blondeatlast]

54. Can't do it, and it hurts for this 4th generation yellow dog.

There are a couple of vetted nominees I will be forced to turn away from my party on.

It bloody hurts like hell to even consider it, but I can't blindly pledge my support anymore.

[ibegurpard]

55. It's a little early for a repeat of ABB

Although even when the time comes you're going to have a tough time expecting people to swallow that one again.

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

45. Vote for winners only huh? Sounds super-duper easy.

[madfloridian]

47. Hillary took her stand with the DLC this week.

I am not going their route anymore. Look where we are. Under their leadership we lost the white house,the house,and and senate. And they are still bragging about their accomplishments.
I will vote my conscience this time.

Hillary hurt the DNC this week. She did not have to be so blatant about saying her committee would set the agenda. Not my agenda, she won't.

[mattclearing]

50. Yeah, if legislating video game standards is her agenda, I'm out too.

Hillary will be lucky to get re-elected at this rate. New Yorkers will not tolerate her Presidential aspirations in '06.

[Pepperbelly]

65. that's baloney ...

It seems to me that it is others that want to purge the party, not Hillary. And that should tell you something.

[Clark2008]

51. Yep - sure will hurt like hell when Hillary loses the general election.

:eyes:

[ACTutilitarian]

56. She's got the political skills, but she simply can't win.

It's not that the country isn't ready for a female president, and it's not that I question her skills or determination. It's because the first words that come to mind when you hear her name are... "frigid ice queen".

Hillary's got an immediately negative association in the minds of many people, and that's a very hard thing to fight. Just look at Martha Stewart, and how eager people were for her to be put away. From all I've seen, people view Hillary in pretty much the same way.

I don't know if it's resentment towards successful women, but I do know it makes a difference. I am sure many will strongly disagree with me, though.

(Hello DU!)

[ncrainbowgrrl]

62. Welcome to DU, ACTutilitarian!

:hi:

[AuntPatsy]

93. Not true, as far as Martha Stewart was concerned, even people

that disliked her felt bad for her situation, many people that I talked to thought her sentence rediculous even though they disliked her image.

[Darranar]

58. I will "taste victory" when we have a president...

who is willing to steadfastly and sincerely oppose the slaughter of innocent people, the disgusting abuses of the modernized feudal system, the plutocratic rule of corporations, the oligarchic or autocratic rule of anyone or any group, the denial of human rights and human dignity to any individual or group, and massive state repression.

Find me a "winner" who qualifies and I will proudly and wholeheartedly back them.

Unfortunately I doubt there are any. Certainly there are precious few politicians who might qualify, and those few haven't a hope of winning any American election.

[wyldwolf]

61. Actually, it didn't

It only hurt when our nominee lost.

[CTLawGuy]

63. thats the DLC way of thinking

"lets find a winner! Who cares what they'll do or what they stand for, we just want someone who'll win!"

[mattclearing]

66. Totally.

Talk about putting the cart before the horse. No wonder they lose so consistently.

[jonnyblitz]

67. exactly. nt

[MadHound]

68. Sorry, no go.

I'm not looking for just a "winner" I'm looking for somebody who isn't a corporate whore and who can restore this country to the ideals we once held.

Sorry, but the Democratic party I once knew and loved stood for something else other than just winning. Sadly, that party seems to be long gone, more's the pity.

[aspberger]

69. This is just the first step

better President HRC than Neal Bush or some other GOP equivalent.

[MadHound]

70. Sorry friend, but when it comes to DLC Dems and other corporate whores

I take the line that Malcolm X took concerning Southern and Northern whites, ie that with Republicans one knows exactly where one stands, but with DLCers, they will smile to your face while stabbing you in the back. I've seen way to much of the latter, both with the Clinton White House, and the current crop of corporate Dems we have in the House and Senate right now. For me, HRC is no better than any other Republican, worse in fact since she disguises her corporate allegiance under the cloak of the Democratic party.

I'm looking for a real change in the leadership of this country, not the faux one that the DLC brings.

[aspberger]

79. a frontal assault on the entrenched right would be political suicide

flank to the right and win. A trouncing at the polls on election day would be fatal for the Democrats. To save this country from a long, protracted dark age of GOP hegemony, we must rally around a political wizard. WE DON'T NEED A CANDIDATE WHO KISSES THE ASS OF THE LEFT.

[saskatoon]

97. I'm not hung up on Hillary, she seems so placid BUT is that her plan

To appeal to the fence sitters and not come on like gang busters and then if she would win, set her real agenda. Guess I'm dreamin' huh.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

72. When you reduce it to that sentiment, it's hard to disagree.

But it would still be crazy to run her.

[Sparkman]

71. Just look at the sleepers, like LBJ, who was more liberl and conscientious

than his dirty tricks Texas politics lead any to imagine!!
He refused to run after serving one full term, and the rest of Kennedy's, who was assisinated by some loonies in the CIA!! His GREAT SOCIETY is up there with FDR's 4 term gift to the world, the poor and our ECONOMY.
Who would have thought that a Roosevelt would have governed so liberally, when cousin Theodore was an out-n-out neo-con paradigm of the Nazi Fascists in the up-n-coming Deutschland?
PLEASE, don't fall into the trap of STEREOTYPING, there are ALWAYS the exceptions to the rule!! BOTTOM LINE = VOTE DEMOCRAT OR EAT THE SHIT THE REPUB'S SHOVEL. And the ramifications of a THIRD REPUB. TERM dominating the sen/congr/admin will be devasting!!!
IDEOLOGY WILL RUIN US, WE HAVE TO BE PRAGMATIC AND COMPROMISING, like the lock step Fascists in D.C. Peace

[joeprogressive]

73. Hillary can't win

and she isn't a proven winner. She lost in '94 when she lost on health care. It might not have been her fault but a loss nonetheless. I am a Clark man all the way until someone shows me someone better. I love Hillary but many Americans hate her. It is hard to hate Clark. He will turn a lot of swing voters our way.

[Sparkman]

77. The winning candidate will be a Dem, this time. I'm playing to win, even

if Sen. Clinton is the candidate. I didn't listen to the naysayers of Pres. Clinton, or Al Gore or John Kerry. And I'll report that I've backed so many losing Dems, that some day I may be disuaded from the game. But not yet, and if another RW Repub wins it won't be because I didn't do my part in the precincts here in Orange Cnty, CA.
Pessimism is for the losers, because my aging Kerry/Edwards stickers on my old VWs and my old Taurus still bring a smile to my face.
Liberalism, radicalism and change come from individualism, ideas outside the corporaterulingclass. We have to try to drive progressive issues back into the center of the political spectrum, where we really reside. The RW shift of U.S. politics will have some duration, inversely proportional to the work done by progressive individuals and the quality of our ideas. Persevere.

[MadHound]

76. Sorry, but I've been there, done that,

Along with literally millions of other Democrats, and all our compromise and lockstep has gotten us is a party that has consistently moved further rightwards, and become corporate whores in the process. I've been a serious supporter of the party since McGovern, and watched as the party abandoned its leftist roots, the left wing, and its left leaning base, all in pursuit of the fabled middle ground and all of that wonderful corporate lucre.

And as far as Hillary goes, I'm not stereotyping her, nor is she some sort of miraculous exception. All one has to do is look at her record in the Senate, and listen to her speeches to realize that all Hillary is is another corporate whore like her husband, who will once again sell out the poor and vunerable in this country in order to please her corporate masters.

And if you look closely at LBJ, what he did is no suprise at all. He was a tool of the military industrial complex, as witnessed by his escalation of the Vietnam War. His stance on civil rights was predictable also, since he was doing it in part to follow up on Kennedy's legacy, in part to salve his conscience for the atrocities he was committing in Vietnam, and in part he was being a political pragmitist, sealing up an entire block of voters for the Democratic Party.

And FDR didn't get where he was by merely being generous or betraying his class. Much of the New Deal was a logical reaction to the desperate economic problems of the time, and he realized that he had to do something radical, since nothing else had worked so far. Also, part of the New Deal was a politically motivated ploy. In fact he adapted a couple of the more famous New Deal tenents from the Socialist Party in order to pick up votes. What did he adapt fromt the Socialists? Social Security and Unemployment Insurance, two bulwarks of the social safety net to this day. Thus we can see how third parties can have a great deal of influence on the mainstream candidates.

And let us leave the lock stepping to the 'Pugs and fascists. Diversity, while a messy process, is ultimately a good thing.

[Sparkman]

78. LBJ WAS a surprise to all. NOBODY predicted the extent of his social

legislation, which is my point. Clinton and LBJ type candidates surprised us, not only by their progressiveness, but in their effectiveness. Their policies and the support for them, revealed what the MSM hides, the hidden characteristics and true nature of the average U.S. citizen, which is socialist. Do you go to school or do you strike out as an entrepeneur, a capitalist? Most go to school.

Sen. Clinton has a DIFFERENT grouping of corporate sponsors from the RW. And that makes a contrast of significance. As only a non-RW centrist can, the militaryspendingwaste grows slower under a conserv Dem than a RWer, and in 2008 that will be HUGE plank.

Primary election work is what we're talking about. When a liberal like McGovern or Kucinich comes up, I worked with their campaigns because I think they have a great chance of moving the planks leftward even if they don't get the nomination. But then I always vote with party loyalty. Why? BECAUSE A LARGE CENTRIST DEM VOTE CONVEYS TO THE RW THAT THEY HAVE LESS OF A MANDATE FOR THEIR FASCISM, UNTIL WE INSTITUE PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. Liberal THIRD PARTY Votes DON'T REPRESENT in system threats to the unreconstructed Fascists UNTIL THE NUMBERS GET VERY HIGH. But electable Dems do threaten and delay and suppress the RW agenda...Iran would have been invaded by now and Iraq would look like thunderdome w/o us.

[MadHound]

82. I would suggest you go read your history friend

LBJ's stance on civil rights came as a suprise to nobody, since all he was doing was carrying out Kennedy's unfinished work in that regard.

And Clinton, both Bill and Hillry, has virtually the same corporate masters as the Republicans. In fact it has become quite the common practice over the past thirty years for corporations to hedge their bets and donate aprox. equal amounts of cash to both presidential candidates. For example, in '00, Phillip Morris topped the corporate contributor list by donating a little over two million dollars not just to the Republicans, but virtually the same amount to the Democrats also. This is how the two party/same corporate master system of government works.

And Clinton, either one, is no suprise progressive. Bill was a suprise conservative though, especially with moves like NAFTA, '96 Telecom Act, and welfare "reform" being at the top of a long list. Hillary, if we are to judge by both her words and deeds, seems to be returning to her roots as a Goldwater Girl.

And how can you say that military spending grows slower under a conservative Dem? Look at the vast increase of military spending that happened under LBJ. Look at Hillarys call for more and more troops. Your assertion flies in the face of facts friend.

And despite your misguided logic, third parties do indeed represent a threat to the system. As I said, they influenced FDR, and they also sank Poppy Bush, among other matters. I would call that influence friend. And if the Dems keep moving away from their base, towards the right, then the Greens are going to rise up and become the defacto second party, displacing the Democrats, much like what happened with the Whigs.

And how can you even think that the current Dems slowed down the Iraq war? Is that what they were doing when they voted overwhelmingly for the IWR? Is that what they're doing each and every time they approve another military spending bill in overwhelming numbers? Sorry friend, but the vast majority of Congressional Dems are as culpable in this war as Bushco. They went along with it, and they failed to uphold the prime duty of their position, representing the interests of their constituency.

[Sparkman]

96. Nixon ran Vietnam War Jan 1, '69 thru Aug '74, he spent $$ like LBJ.

1) LBJ just carried out Kennedy's legacy? LBJ picked Humphry as running mate. Maybe if elected in 1964, Goldwater & William Miller, ULTRAconservatives would have carried on the Appalachian Regional Devel. Act,'65 or the July'64 Civil Rights Act(that LBJ personally pressured southern Dems out of their filibuster), or 1966 Tribal Council's gains by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but I doubt it. The Great Society was LBJ's not Kennedy's.

2) Vietnam cost $141 Billion, 58K dead GI's, 140K wounded. Even the 17th parallel from the Eisenhower days can be credited for starting the V.W. It was LBJ who started the Vietnam War escalation with a lie about the Tonkin Gulf Incident. Look at the arms race when Reagan took the reigns in 1980 and the deficits, neither compare to LBJ's or Carter's or Clinton's. How can you compare the Bush and Reagan years' deficits and cold war budgets with hot war like Vietnam, and Iraq is no vietnam but it's costs are tremedous compared to LBJ's spending the first 29 month's.

3)dispite my misguided logic, 3rd parties do indeed rep. a threat....YES, BUT THEY ONLY SERVE TO DETRACT FROM THE CENTRIST PARTY! The neocons don't FEAR the GREEN's. The Greens would only skim votes off the Dems. The Dems fear the Greens and not as a major threat in an extinction, but as a siphon of some 2-5%, enough to tilt a close race.

4)how can current Dems slowed down the Iraq war? Consider Iraq's threat diminished from 1991 on, and since their threat status wasn't the cause of the Mar '03 War, but the lies of 911 involvement, WMD & Mushroom Clouds were the propaganda of the REPUBs not the Dems. Clinton didn't INVADE Iraq during his 8 years, and the Iraq threat diminished during his term. SO the Repubs forced the issue, making centrist Dems feel pressured in the neoconpropagandablitz of the REPUBs. And dispite the harm, asking a centrist Dem to undercut a soldier in battle by denying war spending bills is a very effective tactic, one which would not be necessary with a Kerry administration because there would no NEOCONS ramroding the Iraq war! Can't say Judith Miller is a dem?

War Spending under Dems has been much less than REPUBS'! Vietnam cost $141 Billion, 58,000 U.S. dead, 150,000 wounded, 3-5 million asians. Under Reagan, cold war military spending, his deficits exceeded all previous deficits by Dems! Please compare Bush's current 29 month war expenditure to the $141Billion for Vietnam's 120 months', which LBJ SHARED with Nixon. AND LBJ had the integrity to bow out in 1968, leaving Nixon running the war til he resigns Aug. '74 SO NIXON SPENT MORE THAN HIS SHARE ON THE VIETNAM WAR, FOR THE PROFITEERS.

[Texas_Kat]

74. Define "winner"

If you mean that somebody who won a race in a thoroughly "blue" state is a winner, I'd challenge you to rethink your assumptions.

[aspberger]

83. well

there are alot of people who support candidates that have lost in Presidential primaries-BIG TIME. It is well within their rights to support these same traction less candidates. I am simply appealing to their human reason to NOT waste their energy on candidates, who failed in Democratic domains, for the general election to go head to head against the GOP Sith candidate.

[election_2004]

88. What about Democrats who haven't won a primary before

there are alot of people who support candidates that have lost in Presidential primaries-BIG TIME.

I sense that you're making a subtle reference to Clark and Edwards.

How about some new Democratic faces who DIDN'T run in 2004?

[aspberger]

92. i am open to that

n/t

[election_2004]

103. That's all I (and others) is/are asking for

Many of us feel that Hillary is being shoved down our throats before other Democrats can even decide whether or not they want to run.

Why not allow people to announce their candidacies and see who can make waves, before handicapping the nomination in favor of one person?

[Sgent]

85. Lets see

Two of the most memorable presidents in modern history won after losing either the primary or general election the first time around -- Reagan and Nixon.

[aspberger]

86. yes but

Neither candidates were "big-time" losers. Nixon lost in one of the closest elections in history in 60 and eight years later won the Presidency. Reagan was a real challenge to Ford in 76 and his showing sealed his nomination in 80.

[AntiCoup2K4]

89. FUCK HILLARY AND FUCK THE FREEPER POSTING THIS SHIT.

Yeah I said it. And you all know damn well I'm right.

[election_2004]

91. I don't think the OP is a Freeper...

He's just woefully misguided.

[AuntPatsy]

94. I think your wrong, though I would call out a few old timers

immediately if such was permissable on this board but it is not.

[FrenchieCat]

99. hahahaha.....

I'll have some of What AntiCoup2K4 is having! :rofl:

[AntiCoup2K4]

100. I certainly hope you aren't comparing me to KKKarl Rove?

That would be really uncalled for :evilfrown:

[FrenchieCat]

101. au contraire.....

my brotherperson....I was in agreement with your supersmooth syncopated expletive!

[aspberger]

105. because of your many posts you get a pass on the posting rules

but calling me a freeper ain't going to do squat in the effort to turn back the medieval repuke tide that has swept this country.

[Raiden]

102. I'm ready to support whoever gets the nomination

Divisive politics has cost us too many elections - I want to be on the winning side for once! :)