OK, so I'm about to reverse and become a ...

[sjdnb]

Gore holdout.

I would rather stay home than vote for Obama (flavor of the moment) or Hillary (flavor of the past);

Fact is, for me, my choice of Edwards (unless he grows a spine in the next few days) won't stand a chance/gain my respect. And, if Edwards and Kucinich don't stand a chance and Gore doesn't jump in ... why bother.

[annie1]

1. You're pretty hard to please, these are great candidates we have. What do...

you like so much about gore that none of these guys are worth even voting for?

[LWolf]

34. While I don't concur with the conclusion made by the OP,

I have to disagree. I see only one "great" candidate, that the majority of Democrats are determined to marginalize. I see 2 or 3 "ok" candidates, plus another "marginal" candidate, and 2 "NEVER" candidates.

It is all too easy to see why the OP might think it's not even worth the time to vote. I'll be voting, but I don't kid myself into thinking that anyone who has earned my vote will be supported by the rest of the party. Really, any vote in my primary, or in the GE, is simply to register the fact that not everyone is willing to have their vote dictated. It's not like I don't already know that I probably will not be happy with the nominee, or the new president, regardless of who "wins."

Whether I shut up and "get in line," which will never happen, whether I vote my conscience, or whether I simply stay home on election day, I'm not going to "win." I see clearly enough to understand that from the outset.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Yeah, that's the winning spirit!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Why bother?

For the simple reason that any of the Democrats is better than any of the Republicans!

And we must elect a Dem in 2008...

That's why.

[Vincardog]

4. WE have to elect as many PROGRESSIVE POPULIST LIBERALS as possible.

a "Democrat" like Lieberman is not acceptable.

[Kucinich4America]

26. You can say that again!

[Bill Todd]

5. Don't I remember exactly the same sentiment

expressed by many in 2004?

Didn't work out all that well then. May not work out any better now, since we won't even have Dubya to run against this time.

Perhaps we actually need a decent candidate in order to win, not just anyone without an (R) next to their name.

- bill

[Purveyor]

6. The whole campaign is 'up in the air' if my family gatherings over xmas is any clue...

Scant few of our gathering was strong in their convictions on either side of the political spectrum.

Our liberal side was split between Obama and Edwards (none supporting hill) and the hate-wing were clawing themselves over ghouliani and paul (go figure).

Oh well...going to be an interesting year, indeed!

[ChiciB1]

39. Our Christmas Gathering Was Definitely John Edwards, Even My Grandson

who was previously an Obama supporter. As an 18-year old what he said about Obama was interesting, but you have to understand it's HIS perception as a young first time voter. He's a young white male and had been VERY excited about Obama too. He said that when he watched Obama "speaking" he thought he was VERY dull and that his speeches were hard for him to watch, kind of like waiting for cold syrup coming out of a bottle. That's NOT me speaking, but I did ask him about WHAT he thought of Obama's message and he just said that he had a hard time "waiting" for him to finish.

I DON'T know what that actually means to others, and he WAS very excited about Obama especially being that this would be the first time he would be able to vote. Anyway, he's switched Edwards and said Clinton was never even considered!

My two cents!

[babylonsister]

7. I remember you; who's your alter ego? nt

[Bill Todd]

8. I'm curious about the lack of spine remark

since Edwards clearly spelled out his positions a while ago. Are you referring to his reluctance to bash fellow Democrats who are attacking him? That could just be a quaint but somewhat attractive sense of primary etiquette (with eminently pragmatic roots in terms of potential adverse consequences later on) which wouldn't necessarily translate to any similar reluctance to bash the living hell out of Republicans (something with which he has a fair amount of experience as a successful trial lawyer).

I certainly agree with you about Hillary: unless she undergoes a conversion of truly Biblical proportions I won't be voting for her next November should she become the nominee. And while I'd *hope* to be pleasantly surprised by Obama, unless that actually happens I well might not vote for him either. But I'm fairly happy with Edwards at the moment even though I might be even happier with Gore.

- bill

[Think82]

9. Look at BIDEN! There is another choice if you would just pay attention to him

[medicswife]

25. No kidding!

Biden is the best candidate for the day and age in which we live. Otherwise we're going to end up with John McCain for President.

[kad7777]

32. sjdnb - please look Senator Biden's way

He's a diamond in the rough. One of the best we have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtGCaqOdIJ4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUC8LeZ1hM4

[seriousstan]

10. If you don't vote, don't bitch.

[melody]

11. When you do that, you'll be voting for the GOP nominee

Every Democratic vote cancels out a GOP vote. When you don't vote, you put them up one vote.

I wish Gore was running with all my heart and I'm supporting Edwards in the primary, but any Democrat
(even Hillary) is better than a Republican.

[Bill Todd]

12. Y'know

I got really, really, REALLY tired of that horseshit last time around, and I'm not going to put up with it this time.

My vote is my vote. Period. End of discussion. If I choose to give it to the Democratic candidate, that's my business. If I choose not to because I don't believe they've earned it, that's my business as well. That doesn't give it to the Republican candidate - only someone who felt *they* earned it can do that.

Last time I gave my vote to Nader, because I felt he had earned it and Kerry had not. That wasn't a Republican vote, any more than it was a Democratic vote: it expressed the fact that I honestly didn't give a damn whether Kerry or Bush won the election, because I felt *neither* of them should.

And that's my right: just because I've registered as a Democrat all my life doesn't mean that I've supported every Democratic asshole who wound up on the ticket, and I'm not about to change that now. If the Democratic party wants my vote, then they'll damn well have to offer up a nominee that I'm willing to vote for - because if they don't, I'll find one elsewhere or write one in.

- bill

[melody]

13. Whether or not you want to accept it, this means you'll be voting for the GOP

I'd love to vote for Kucinich but the reality is, he can't win. I can act like a petulant child
and be mad at the world or you can accept the cards we've been dealt. Vote or don't vote, that's
your choice but you'll be voting for the Republican when you do, just as you did when you voted
for Nader.

[Bill Todd]

20. No, it doesn't:

it just means that you're clueless about what a vote actually is (and apparently ineducable as well, since I just told you).

- bill

[melody]

29. You seem unable to conduct an adult conversation. Welcome to my ignore list. n/t

[Bill Todd]

31. Since you seem unable to recognize an adult when you meet one

anything that makes you less likely to babble on is fine by me.

- bill

[Catch22Dem]

19. So Nader in '04 and no vote in '08? Why the fuck are you here?

The objective here is to elect the eventual democratic nominee. That's what DU is all about; putting democrats in office.

You can attempt to justify it all you want, and you can SAY you're not going to put up with it, but the bottom line is, you gave the repubs your vote by voting for Nader, and you're going to do it again by not supporting the democratic nominee. My only hope is that you don't use DU to campaign against the nominee during the general election campaign.

[Bill Todd]

24. That may be YOUR objective here

but it's not mine: mine is to learn things about candidates that I might not learn elsewhere to help me in deciding whom to vote for (and to educate the educable if I happen to understand something that they don't).

If I had wanted to give the Republicans my vote in 2004, I'd have done just that (and unless you're arithmetically challenged you can easily see that the result would have differed from what I in fact did). If I had wanted to give Kerry my vote, I would have done so. I chose a third option, which was neither of the above - so neither got my vote, and someone whom I felt deserved it did.

As for not supporting the Democratic nominee this time around, aren't you getting just a bit ahead of the process? The nominee hasn't yet been selected, and there are at least three (possibly four) of the current candidates for whom I would very likely vote in November should they be selected.

The bottom line appears to be that you don't understand what voting is all about, and seem to believe that somehow it's tied to the party one nominally belongs to (if it were, none of us would even have to show up at the polls, for most races). In my case, I used to belong to the Democratic party because they fielded candidates whom I generally supported. Since that situation started to change a few years ago, I belong to it so that I can vote in primary elections to at least *try* to get them to choose candidates that I will support. If the party has recently decided to exclude anyone who won't guarantee to support whatever candidate it nominates, rather than to maintain its traditional 'big tent' attitude, I must have missed it: could you point me to the relevant document?

As for DU, last I knew once a nominee had been selected it had a policy prohibiting campaigning against that nominee (perhaps prohibiting even mentioning that you would not vote for the nominee unless said nominee shaped up and started acting like a Democrat). While I think that such censorship of internal dissent is truly pathetic for an organization characterizing itself as the 'Democratic Underground' (does it really believe that its members are such sheep that they can't be allowed to be exposed to such heresy?), the hand that pays for the servers makes the rules, and I'll abide by them as long as they're applied reasonably consistently.

Arrogant blowhards like you are one of the principle reasons that I've become as disgusted as I now am with the party that I've been a member of for forty years (another being the toadying behavior of so much of its Congressional leadership). If (e.g.) the Green party showed signs of developing significant traction I'd cheerfully flip all of you the bird and give them a chance, but unfortunately the best current chance for real change still appears to reside here.

So I'll continue seeking it here, and not settling for less, thank you.

- bill

[rasputin1952]

33. Allow me to interject something here, you did not have to

cast a vote for any presidential candidate, you could have left that area completely alone and moved on down the line, from Rep/Sen, to local issues and such.

By casting a vote for Nader, unless you truly believed him to be the best candidate, you, and others who voted out of frustration for someone who had no chance, gave the message to Nader that he was a viable candidate. If those who voted for him believed in him, the ballot cast is legitimate. If it was a "protest" vote, it did little more than create an atmosphere of "I don't give a damn about my country".

I cannot, in good conscience, condemn those who vote for what they believe is the best candidate, it is their vote, and while I might not agree with it, it is their right.

However, casting a vote in protest, at least in my opinion, is tossing away a vote that could easily be seen as support for someone that support was not intended. Nader continues on because of this.

Either vote for someone you truly believe in, or don't cast a vote for a person running...but show up at the polling place to vote on other issues, especially local ones.

[LanternWaste]

23. But since the election is not based on the popular vote...

But since the election is not based on the popular vote but rather the electoral vote, I can't really see how an individual's lack of voting would either assist or hinder either the Democratic of the GOP nominee (depending on the state, of course...)

[melody]

30. He was discussing his inability to vote in the GE. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter. n/t

[Perry Logan]

14. This is no time for being picky. America will be destroyed if another Republican gets in.

[AtomicKitten]

15. And Hillary is the least electable so we know to avoid that landmine.

Zogby: Obama is only Dem leading all 5 Republicans

Sen. Barack Obama is the only Democratic presidential candidate who polled higher than all five of the top Republican contenders in its latest national telephone survey of potential "general election matchups," Zogby International reports this morning.

Democrat John Edwards polled higher than three of the Republicans. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton edged out two, though all but one of her matchups produced results signalling nearly dead-even races.

Zogby's results, based on a survey of 1,000 "likely" voters that it says produced a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percentage points on each figure:

Obama led:

• Rudy Giuliani, 48%-39%.
• Mike Huckabee, 47%-42%.
• Sen. John McCain, 47%-43%.
• Mitt Romney, 53%-35%.
• Fred Thompson, 52%-36%.

(So, Obama's leads over Giuliani, Romney and McCain are outside the margin of error -- but not his leads over Huckabee and McCain. Remember, each figure's margin is +/- 3.2 points. So the spread between the results needs to be at least 6.5 points to be outside the margin.)

Edwards:

• Led Huckabee, 47%-41%.
• Led Romney, 50%-38%.
• Led Thompson, 51%-35%.
• Trailed Giuliani, 45%-44%.
• Trailed McCain, 46%-42%.

(So, Edwards' leads over Romney and Thompson are outside the margin of error -- but not his lead over Huckabee. And he trails Giuliani and McCain by less than the margin of error.)

Clinton:

• Led Romney, 46%-44%.
• Led Thompson, 48%-42%.
• Trailed Giuliani, 46%-42%.
• Trailed Huckabee, 48%-43%.
• Trailed McCain, 49%-42%.

(So, the only matchup outside the margin of error is McCain's advantage over Clinton. Zogby reports that Clinton "has improved her position slightly. A November Zogby Interactive poll showed her losing by small margins to all five of the top GOP candidates.")

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/12/zogby-obama-is.html

TEXT

[GlenP]

17. Please those polls are meaningless

The republican players know who will be easiest and who will be hardest to defeat in November. They are clearly going to promote the one they KNOW they can beat (Obama) and attack the one they KNOW will be most difficult (Hillary).

Hillary has a lot going for her. She's already had all the mud that's available thrown at her, and there is very little that's new they can attack her on. She has one place to go in American public opinion (many who only know of her from the smear campaigns), and that is up. Also she not only gains some immunity in the eyes of Americans as to what the repukes can get away with in attacks, but she also has a huge leg up on the women's vote. Want to see a dramatic increase in the youth vote... nominate Hillary and young women will be registering to vote in droves.

Obama has ENORMOUS room to go down! WAY down, and Republicans are already sharpening their teeth to dig into this little cub and maul the F-- out of him should he become the nominee.

[medicswife]

27. I think you're wrong about Hillary being electable.

I'm a democrat, I've got lots of girl friends who are democrats, my huband is a democrat, I've got some friends who are independents too. None of us want to vote for Hillary. I think those polls that show her in super tight battles with every republican candidate are right. I hate to say it, because I'd vote for her if she was the nominee, but I'd do it through clenched teeth. The other people I know who don't support her candidacy say that they just won't vote, or worse, they'll vote for the Republican as long as it's John McCain or Ron Paul.

[Perry Logan]

37. The only landmine is listening to Rasmussen. Hillary is easily our best bet.

[Kucinich4America]

28. America will be destroyed if it continues the slide into fascism

And while most of the Republicans in contention for their nomination would do exactly that, so would some who label themselves as Democrats.

A "D" after the name should not be the deciding factor. The agenda which the candidate actually supports should be.

[AtomicKitten]

16. Nah, I'd much rather throw in.

I am a HUGE fan of Al Gore. I would have given my spleen if he ran this election. But he's not running and I do know very clearly that I strongly prefer any Dem candidate before Hillary for a number of reasons. There's too much at stake to not throw in. But that's me.

[saltpoint]

18. Most of us prefer a Democrat in the White House.

Almost all of us, is my guess.

Don't make us stop this car.

[sentelle]

40. I would prefer a Democrat in the White House too

Not Romney's health insurance plan, bush's war, and no clear stand on much else.
That is not a Democrat, that's the 'me-too' party.

[BigDDem]

21. Great plan! Way to go!

how about Nader '08 - what's the worst that could happen?

[IndianaJones]

22. what a coincidence..I would rather you stay home too. nt.

[asdjrocky]

35. Spoken like a true American... too bad. n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

36. But aren't there other

issues on the ballot? Local/statewide elections? I'd like to suggest you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. You can always write in a candidate but it's important you add your voice to the rest of the ballot.

[Laelth]

38. Just a drive-by posting.

The kind of thread I prefer to ignore. In fact, I think I'll do just that.

-Laelth

[CyberPieHole]

41. Instead of being a "holdout"~~~Why don't you just "hold your breath"...

at least until Al Gore jumps into the race.:evilgrin: