Democrats fighting a "civil" war of their own?

[Takvah]

Oh my, it's civil war in the Democratic Party. For all of the machinations that the party will be united against a Republican opponent come November, poll numbers don't seem to bear that out.

According to polls being shown on NBC this morning 43% of Hillary Clinton's supporters say that they will either vote for John McCain or not vote at all if Senator Obama takes the nomination. Conversely, 29% of Obama supporters say that they will vote McCain or not vote at all if Hillary wins. That's HUGE news. It shows that this race is a whole lot more heated than the Dems are letting on and that the lines being drawn are more like gaping chasms. The discourse is not at all civil even if it is subdued compared to what will happen in the general election. The rivalry is not hard fought it is (to borrow an expression from Obama) bitter.

Is it any wonder that Howard Dean is making demands that the "supers" declare who they'll vote for by June? The real work for the Democrats won't be beating McCain, it will be mending the party. Fences are going up, people are picking sides and the "big tent" has a wall running through its middle. The Hatfields and the McCoys will be relegated to obscurity as Clinton and Obama become the noms de guerre where feuding is concerned.

McCain for all of the efforts of the left is not being painted as more of the same, or just another four years of Bush. McCain is exactly the kind of candidate the Republicans needed to take advantage of a situation like this. It seems as if the Republican electorate knew they had to move toward the middle and did so by awarding McCain the nomination. If anybody can manage to be considered an acceptable alternative... it's the old man.

Oh the humanity.

[cethklein]

I'll give you one thing, the GOP WILL win this election, or I'm at least 99% sure they will. Yet another year the Dems pissed away a perfectly good chance at the white House.

I'm still not voting for McCain but even I'll admit the Democrats are up shit creek.Whoever wins the nod will be damaged goods.

[MichaelDeVere]

I'll give you one thing, the GOP WILL win this election, or I'm at least 99% sure they will. Yet another year the Dems pissed away a perfectly good chance at the white House.

I'm still not voting for McCain but even I'll admit the Democrats are up shit creek.Whoever wins the nod will be damaged goods.

McCain is a RINO. He's about as liberal as they come. Not as liberal as Rudy, but definately not a true conservative. He's just liberal enough to attract the fringe fallout from the Dems, and because he is the GOP candidate, the nature of the GOP (rigid heirarchial structure - unlike the formless mass of the Dem party) will dictate that most Republicans will still support him.

[robeiae]

I think it's way too early to predict a GOP win. The cards are still stacked against McCain, no matter who the nominee is on the Dem side.

That said, this race should have been easy pickins for the Dems. To me, it's unbelievable that they were unable to find a decent candidate. This is the best they could come up with? But of course, they did the same thing last election, when Bush was ripe and ready to go.

[donroc]

This may be as big a turning point for the Democrats as was the Eisenhower-Taft struggle for the soul of the Republican Party in 1952. Ike's victory ended the isolationist policies of the Republicans and brought more moderates to the Senate and House.

[whistlelock]

do not underestimate the power of the democratic party to completely screw this up.

[InfinityGoddess]

McCain is a RINO. He's about as liberal as they come. Not as liberal as Rudy, but definately not a true conservative. He's just liberal enough to attract the fringe fallout from the Dems, and because he is the GOP candidate, the nature of the GOP (rigid heirarchial structure - unlike the formless mass of the Dem party) will dictate that most Republicans will still support him.

:roll:I have to do this every time someone proclaims McCain is a liberal, because speaking as one myself, I can assure you that he's far from. He's not even close to being a moderate, either.

I think it's way too early to predict a GOP win. The cards are still stacked against McCain, no matter who the nominee is on the Dem side.

I agree. The Iraq occupation, the economy, and the perception that he is the "third Bush term", alone could sink him. Put that on top of the overall turnout in these primaries for the Dems. Not a good year to be a Republican.

That said, this race should have been easy pickins for the Dems. To me, it's unbelievable that they were unable to find a decent candidate. This is the best they could come up with? But of course, they did the same thing last election, when Bush was ripe and ready to go.

Honestly, I think that because both Hillary and Obama are such strong candidates, it's been a tough call for voters on who to pick. On the one hand, you have people who feel nostalgic over Bill Clinton's gig in the White House and the decade of prosperity for the middle class. And on the other, you have people who want to see a fresh face in the picture, with messages of hope for the future.

Either way, the Democratic primaries have been impressive.

[MichaelDeVere]

:roll:I have to do this every time someone proclaims McCain is a liberal, because speaking as one myself, I can assure you that he's far from. He's not even close to being a moderate, either.

ummm.... John McCain seriously considered switching to the Democrat party, even promoted by the Democrats.

There is very little about John McCain's voting record that is conservative.

You actually have to research and read words and stuff.

[InfinityGoddess]

ummm.... John McCain seriously considered switching to the Democrat party, even promoted by the Democrats.

There is very little about John McCain's voting record that is conservative.

You actually have to research and read words and stuff.

My definition of what's conservative may be a bit different than yours. Also I wouldn't really count Lieberman as a Democrat (in fact, the Connecticut Democrats gave him the boot, and justly so, so he's not a Democrat anymore).

Furthermore, being a Democrat is not always synonymous with being "liberal". There are plenty of conservative, corporate-friendly Blue Dog/DLC Dems running around. That would be like me saying all Republicans are conservative, which is not always the case, especially when they live here in the northeast blue states.

[Jean Marie]

ummm.... John McCain seriously considered switching to the Democrat party, even promoted by the Democrats.

There is very little about John McCain's voting record that is conservative.

You actually have to research and read words and stuff.

My definition of what's conservative may be a bit different than yours. Also I wouldn't really count Lieberman as a Democrat (in fact, the Connecticut Democrats gave him the boot, and justly so, so he's not a Democrat anymore).

Furthermore, being a Democrat is not always synonymous with being "liberal". There are plenty of conservative, corporate-friendly Blue Dog/DLC Dems running around. That would be like me saying all Republicans are conservative, which is not always the case, especially when they live here in the northeast blue states.
The part of Michael's post that I bolded, IG, is important, 'cause he didn't mention Lieberman. I know, you probably used it as an analogy even though it doesn't fit in this instance. At all.

McCain's record is one of a Dems, that is if you do what I bolded.

You may have noted in Obama's speech, the other day, he even said as much about McCain.

'Nuff said.

ETA: IG, if you're so liberal, why are you still registered as a Republican? Or, have you switched, yet?

[InfinityGoddess]

McCain's record is one of a Dems, that is if you do what I bolded.

You may have noted in Obama's speech, the other day, he even said as much about McCain.

'Nuff said.

No, it isn't. I can assure you that man is no liberal.

It takes more than just social issues like immigration to be a liberal.

It takes more than just passing bills like McCain-Feingold and to be all pro-ethics reform to be a liberal.

It takes more than saying that you're pro-environment to be a liberal.

If you're a true liberal, you don't "flip" on your positions. You're an individual of principle. You stand for social and economic justice. You realize that there's a bigger world out there than you. You also understand that when you write the rules, you also have to live up to them to set an example.

McCain is anti-abortion, anti-labor, pro-free trade, pro-war, and he's now for extending Bush tax cuts and thinks he can break his own rules on campaign finance. He is no liberal. He's a neocon.

[quote=Jean Marie;2289382]

ETA: IG, if you're so liberal, why are you still registered as a Republican? Or, have you switched, yet?

A) I haven't gotten around to it.

B) I'm waiting to see what the Dems would do.

[Jean Marie]

No, it isn't. I can assure you that man is no liberal.

It takes more than just social issues like immigration to be a liberal.

It takes more than just passing bills like McCain-Feingold and to be all pro-ethics reform to be a liberal.

It takes more than saying that you're pro-environment to be a liberal.

If you're a true liberal, you don't "flip" on your positions. You're an individual of principle. You stand for social and economic justice. You realize that there's a bigger world out there than you. You also understand that when you write the rules, you also have to live up to them to set an example.

McCain is anti-abortion, anti-labor, pro-free trade, pro-war, and he's now for extending Bush tax cuts and thinks he can break his own rules on campaign finance. He is no liberal. He's a neocon.

[quote]

A) I haven't gotten around to it.

B) I'm waiting to see what the Dems would do.
A sideline liberal, I see.

I suggest looking up the transcript of Obama's speech, then. He's all but promoted McCain as an alternative to Bush. Actually, he said it.

[My-Immortal]

If you're a true liberal, you don't "flip" on your positions. You're an individual of principle.

Can you clarify your position please.

Which are you saying?

1) Only a true liberal is an individual of principle.

or

2) As long as a person doesn't flip their position, they are a individual of principle.

[Takvah]

If you're a true liberal, you don't "flip" on your positions. You're an individual of principle. You stand for social and economic justice. You realize that there's a bigger world out there than you. You also understand that when you write the rules, you also have to live up to them to set an example.



Now there's a knee slapper!

[WarrenP]

...If you're a true liberal, you don't "flip" on your positions. You're an individual of principle. You stand for social and economic justice. You realize that there's a bigger world out there than you. You also understand that when you write the rules, you also have to live up to them to set an example.
...

This is my favorite post in a loooong time. Thank you.

[Jean Marie]

[QUOTE][quote=InfinityGoddess;2289408]

It takes more than just social issues like immigration to be a liberal.


It takes more than saying that you're pro-environment to be a liberal.

If you're a true liberal, you don't "flip" on your positions. You're an individual of principle. You stand for social and economic justice. You realize that there's a bigger world out there than you. You also understand that when you write the rules, you also have to live up to them to set an example.


I'm thinking you should send this to Clinton's campaign...she could use it as her new manifesto.

[MichaelDeVere]

This is my favorite post in a loooong time. Thank you.

Hell, that's sig line material.



So according to you dear Infinity Goddess, John Kerry wasn't liberal.

Hillary's Flip Flops: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh6J1GykqGU&eurl=http://www.barackoblogger.com/2007/10/hillarys-flip-flops-captured.html

Obama Flip Flops http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q3Lj0Xgd40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uju5ZY99Bm0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA8Bu9c-XA4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nd4paj6z30

[robeiae]

Honestly, I think that because both Hillary and Obama are such strong candidates, it's been a tough call for voters on who to pick. On the one hand, you have people who feel nostalgic over Bill Clinton's gig in the White House and the decade of prosperity for the middle class. And on the other, you have people who want to see a fresh face in the picture, with messages of hope for the future.

Either way, the Democratic primaries have been impressive.
Strong? You're kidding, right?

Both are pathetically weak. The only reason either could win is because of Bush and Iraq. Neither really has anything significant to bring to the table. Hillary has proven herself to be ineffective when she's caught playing politics--unlike her husband--and that reflects her poor leadership potential. Obama is still an unknown re his ability to lead. But many little things are piling up, imo, indicating that William may have pegged him dead solid perfect: an empty suit.

To use my personal choice for President, imagine if Mark Warner was in this race. He'd have already disposed of Clinton and Obama--easily. And he'd mop the floor with McCain, imo. Of course, that's mostly because the floor is set to be mopped. It's just that Obama and Clinton are unable to do it...because they're weak.

[small axe]

If the Democrats screw THIS one up and LOSE in 2008 --

I vow here and now I will commit myself to bad and radical revolutionary behaviour!

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h227/Tayassu/PattyHearst-1.jpg

Okay -- maybe just really bad and radical Photoshop!

Or very grainy and unenthusiastic nightvision porno tapes!


But I'll be rilly rilly pee'd off if the Demos manage to "wrestle defeat from the jaws of victory" and throw this election away! :)

[Jean Marie]

But I'll be rilly rilly pee'd off if the Demos manage to "wrestle defeat from the jaws of victory" and throw this election away! :)
My pup could do a better job than them. Really.

[InfinityGoddess]

A sideline liberal, I see.

I suggest looking up the transcript of Obama's speech, then. He's all but promoted McCain as an alternative to Bush. Actually, he said it.

Right. No different than how Clinton has portrayed him, yes?

Somehow I find that doubtful.




I'm thinking you should send this to Clinton's campaign...she could use it as her new manifesto.

Except that I wouldn't necessarily call Clinton a liberal, either. She is on social issues for some parts, but certainly not economically.



So according to you dear Infinity Goddess, John Kerry wasn't liberal.



Not as liberal as I would have liked him to be, no.

There are differing degrees to liberalism/progressivism. Some politicians are more liberal than others, others less so. Like the differing degrees of conservatism, only on the other end of the political spectrum.

[InfinityGoddess]

Can you clarify your position please.

Which are you saying?

1) Only a true liberal is an individual of principle.

or

2) As long as a person doesn't flip their position, they are a individual of principle.

Actually, I perhaps should have clarified that liberals fight for the little fish against the big fish. Both economically and socially.

[InfinityGoddess]

Strong? You're kidding, right?

Both are pathetically weak. The only reason either could win is because of Bush and Iraq. Neither really has anything significant to bring to the table. Hillary has proven herself to be ineffective when she's caught playing politics--unlike her husband--and that reflects her poor leadership potential. Obama is still an unknown re his ability to lead. But many little things are piling up, imo, indicating that William may have pegged him dead solid perfect: an empty suit.

To use my personal choice for President, imagine if Mark Warner was in this race. He'd have already disposed of Clinton and Obama--easily. And he'd mop the floor with McCain, imo. Of course, that's mostly because the floor is set to be mopped. It's just that Obama and Clinton are unable to do it...because they're weak.

Well, see I disagree with you there. Both Clinton and Obama have their strengths and weaknesses like any other, but considering the enthusiasm that these two generate, it's easy to see why there is a perceived stalemate.

Mark Warner is running for the vacating Senate seat currently held by John Warner, the Republican. So he's a busy guy right now.

[NikeeGoddess]

But I'll be rilly rilly pee'd off if the Demos manage to "wrestle defeat from the jaws of victory" and throw this election away!clinton has vowed that after the decision is made at the convention that she will do whatever it takes to ensure a win for the democrats. you should give her at least some credit for that... but i'm sure you hatred for her is so, that you cannot even do that much.

[WarrenP]

Actually, I perhaps should have clarified that liberals fight for the little fish against the big fish. Both economically and socially.

When do they actually teach the little fish how to fish for themselves?

[Takvah]

Actually, I perhaps should have clarified that liberals fight for the little fish against the big fish. Both economically and socially.

Like when Barry Obama agreed to take up for families being exposed to tritium from a nuke plant? Is this how they take up for the "little fish"? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)Good Lord.

[InfinityGoddess]

When do they actually teach the little fish how to fish for themselves?

The little fish actually fish for themselves after the pick-me-up. I'm an example, seeing that I've lived on public assistance before I came to school on state subsidies and hope to use my degree to become financially self-sufficient. Couldn't have done it on my own, what with college costs being what they are and all, and me with anxiety disorders and messed up spinal and hip alignment (injured myself on the job >.<).

Like when Barry Obama agreed to take up for families being exposed to tritium from a nuke plant? Is this how they take up for the "little fish"? Good Lord.

He's not so dye-in-the-wool like me. But he's better than the corporatist-hugging Clinton in some regards by far.

[My-Immortal]

There are differing degrees to liberalism/progressivism. Some politicians are more liberal than others, others less so. Like the differing degrees of conservatism, only on the other end of the political spectrum.

Thank you for explaining how that all works....

[My-Immortal]

Actually, I perhaps should have clarified that liberals fight for the little fish against the big fish. Both economically and socially.

But that doesn't really answer the question.

Which, in your opinion, is true?

1) Only a true liberal is an individual of principle.

or

2) As long as a person doesn't flip their position, they are a individual of principle.

[clintl]

Republicans, have fun speculating. My prediction is that McCain's rise in the polls will reverse as soon as the two Democrats settle this among themselves, and can concentrate on pointing out that McCain is basically promising to continue Bush's disastrous policies.

[Upbeat]

When you're gung-ho for one candidate or another, consider whether it's because you're following herd mentality, or because you have, with open mind, studied credible sources of information regarding each candidate - the word for word Senate reports, for example.

[Bird of Prey]

The word for word Senate reports, for example, point to Nader, if anybody has an "open mind" rather than the "herd mentality."

[CDarklock]

I have to do this every time someone proclaims McCain is a liberal, because speaking as one myself, I can assure you that he's far from.

Maybe he's just conservative in his liberalism.

[Jean Marie]

When do they actually teach the little fish how to fish for themselves?
Lemme guess, when they become tadpoles...or, is that backwards...

[NikeeGoddess]

Republicans, have fun speculating. My prediction is that McCain's rise in the polls will reverse as soon as the two Democrats settle this among themselves, and can concentrate on pointing out that McCain is basically promising to continue Bush's disastrous policies.i predict this as well. also we don't know what will happen in iraq in the next few months. and any kind of terrorist attack until november will also be a huge factor in the general election.

[InfinityGoddess]

But that doesn't really answer the question.

Which, in your opinion, is true?

1) Only a true liberal is an individual of principle.

or

2) As long as a person doesn't flip their position, they are a individual of principle.

Number two. Anything less is simply pandering. Anyone can be an individual of principle, if they want to be.

Maybe he's just conservative in his liberalism.

Or maybe people have a pretty skewed view on what liberalism is. This is the Conservapedia definition, hehe (http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal). A real hoot.

This is what liberalism actually is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism).

[small axe]

clinton has vowed that after the decision is made at the convention that she will do whatever it takes to ensure a win for the democrats. you should give her at least some credit for that... but i'm sure you hatred for her is so, that you cannot even do that much.


I'm sure pointlessly hostile comments like yours right there demonstrates to everyone here that whatever you claim to be 'sure' about ... you may be talking out yer poop chute! :)

[My-Immortal]

But that doesn't really answer the question.

Which, in your opinion, is true?

1) Only a true liberal is an individual of principle.

or

2) As long as a person doesn't flip their position, they are a individual of principle.

Number two. Anything less is simply pandering. Anyone can be an individual of principle, if they want to be.

So, despite your contrary language, you must admire President Bush for being an individual of principle, because in regards to most topics he really doesn't flip his position, or pander to public opinion, right?

Or, do you only admire an individual of principle if their position mirrors your own?

[My-Immortal]

Except that I wouldn't necessarily call Clinton a liberal, either. She is on social issues for some parts, but certainly not economically.

Not as liberal as I would have liked him (John Kerry) to be, no.

There are differing degrees to liberalism/progressivism. Some politicians are more liberal than others, others less so. Like the differing degrees of conservatism, only on the other end of the political spectrum.

Or maybe people have a pretty skewed view on what liberalism is.

Bold/underline mine. I also added the (John Kerry) to make clear the 'him' in the above post.

But IG, using your own explanation, that there are 'differing degrees to liberalism' couldn't both Clinton and Kerry BE liberals -- just that since you don't like ALL of what they stand for, you choose to not label them as such? So really, it all comes down to your own opinion of what a word means rather than the generally accepted use of the term? You say as much in the boldfaced type above. It's just your opinion that they're not 'liberal' enough - though, you later state there are differing degrees. Who has the skewed view of liberalism?

Are you purposefully being obtuse or was it all done by accident?

Thanks...

[johnnysannie]

clinton has vowed that after the decision is made at the convention that she will do whatever it takes to ensure a win for the democrats. you should give her at least some credit for that... but i'm sure you hatred for her is so, that you cannot even do that much.

I'll believe that when I see it - Hillary Clinton shaking Obama's hand and giving him all her support. It's easy for her to say that now when she still apparently thinks she will get the nomination but I would have to see it live to believe it.

If she doesn't get the nomination, she's going to fight it tooth and nail, further derailing the election chances for the Democrats in November.

[MichaelDeVere]

Bold/underline mine. I also added the (John Kerry) to make clear the 'him' in the above post.

But IG, using your own explanation, that there are 'differing degrees to liberalism' couldn't both Clinton and Kerry BE liberals -- just that since you don't like ALL of what they stand for, you choose to not label them as such? So really, it all comes down to your own opinion of what a word means rather than the generally accepted use of the term? You say as much in the boldfaced type above. It's just your opinion that they're not 'liberal' enough - though, you later state there are differing degrees. Who has the skewed view of liberalism?

Are you purposefully being obtuse or was it all done by accident?

Thanks...

Obtuse?

More like intellectual dishonesty.

[Takvah]

If she doesn't get the nomination, she's going to fight it tooth and nail, further derailing the election chances for the Democrats in November.

If I was Barry I would walk everywhere looking down at the ground for the proverbial (and perhaps literal) banana peel that the Clintons will be strategically placing in his path.

Honestly, I think at some point she sits down with Dean, Barry, and Axelrod and tells them... deal with me, or don't deal with me, and I remove support or go third party. I put nothing past Hillary and honestly... at this point... I am finding it all rather endearing. She's a special kind of broad.

[donroc]

A rising from the bathtub kind of broad? Knife in hand of course.

[MichaelDeVere]

I've already heard rumblings of a breakaway party backed by their millions if she doesn't get the nod.

More US mayors are preparing for riots and violence during the convention.

Brace yourselves. It's teetering.

[Takvah]

A rising from the bathtub kind of broad? Knife in hand of course.

Bitch has fangs and claws... she don't need no stinkin' knife! :D

[donroc]

Yes, no Lady of the Lake she.

[cethklein]

clinton has vowed that after the decision is made at the convention that she will do whatever it takes to ensure a win for the democrats. you should give her at least some credit for that... but i'm sure you hatred for her is so, that you cannot even do that much.

Can you make an argument that doesn't involve personal attacks of "you hate her because she's a woman" or other similar tripe? I've yet to see you do it.

[InfinityGoddess]

So, despite your contrary language, you must admire President Bush for being an individual of principle, because in regards to most topics he really doesn't flip his position, or pander to public opinion, right?

Or, do you only admire an individual of principle if their position mirrors your own?

Bush is not a man of principle. He's a power-mad idiot in a suit.

People of principles tend to do the right thing. He hasn't fit that bill.

[InfinityGoddess]

But IG, using your own explanation, that there are 'differing degrees to liberalism' couldn't both Clinton and Kerry BE liberals -- just that since you don't like ALL of what they stand for, you choose to not label them as such? So really, it all comes down to your own opinion of what a word means rather than the generally accepted use of the term? You say as much in the boldfaced type above. It's just your opinion that they're not 'liberal' enough - though, you later state there are differing degrees. Who has the skewed view of liberalism?


I never said they weren't liberals at all (they clearly are, in certain areas). I'm saying they aren't really all that liberal. I've already stated that Clinton is liberal on social issues. Economically is where she falls short. Same with Kerry.

Are you purposefully being obtuse or was it all done by accident?

Thanks...

Purely accidental. I didn't catch my original mistake in time before I went to class.

[CDarklock]

Or maybe people have a pretty skewed view on what liberalism is.

Well, you can have a liberal philosophy, which means you are all about liberty and freedom and all that good stuff. Or you can want a liberal government, which means you are for rigid and precise specification of all that is allowed so there is no misunderstanding.

You can also flip those around and use "conservative" instead. A conservative government supports liberty and freedom; a conservative philosophy wants rigid and precise specification.

We're really all both liberal and conservative, because each philosophy is opposed to the identically-named style of government. I'm for conservative government, because I have a liberal philosophy. So I can pick whichever label I want... and so can you. But the label by itself doesn't mean anything. You need to know whether it's your desired philosophy, or your desired government.

[NikeeGoddess]

Can you make an argument that doesn't involve personal attacks of "you hate her because she's a woman" or other similar tripe? I've yet to see you do it.funny thing is... when i do say things like this, no one who feels attacked claims it isn't true.

anyhoo - back on a relevant topic
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malcolm-friedberg/barack-obamas-integrity_b_92750.html
Sen. Obama has no choice but to support a re-vote, in whatever manifestation, in Michigan and Florida. Why? Because, as I see it, his entire position about why he should be elected president can be reduced to one word: 'integrity.' And I believe that his outrageous claim to that totally-unreachable mantle, at least as it applies to contemporary politicians, has some validity. Consequently, I believe him when he says he's not sure how his race speech plays politically. But as a United States Senator, a man whose legal background gives him a thorough appreciation for the ideals of our Constitution and the role of the people, I do not understand how he can do anything and everything in his power to prevent the disenfranchisement of millions of voters.

[small axe]

If they call in the UN election observers to make sure it's a clean election, I'd support a fair re-vote in Florida and Michigan, I kid you not.

But those ones they had were already disqualified by the Party types who make the rules, ahead of time.

Party rules are PARTY rules, and honestly, there may be little point in arguing about Florida or Michigan voters feeling 'dis-enfranchised' ...

We've all seen how it works in other, more-screwed up countries than Florida: if you have a problem with a crooked election or a crooked dictator running a bogus election, you don't validate the election by voting, you BOYCOTT the election.

Yeah, it didn't wotk out too good for the Sunnis in Iraq :) but the Floridians don't get to go vote in an election they were warned wouldn't result in delegates ... and then cry "Where did our delegates go?!"

The point is: It's not an election or a penalty according to the USA or our Constitutional rules, it's a PARTY rules and PARTY penalty thang. :)

It's their Party. It's their screw up.

Send in the UN blue helmets and run a fair election, as an Obama supporter I'll respect that. (Keep the UN away from Florida's underage girls; that's the one warning I'll give)

Part of "fair election" is having more than one candidate's name on the ballot.

Obama doesn't have to agree to something that won't serve him, just like Hillary gets to spin and re-interpret and huckster the count to stay in the race, I suppose.

You want Obama to show he can "be tough enough" ?

You want Obama to "close the deal" or "finish her off" like the TV experts and pundits bleat and bray for him to do twenty times a night?

There ya go: maybe that's Obama playing the low-brow game everybody wants him to.

"No re-elections" Isn't that tuff enuff? :rant:

[My-Immortal]

But that doesn't really answer the question.

Which, in your opinion, is true?

1) Only a true liberal is an individual of principle.

or

2) As long as a person doesn't flip their position, they are a individual of principle.

Number two. Anything less is simply pandering. Anyone can be an individual of principle, if they want to be.

So, despite your contrary language, you must admire President Bush for being an individual of principle, because in regards to most topics he really doesn't flip his position, or pander to public opinion, right?

Or, do you only admire an individual of principle if their position mirrors your own?

Bush is not a man of principle. He's a power-mad idiot in a suit.

People of principles tend to do the right thing. He hasn't fit that bill.

But IG, you're changing your own definition of 'an individual of principle'.

You're now claiming that an individual of principle is now not only a person that doesn't flip his/her position, but also only does IN YOUR OPINION, the 'right thing'.

So, using your own definition, unless a person agrees with you and your philosophies, and does what you deem is 'right', they cannot be an individual of principle.

Does such a person exist?

[InfinityGoddess]

But IG, you're changing your own definition of 'an individual of principle'.


No I'm not. My definition of a person of principle has always been "someone who does what is in the best interests of others and not afraid stand up for what's right".

Bush has never fit that description, in my view.

[MichaelDeVere]

No I'm not. My definition of a person of principle has always been "someone who does what is in the best interests of others and not afraid stand up for what's right".

Bush has never fit that description, in my view.


Really now.

Considering that "right" is subjective, and that people who subscribe to moral relativism generally have issues with the conservative values, I would say that Bush has made more "right" decisions, than "left" ones.

[Seaclusion]

GW has not made too many decisions in the best interest of this country. ie spending hundreds of billions and ruining our economy invading and occupying a country that didn't threaten us (or even our friends since we drove them back in the first war); not going after and capturing Bin Laden, the real culprit in the 9/11 attack; setting up camps around the world to torture POWs (just wait until we're in a real war and the enemy uses our logic to treat American POWs the way we treat others). You know this is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Richard

[InfinityGoddess]

Really now.

Considering that "right" is subjective, and that people who subscribe to moral relativism generally have issues with the conservative values, I would say that Bush has made more "right" decisions, than "left" ones.

Bush is among the most morally bankrupt Presidents we've had. A person of principle would not leave hurricane victims hanging for five days while partying on the West Coast. A person of principle would not start wars based on lies and refuse to leave a country once the mission is complete when the people of said country want them out, much less leave our troops in a quagmire and use torture on the people we capture. A person of principle would use diplomacy first, and war as the very last resort. And a person of principle certainly would not sign onto trade agreements that don't require a respect of human rights, etc.

Granted, I also blame Clinton and Bush I as well for those trade agreements, but to continue them when they've proven to be disastrous to human welfare is just as equally appalling, if not moreso.

But, as you've said. Morality is subjective and your mileage may vary.

[MichaelDeVere]

Diplomacy?

You mean like UN sanctions that have never once worked in any instance where they were imposed?

"Listen, if you don't stop behaving as a bad global neighbor, we're going to write you a very scathing letter."

[InfinityGoddess]

Diplomacy?

You mean like UN sanctions that have never once worked in any instance where they were imposed?

"Listen, if you don't stop behaving as a bad global neighbor, we're going to write you a very scathing letter."

No, I mean making use of the Secretary of State and the State Dept. You know, the people who are supposed to to do our talking for us, not the UN.

I'll admit that the UN has become rather pathetic in terms of getting tough with world leaders who are known human rights abusers. But that's only because we have human rights abuser countries that have veto power when it comes to doing anything of merit.

[My-Immortal]

Drifting back toward the 'civil' war between the democrats...

Just curious what some of you think about this scenario:

IF Obama continues to lead in states won, popular vote, and pledged delegates but at the convention the Superdelegates decide to back Clinton and give her the nomination instead -- do you think Obama could/would decide to run as a third party nominee (like some have speculated Clinton could/might do if she were not the democrat's nominee) and if so:

1) Do you think he'd have a legitimate chance as a 3rd party candidate?

2) Do you think it would basically guarantee a McCain victory?

3) Do you think a split like this would actually benefit the general population -- in that it would likely allow future third party candidates a better chance at being heard/or legitimately create a third party and break the stranglehold of the typical two-party system we have now?

Again...just curious what some of you think.

Take care all -

[Seaclusion]

1) no
2) yes
3) no

I'm short on answers today.

Richard

[mscelina]

If Obama ran as an independent candidate all hell would break loose. First off, I'm reasonably sure that his big-pocket contributions would dry up. Second, the Democratic party would fracture even more than it is. Third, in the general election, he would be taking votes away from Clinton and not McCain.

Oh, and how about "people of principle do the right thing" argument above? Debates based on comparative morality have no resolution. It's a fruitless exercise in futility.