clinton obama
ok democrats, we have to be real. As much as I love John Kerry. His time is done. We have to look to the future. Lets face it the republicans will either run Mccain or maybe Rice in 08. A Clinton Obama ticket is the best choice. Though Obama probably wouldn;t accept the nomination. it would be great. Then get Obama ready for prez when Clinton is done. We have to do something new and we can;t run Kerry again. Edwards is not even really involved with politics right now. Dean is a no show. He;s good where he is. Clinton is the best choice. So lets get the democrats back in control in 06 then the presidencey in 08. We can and will do it. We must be organized.
P.s we must get Bush impeached
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
If the GOP is polling as bad
in 2008 as it is now in... they will run McCain/ Hagel or Hagel/ McCain as a Hail Mary pass. Just a hunch....
I agree that Kerry has wasted his political capital with his own supporters, but Clinton is a super devisive figure that will bring out conservatives to vote against her, even those who would have otherwise stayed home.
I like Hilary, but I don't like her stance on Iraq and a lot of white men hate her for no logical reason. She is a risky choice to run as president... I think Hilary as Vice President would suit the party interests better.
I have seen Dorgan in a number of venues... I think he is from the Northwest... He has liberal views in a conservative looking package. I wonder how strong a candidate he would be....
Dorgan as a candidate?
Dorgan comes across with many progressive ideas. He'd be great. We need this now.
We have lots of young Democrats who are progressives in the House who would make good VPs.
My favorite was Kucinich.
I don't agree
Although I am more worried about next year, I will respond. I simply cannot agree that Hillary is the best choice in 08. She is way to divisive a figure. That would be like the Repugs running Cheney. We need a candidate that could at least try to heal some of the serious division in this country. I think we need to run someone who is not of Washington too. I personally hope Edwards will be the nominee, with Richards for Veep. If not I would like to see Richards or Warner. I would also like to see Al Gore run at least in the primaries, even though he says he won't. I like Hillary, don't get me wrong, but she would unite all the hypocrites against us again.
Hillary is a DLC "centrist,"
Hillary is a DLC "centrist," and exactly what we don't need to represent the Democrats of this country.
we can
find someone better.
the dems didnt need
bush representing their interests to the world either. Of the POSSIBLE candidates who will get us a potus????
I am no genius
But again I like Edwards. I think he has a positive message and compassionate agenda. He was not always rich, and appears human. How many among the Repugs, or the Dems even, can say they are SELF MADE millionaires. Edwards earned his silver spoon he didn't inherit it. Most importantly, he has a positive effect on people. When people hear him, they like him. Kerry couldn't say that. Among others, I like Richardson, Warner, and Biden. I like Gore, but he said he won't run.
I think Barack Obama would
I think Barack Obama would make an excellent
candidate for VP. He has shown that he is a
great Democratic senator.
http://obama.senate.gov/press/
Here are a few press releases;
Obama?
Obama for VP Presdient? He supported the Roberts nomination. He has talked the "progressive" agenda but has not followed up on it. His record shows it.
We should find someone more fit to get us out of this mess. It isn't Rice, Clinton, Obama, Clark, etc.
Clinton
I'd never vote for her. She'd make Iraq worse. She said she was in favor of the wall the Israelis are building in the West Bank and refused to meet with Palestinian representatives when she was over there commemorating Rabin's murder.
And there is a lesson in this thread...
We need a candidate that ALL democrats can rally around, not just tolerate ... if we aren't together going into the election... then the GOP has a wedge to argue that their voting shenanigans are just opinion differences. We need all the democrats and all the greens to RALLY to vote... not just hold their noses to vote.
I don't think Hilary fits that bill... (no pun intended)
No more... I don't like this or that about our candidate but anybody but the Bush League...
That said... just about everybody on this board seems to like Edwards ... and I don't know enough about Obama to have an opinion of my own or to perceive others opinion of him...
I am still focused on 2006, but
bare in mind, Obama's lack of experience would be the only thing the Neo Cons could use against him. For me, that is a big plus, few skeletons in his closet.
They would have to fabricate a lot of shit that could be easily refuted.
Saving the world from stupidity
One Republican at a time
Since November, 2004
We must be ready...
No doubt whoever our candidate/s are, bear in mind the Republican Smear Machine** (with full complicity of the media as usual) will be out in force. Just considering the two most recent Democratic candidates (John Kerry (war record), Al Gore (misquotes)) shows the pattern we're likely to see yet again. This is a real and serious problem.
The thing is, it seems we've done rather a feeble job of countering their past attempts to destroy our candidates in the minds of the public. They "fabricated" the materials in those cases too. I'm just afraid that unless we, as a party, don't prepare and develop some organized approach to rapidly and effectively deflating/discrediting these combined Republican partisan/media conspiratorial attacks, we'll be left wondering what hit us (and why an effective response isn't forthcoming-again).
That is, "easily refuting" Republican fabrications hasn't been so easy in the past (apparently)--even though it seems like it should have been. It takes more than just offering up the truth to repudiate their sensational fabrications/deceptions/lies. Comparing the truth with a lie as though--at best--they're equal isn't enough. We have to react instantly, aggressively and loudly--show people we're outraged and that anyone who cares about the truth should be outraged as well. No "equal" coverage of a lie will be tolerated and there must be enough negative consequences for the media they will respond to our demands that they investigate "allegations" before presenting them as valid points of view!
I sincerely hope we're in a position to really do something like this, this time around. We should be ready (hyper-vigilant even) to have literally millions of Democrats across the country stand up and demand to be heard, at a moment's notice, in opposition to any media supported travesty. Standing up should involve some action that cannot be easily ignored by the media. Some options might include rapid, almost spontaneous nation-wide demonstrations and massive email/mail/telephone campaigns (to congress, to editors, to advertisers...). We might need even more since this would represent something akin to parity with current Republican organization. In any case, such capability would help make it clear we won't be steamrolled again (and perhaps even help motivate the media clean up it's act)!
_______________________________________________
**"Fabrications-R-Us", "The World According to GOP" or The "World According to Republicans" (WAR), "Deception Inc", "Falsehoods Central", "The DeceptiCons"...
We all managed to rally around Kerry...
even though he failed to rally around us. Not going to find the perfect candidate...whoever is selected/encouraged to run had better be brilliant and qualified in many areas of the administration of power.
That's why I try to suggest Warner/Clark or Clark/Warner.
Governors and Generals
Americans don't like to elect Senators as President. Americans like to elect generals and governors as President, so Warner/Clark sounds good to me. Didn't Virginia get ranked as the best governed state under Warner? Sounds like it would play in the South as well. But how are they going to get any limelight? Warner's no longer governor of Virginia; what's Clark doing these days?
She's just another mediocre politician
As long as she maintains her position that the illegal war in Iraq was the right thing to do, she certainly will not get my vote. Far as I am concerned, all the democrats who voted to approve the war should either confess their sins, or be voted out of office.
Hold up everybody !!
We're getting the cart before the horse here, Let us concentrate our collective efforts on the 06 elections first then watch and debate a candidate for the Whitehouse take over in 08 , It is of the ut most importance that we not only gain seats next year but actually take back control of both houses , Right now we've got momentum , we can't afford to lose any of it bickering amoungst ourselves , Its time for a change and that change starts with us !!
STOP BITCHIN !!
START A REVOLUTION !!!!!!
Stop with the 2008 crap!
We need to put preasure on Congress to clean up the mess they have allowed to happen. We need to start by putting real people that actually care about our country. That starts today. If you see a candidate that is for justice, support them! It doesn't matter if they are from your state or not. We need to get rid of all the bad apples, republican and democrat alike. If there is a race that is winable we need to get behind it. The revolution starts today!
No time like the present
To send clear notice to centrist politicians that selling out their party and their country ain't acceptable...might give some those lackies opportunity get a clear picture of what is expected of them
Clinto-Obama
Regarding Clinton-Obama: I can't support any Democrat who continues to support the war, as Hillary does. This is the policy of the Nation mag, and I agree.
response to jellocat
While I agree that the war is unjust, illegal and wrong. I'm tired of hearing dems say things like anyone who voted shoud be (insert punishment here). Look, at the time they had to vote yes. There was no choice. Think about what would happen to any dem who voted no then wmd were found. That would have been it for them. NOw we know there are no WMD there and probably haven;t been. BUt at the time the democrats had to go along with it. But I will say the president lied to congress. we all know that. I say its time for the dems to write up articles of impeachment. The time to stand up is now. BUt the part in washington has to get a backbone and it seems thats finally happening
an emotional issue, yes
But not a single one of them (dems or repugs) should ever be allowed to claim victimhood. No way. Seems to me there was ample information for even lay folk to know Bush was lying about WMD. They simply were not victims...it was choice.....To save or protect their political skins?...only to sacrifices the lives of so many.....sorry, I do not buy, or accept it, and will not.
I have had a lot of regard for Clinton, but she's a turncoat for sure. We need to stop accepting and supporting the idea that integrity and principles can be cast to the wind because it is "so important" to play along and "get elected"...so "real change" can happen. The middle east is in flames because of such cowardice.
Clinton and ALL THE REST need to admit they were wrong, and even disingenuous, in their support of the war, or be driven from office along with that junk yard dog occupying the white house.
reply to jellocat
I am as upset about the Iraq situation as anyone. But the bottom line is if your gonna say that the dems should be punished for voting yes. remember what they voted yes for. what they were told. Force was a last option. They were told lies on top of lies. Look at it at that time that place. Bush stated he would build a coalition, military as last resort. thats what was voted for. Now, we can take those lies and turn them against the right. the loss of life is horrible. yes. But remember it was W who sent the troops in not the Dems. It was W who presented false info to the american public, not the dems. It was W who lied to congress. not the dems. In retrospect knowing then what we know now. Yes absolutely the dems should have voted no. I was against this war from the beginning. as were most dems. But the people in D.C voted yes for something that never happened.again last resort. I feel we need to remember that. and turning against the democrats is not constructive. is Hilary pissing me off, yes. I;ve been very upset about alot of her stances as of late. But i;m not willing to condemn the dems who voted yes for military action as a last resort and a real coalition. But i do agree with you that the Democrats in the capital need to stop the crap with saying the war was right. On that we agree 100%
That's what...
That's what happens when you trust George Bush. However, who knew for certain he was that twisted at that point... (I remember thinking it was obvious, but there wasn't alot of evidence available or understood yet).
As for voting to give Bush the power to make war--that was to give him credibility to threaten war; he wasn't supposed to ever actually use it (except as a true last resort). Remembering that the vote was not "in favor of war" really is important--and that it's always framed as though it was is a very powerful and clever deception!
There's another framing issue here too. To argue whether or not IRAQ had WMD's tends to lend credibility for the war--even if they did not have any, since it makes that eventuality nothing more than a "mistake" (even if George would never, ever admit a "mistake"). WMD's should never have been/never be considered a viable excuse or sufficient condition for engaging in an illegal war--unless the weapons were of sufficient magnitude/capability as to actually threaten the United States (or perhaps valid U.S. "national interests") AND we had real intelligence indicating an imminent attack. Of course, Bush/Cheney did their best to imply that IRAQ was developing nuclear weapons... I guess they were trying to cover all the bases. Besides, once they had all the troops there--they could have claimed it was a waste of money had we not used them (conveniently not considering the waste of money AND LIVES if we did).
well, exactly so
So I sure wish that one or two of the more outspoken Dems of these days would put the screws to Bush and Cheney in their "counter attacks" of this week, and remind them....and all those who flock to believe their BS... that the Dems they now speak of "voted for the war in Iraq" based (apparently) on the LIES fed to them by the Bush Administration.....seems there is a great opportunity here to turn this so called "counter attact" on its ear....seems missed...
Yes, there was a choice
If the democrats weren't splintered because of the DLC, they could have acted as a group and told the POTUS that they do not support a war in Iraq while bin Laden is still loose.
It would have been that simple. They should have forced Bush to slay one dragon before he went off searching for an invisible one.
My dog is smarter than your president.
Coming Elections
Submarine USS Wahoo ss238
We should focus on the 2006 races, and everyone
volunteer, and do all they can to help elect
Democrats so we can take some part of the Government
back for the people.
Especially the Senate races, as they are more easier
to get elected then the Reps, who are only from a certain
district.
The mind of man has always longed to know what lies beyond the world we live in. Explorers have ventured into the depths and heights. Of these explorers, some are scientists, some are mystics. Each is driven by a different purpose. The one thing they share in common is a wish to cross the borderlands that lie beyond
Unified
I think that we should all, as progressives, or liberals, or Democrats -- whatever we use to describe ourselves -- should learn from the other party one important lesson: Once a candidate is selected out of the "Primary" process, we should rally around that Democratic candidate -- if you look back at recent elections, all factors of the Republican party -- be it a moderate, a radical, or the extreme right -- manage to rally around their party's canidate. It is through unity amongst the Democratic Party that we will be able to put a Democrat in the Oval Office and restore honesty within and ultimately restore democracy to America.
In General, I agree, but
bare in mind, that once that candidate is elected, there is the tendency on the part of sitting politicians to ignore the electorate and listen to unelected constituents like corporate lobbyists first. We have to be clear that we will not be marginalized, and that their agenda is our agenda, first and foremost. Otherwise, that open and honest, what should be called transparent, government will never materialize.
Saving the world from stupidity
One Republican at a time
Since November, 2004
Very true and well said, but
Very true and well said, but my point is that when a party does not unify and rally around their candidate, it allows the other party to use that as a wedge. We can debate a candidate before and during the primaries, but once the primaries are over, unification and a rallying of the party is the only way to win. I cannot imagine another 4 years of some Republican as President who manages to please the radical right, the corporate lobbyists, the so-called Christian Coalition, all at once, as Bush has so ably done -- with the result of his escapades being a monarchy or oligarchy form of government -- ignoring the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and indivudual freedoms.
Bush hasn't done anything ably
The only reason his butt is still warming the next democratic president's chair is because of money - corrupt corporate money.
My dog is smarter than your president.