Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama Better Get the VP Slot (157 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  it's truly amazing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FleetAdmiralJ, Abra Crabcakeya

    how many Kossacks have clicked on McCain.

    "Bomb, bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" and 100 years in Iraq, just to show the Clintons who's boss.  What a joke.  As if anything the Clintons could do would be worse than giving the guys at the helm now another four years to fuck us harder.

    Unreal.  At my reading of this poll, with 147 votes, we have 76 people either voting McCain or not voting, and only 71 voting the Dem ticket.

    What a disappointing sampling.

    http://www.katemckinnon.com

    by kate mckinnon on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:02:51 PM PST

    •  It's the old liberal principle (0+ / 0-)

      it's better to lose than to win.

      I forget who here I picked up that phrase from, but over and over and over they seem to prove it right.

      •  That's not a liberal principle (0+ / 0-)

        Its a leftist principle.  This is an important point.  Liberals want to keep the current system in place by buying people off.  Leftists think the system is structurally unjust. Thus, there are indeed times it is better to lose than to win.  Kerry is a case in point.  Thank god he didn't win.  If there is a realign afoot in this country, it is solely because his lose allowed for four more years of the Republicans stewing in their own juices.

        To his virtues be very kind, to his vices, very blind. moralquestionsblog.com

        by Descrates on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:53:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  so i see (0+ / 0-)

          that you are a "its better to lose than to win" person.

          •  I don't see things in these sort of binary terms (0+ / 0-)

            I have my own political objective which the Democratic platfrom is but shadow of.  If I conclude that in this case, more of the Clintons is bad for the political left in this country--which I lean toward--I conclude they should lose.

            To his virtues be very kind, to his vices, very blind. moralquestionsblog.com

            by Descrates on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:00:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  of course (0+ / 0-)

              If I conclude that in this case, more of the Clintons is bad for the political left

              since I generally see as "the political left" as a bunch of people who want to impose excessive government regulations on things, are whiny, and can't be trusted as a member in a democratic coalition (quick to stab it in the back if it does anything they don't like), then I'm not too sad about that.

              If they wished to work with moderates to help the party, then great.  They've made clear they're more interested in running moderates out of the party and taking it over for themselves.  And then they complain when the moderates in the party diss them.  And, frankly, democratic moderates think that the Democratic Party can pick up more votes from the middle than the left anyway - especially since pandering to the left won't guarantee that the left will vote for them anyway.

              •  well, I'm not interest in debating electoral (0+ / 0-)

                strategy.  That gets way too play in my opinion, in these parts.  As a leftist, the Democratic party doesn't do me a lot of good if it ends no supporting leftist objectives.  Of course, a lot of people throw the Iraq War around if you question the wisdom of always voting democratic, but its not like voting for the center-left party gaurantees protection from idiotic foreign policy moves, e.g. Vietnam.  

                To his virtues be very kind, to his vices, very blind. moralquestionsblog.com

                by Descrates on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:54:10 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site