You're not Democrats

Many of us, even those that have regressed to lurking status, have completely had it.

This is a site that, by definition, a site for Democrats, right?

Well, the problem - in my eyes - is not people arguing, even in pretty nasty fashion, about who should be the Democratic nominee.   While a lot are (personal opinion) off your goddam rockers in the bile your spewing, I think it's totally good arguing about policy and substance.

We totally DO want the best possible candidate (or Pres/VP combo) we can possible muster.

*** MAIN POINT OF POST ***
But I have issue with those people - and it seems like thousands here - that insist the will NOT VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT if that nominee is [Fill in your personal voodoo doll here].

Really?  

I mean, none of them is Adolf Hitler, right?

So... REALLY?

Fine.

The rest of us wish you wouldn't come here any more.

*** End of main point ***

I don't personally care if you take offense at that.

I'm personally offended at you still posting here if you're declaring you will no longer be a democrat.  So you can deal with your personal umbrage, too.  

I mean, of course you can do what you like.  Post away about how you despise [Candidate of Satan] and how you'll vote for McCain or Huckabee or Nader if you don't get everything your way. No one's stopping you.  It's a free country and a reasonably free site.

But by declaring you will NOT VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT, you really have no business posting here on a site for and about Democrats.

End of story.

I simply ask that you think about what you're saying when you say you will abandon the party or, worse, vote Republican (REALLY?!?).  

And if that's your choice, then go to the Unity party or RedState.com and stop bothering Democrats here.

•  It takes a lot...

  It takes a lot to pull a lurker back on to the firing wall.  But that's where we're at now.

  by HadIt on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:24:36 AM PDT

  •  This site is also for getting in true

    Progressives.  Many feel that if we go the same old tired way we are not going to change anything.

    by MadAsHellMaddie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:34:52 AM PDT

    •  Then start a Green site.

      If you're not voting (D), you really don't belong here. (dunno if that fits you; the "you" here was referring to "yall that won't vote (D)")

      by burrow owl on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:39:56 AM PDT

      •  Really?

        So I have to vote Democrat no matter what, 100% of the time to participate in this site?  When did I sign that loyalty oath?

        by Tiparillo on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:44:51 AM PDT

        •  No, you don't.

          A fact that bugs the heck out of a few here <g>

          by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:52:00 AM PDT

        •  never

          who would even suggest such a thing?  But why, then, would I come in November to a site dedicated to Democratic success and say "I hate [Dem nominee], don't vote for him/her!"  

          That's the problem I have.

          by HadIt on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:17:17 AM PDT

          •  No one has done that HadIt...

            What the heck is this "Back to the Future" outrage.

            by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:21:21 AM PDT

            •  well

              That is precisely what some people are saying they will do.  And that's the part I have a problem with.  However, it's being suggested that that's all primary season bluster - and if that ends up being the case, great.

              by HadIt on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:35:37 AM PDT

        •  exactly Tiparillo! n/t

          by MadAsHellMaddie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:29:07 AM PDT

      •  Oh but I am voting for Democrats

        I am voting in true progressives.  I just may sit out the presidential vote.  And I say "may" because I have no idea how this will shake out in the end.  

        Neither do you for that matter and at this point it is a hypothetical and I know some people don't like to talk in those.

        For me it is a moral thing.  I won't tell anyone how to vote or to vote at all - I am pro choice.

        by MadAsHellMaddie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:28:20 AM PDT

        •  Understand one thing.

          Anyone who doesn't vote for the D in the presidential election is saying "I don't care if Rudy McRomby is my next president."

          Myself, I have a problem with that.  The Naderites did that in 2000 and I've never gotten over it.

          by PerryA on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:52:54 AM PDT

          •  Well then you may have a problem or you may not

            you will just have to wait to get your undies in a bunch on that.

            by MadAsHellMaddie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:59:43 AM PDT

            •  Insulting and without any reasoned merit! n/t

              by pelagicray on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:11:55 AM PDT

              •  Here's an idea

                let Perry handle his own discussion with me.  He is quite capable as you can see.  By your "thinking" Perry's opening salvo to me should be dinged.  But then I am not an asshat and I respect his opinion.

                by MadAsHellMaddie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:30:22 AM PDT

            •  So you'd be ok with...

              four to eight more years of republican maladministration?  Of another Roberts, and an Alito or two?  Because no matter what you think about Hillary (or Obama or Edwards), her (or his) judicial appointments won't be right wing hacks.  They might not be as "progressive" as you'd prefer, but I expect they'll do more to uphold the rule of law than anyone the republicans will (don't forget, Rudy 911 has already promised to appoint conservatives to the bench, and I can't bear to think who Huckaby would nominate).  And lets not forget all the right wing ideologs who were appointed to the various executive branchs and the industry insiders to regulatory agencies.  Any democrat is going to be preferable to four more years of that.

              But that's what you will be agreeing to if you can't bear to vote for whoever doesn't turn your crank.

              Or was Nader right?  Is there truely no difference between republicans and (your hated candidate's name here)?

              by PerryA on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:56:11 AM PDT

              •  The sort of purity that cannot compromise on

                better compared to the perfect in their eyes is what has doomed liberal and progressive movements time and time again and enabled the election of reactionary right wingers.

                Meanwhile the rest of us, working in the messy and often disappointing real world are, doomed to the likes of Bush in part because of this thinking and the eternal attraction of some more perfect candidate with the chance of a snowball in hell of actually winning.

                by pelagicray on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:11:22 AM PDT

                •  Such as Nader.

                  nuff said.

                  by PerryA on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:24:23 AM PDT

                  •  Oh he's just one in a long string.

                    One of the slurs about liberals that comes closest to the truth is that liberals just cannot be practical to save their lives.

                    I've known some. I've had at least a couple in my family. They did remind me of people on a sinking ship who might refuse to get in a lifeboat or put on a life jacket because it didn't bear the union label.

                    I used to have great respect for Nader back when he was exposing serious corporate and cultural failings. I even liked many of his government reform ideas. It was when he persisted in campaigns of ideal best against practical better in situations where worst and worse had real chances that he lost me entirely.

                    If some of these idealist are fortunate enough to live in states where there is absolutely no chance of a GOP electoral vote I could see the point. Most unfortunately I'm not sure any state is that secure. Most certainly are not.

                    Until the national view has shifted away from the lure of empire, fear and this culture of deregulating everything while meddling in the most personal aspects of individual's lives we don't have such luxury in my view. That campaign on the national level has to be won while we can push further for even better in localities where a saner world exists.

                    by pelagicray on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:51:42 AM PDT

      •  Sounds like the GOP talking about Bush circa 2000

        You vill vote for ze candidate ve choos fur you no matter how much ze Party zuffers in ze fuchur fur diz mistake.

        Dumb advice in 2000, dumb advice in 2008.

        by Quicklund on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:14:04 AM PDT

    •  No it's not. The mission statement is clearly

      placed at the top of the FAQ's page. This is a Democratic blog. It exists to further Democratic interests. We're starting to see the rotten fruit of what happens when the site goes off the reservation. People here are openly declaring the only successful Democratic president of the last 40 years a racist mofo, and state that they will not vote for Hillary under any terms. You know what? I voted for Obama yesterday, and I won't be thrilled if Hillary is the nominee, but I'm a Democrat, and I'm going to have to offset some racist Republican piece of white trash who will be voting against Obama for actual racist reasons. I personally don't need the insult of having to offset a Democrat's vote who votes for Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee out of spite. Get on the bus or get off the bus. Don't stand in the doorway and shout at the rest of us.

      by steve davis on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:48:47 AM PDT

      •  um,

        When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

        btw calling people white trash is how far in distance from calling them n$*&@#s?

        i never once heard of martin luther king call even the whites who cursed and attacked him as "white trash."

        so what are we to think of you?

        you're like a christian who hates for jesus sake.

        i have no intention of replacing Bull Connors' hate and ignorance with your own.

        by kuvasz on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:27:13 AM PDT

    •  I agree 100%

      by HadIt on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:20:49 AM PDT

    •  Exactly

      not all of us are fooled just by the letter someone puts after their names.

      If their votes in Congress  represent a willingness to increase the military industrial complex, reflect an affinity for helping out their big corporate donors with favorable legislation, and show a willingness to rattle sabres at countries that can realistically do us no harm whatsoever except for refusing to sell us as much oil as we'd like to guzzle at the price we like, then they don't deserve my vote simply because they put a 'D' after their names.

      And Joe Lieberman isn't the only one who fits this description.

      by cometman on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:48:05 AM PDT

    •  A progressive or liberal that is thinking of

      either throwing away a November vote or voting Republican is betraying that ideal. Even if you live in a "Blue" state that can be dangerous with the vote margins and potential for election abuse we have now.

      At a time like this, when the opposition is so clearly well on its way in trashing everything a progressive or liberal is presumed to support, failing to join in that battle is giving aid and comfort to a dangerous opponent. I think the nation is in serious danger of losing its Constitutional and historical basis after the Republican and Bush attacks on its very structure. Failure to join in putting a stop and then reversing that slide is in my opinion equivalent to failure to help the community put out the fire in your house because you object to some of the people involved in that effort.

      Idealistic abandonment of reality in these cases leads to victory of our common opponents. It is a luxury we cannot afford now. If you and those calling for such action support "it was necessary to destroy the village to save it" type action you in effect become the enemy of those of us with hopes of saving the village and making it better.

      by pelagicray on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:09:53 AM PDT

  •  I agree with the sentiment...

    although it should be pointed out that the people this is directed at are a small minority of users here.

    by ortcutt on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:35:05 AM PDT

  •  "It seems like thousands"?

    You overstate your case.

    by tbetz on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:07:14 AM PDT

•  Geez

  Is this type of diary going to be a daily thing?

  Maybe you could tie this into the diary at the top of the rec list - the admins can limit the number of candidate diaries AND remove anyone you don't feel comfortable with as members of the site.

  by Otis29 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:25:35 AM PDT

  •  nah

    like I said, free country, free site.

    I'm just stating what I gather many many people here feel.

    by HadIt on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:35:49 AM PDT

•  The Democratic Party is not a suicide pact

  That's why we're fighting Democrats in the local primaries.

  I simply ask that you think about what you're saying when you say you will abandon the party or, worse, vote Republican (REALLY?!?).  

  Writing in a candidate you'd rather see is different from voting Republican.

  by shii on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:26:23 AM PDT

  •  No, but I think the Constitution was.

    That is the quote from a Supreme Court justice or somesuch, about the constitution, right?

    by cjallen on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:31:27 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, that it is 'not; such, usually invoked when

      the Justice is about to justify something really unjust, that the framers would puke at if asked to do it.  As in, we have to torture cause Jack Bauer needs to stop Lassie from pushing Timmy down the well, or something like that.

      by chrismorgan on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:54:14 AM PDT

  •  Yes - with other Democrats

    Not with Greens, Independents, or Republicans.

    by PatsBard on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:37:18 AM PDT

  •  What is your point?

    It's not a suicide pact, but it's also not a bowl of chili or a Ford F-150 truck.  What it is is a political party in a country which has a First-Past-The-Post electoral system.  I don't expect people to vote Democratic 100% of the time, but I do expect them to honestly evaluate the outcomes of their actions and act accordingly.  Anyone who seriously thinks that writing in a name or voting third party in a general election  is a progressive action is either not a progressive or is not honestly evaluating the outcomes of their actions.

    by ortcutt on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:37:22 AM PDT

    •  Be realistic

      Anyone who seriously thinks that writing in a name or voting third party in a general election  is a progressive action is either not a progressive or is not honestly evaluating the outcomes of their actions.

      If a candidate does not promise to fix the broken first-past-the-post system, like Obama has, they are not progressive at all.

      Our democracy is the only thing we still rely on as a tool for fixing this country. It is utterly indefensible for it to be broken in this way. I don't care which establishment they are defending, a candidate who does not want to fix this is not progressive.

      by shii on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:40:31 AM PDT

      •  Magical Thinking

        Voting in a First-Past-The-Post election for the candidate who would change the electoral system even though your vote in the FPTP elections for that candidate certainly won't have any effect on the outcome of the election is just a case of magical thinking.  Just because you want the election to not be FPTP, doesn't make it so.  It's a strangely common form of magical thinking among third-party partisans though.

        by ortcutt on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:50:25 AM PDT

  •  absolutely

    I'm totally jazzed that we're having a REAL primary season.  Duke it out.  Throw the slime.  No problem with that at all.

    It's AFTER the primary that I'm concerned with.

    I mean, even Stephanie Miller says that, no matter who she supports, after the convention, her show will be all Democrat (whomever) all the time.

    by HadIt on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:37:59 AM PDT

    •  I wouldn't worry about it too much.

      I'm sure that some won't vote if their candidate isn't nominated. It probably happens in every presidential election. But the ones who SAY they won't will probably be the first ones in the booth.

      by Jim Riggs on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:47:34 AM PDT

•  Some people see things

  as being more important than victory.

  Is it stupid considering a Republican?  Ok: Americans are notoriously stupid as a people.  

  At any rate, maybe we shouldn't have gone down this road towards electing the unelectable in the first place.

  Maybe some people saw this scenario coming miles away and should have been listened to.

  by Nulwee on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:27:09 AM PDT

  •  Some people would rather ...

    Lose with their purity than face the real world.

    Democracy is not a seminar. It is a struggle for power by nonviolent means.

    by al Fubar on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:49:18 AM PDT

•  Meta yawn

  Horse = dead.

  by FishOutofWater on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:27:09 AM PDT

•  You shouldn't wag your finger when you type.

  by bugscuffle on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:27:50 AM PDT

  •  it did make it difficult, I agree

    by HadIt on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:38:45 AM PDT

•  There is only one group that this rhetoric

  is coming from. Let's just face facts here.

  by Jim J on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:28:21 AM PDT

  •  You mean the diary up right now,

    the open letter to Ted Kennedy, stating that the diarist wouldn't vote for Barack Obama?

    by cjallen on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:29:46 AM PDT

  •  Yup, it would be better if people just voted

    as they were told to vote.

    But we also need to remember that "The Daily Kos" had very little to do with Obama getting 295,000 votes yesterday AND "The Daily Kos" has vastly more site traffic than "My DD"

    by Bill White on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:43:27 AM PDT

•  I wouldn't always vote for the Democratic nominee

  but any of our three choices would be acceptable.

  by cjallen on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:28:58 AM PDT

  •  And you are certainly entitled to that opinion

    But if other Democrats are uncomfortable voting for certain Democrats, then maybe that's a problem certain Democrats need to address.

    I have no problem with people saying they'll vote for this person or will never vote for that person.  I think that's politics;  that's just the way it goes.

    And I would rather have a Democratic party and all the contentiousness than a clamor for this "get in line" mentality.

    That's what Republicans do.

    by jaywillie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:58:33 AM PDT

    •  not "get in line"

      If the Dem nominee is truly horrific, don't vote for him/her.  I'd do the same.   Obviously that means I personally would be OK ("ok", not necessarily happy) with any of the current frontrunners.

      But if I really felt the nominee was so awful, I'd simply say that the Democrats have disappointed (heh... not much of a stretch) and withdraw from discussions of that nominee - because the alternative is a rightwing whackjob.

      Meanwhile, as others have said, I'd still be pushing for Dems in other races that I do support.

      by HadIt on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:08:30 AM PDT

      •  I think for some it is "get in line"

        I just don't agree with this notion that because someone doesn't like someone else's opinion, someone has to leave.

        I mean, if a person wants to leave, then leave.  By all means, don't participate in something you don't want to participate in.

        But people have different opinions.  If you don't agree, ignore them or start an argument.  Sometimes it's a knock-down, drag-out fight with the other side;  sometimes it's a bare-knuckled brawl with the members of your own party.

        by jaywillie on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:29:54 AM PDT

•  I've been a Democrat my whole life

  and so have my parents, and their parents before them. But, yes, I reserve the right to vote for whoever the hell I want. Any politician can call themselves a Democrat, no matter how corrupt, racist, or whatever else. There's no prequalification, screening process. If someone crosses the line and pisses me off, I'm not going to vote for them. It's a free country.

  by pragprogress on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:29:33 AM PDT

  •  Then don't complain if we end up with

    President McCain and don't complain if the current situation worsens. The far left has this complex that I call "martyrdom liberalism", where they somehow equate losing with winning and take pride in their political marginalization. With what is at stake in this election yours is a position of selfishness. You do have the right to vote third party, but your action in doing so will hurt many Americans who can't afford to have four more years of Republican rule. There are consequences to third party votes.

    by oceanstar17 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:41:27 AM PDT

    •  I believe pragprogress

      has reserved the right to de facto assist in the election of President McCain.  

      by burrow owl on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:42:36 AM PDT

      •  That's unfortunate then

        But I also don't have respect for those who vote third party. It's the biggest act of selfishness because the US is not a proportional system and the consequence is electing the Republican. The worst part is that there millions of vulnerable people out there who suffer the consequences of such selfishness.

        by oceanstar17 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:46:45 AM PDT

      •  it is not incumbent on us to vote for incompetent

        candidates.  it's incumbent on the candidates to be competent.

        god forbid she rigs her own nomination, i'll blame HRC for mccain's win.  (make that romney's btw.)

        by jj24 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:21:38 AM PDT

        •  As I stated, I do buy into the

          "third-party" is a vote for the Republican theory. It's not what I want to do. As of right now, I'd still vote Hillary.

          But I'm just not going to say that I will do so under any circumstances. There are lines that cannot be crossed if she still wants my vote in November.

          by pragprogress on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:50:04 AM PDT

          •  agreed - and she crossed those lines years ago.

            for me.

            by jj24 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:13:41 AM PDT

    •  Believe me, the depths of my hatred

      for the current administration is enough to give me great pause about allowing another Republican to take office. Sometimes, however, a short-term loss may be worth it in the long-run, if we can rid our Party of the kinds of self-defeating and ultimately regressive tactics and strategies that we sometimes see.

      I will think long and hard about it. I did not vote for Ralph Nader.

      But I also remember that I DID vote for Joe Lieberman as my Vice-Presidential candidate...

      by pragprogress on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:45:52 AM PDT

      •  I disagree

        Sometimes, however, a short-term loss may be worth it in the long-run, if we can rid our Party of the kinds of self-defeating and ultimately regressive tactics and strategies that we sometimes see.

        With all due respect we saw the reality of that thinking in 2000. The problem that I have with your argument is that you are playing with human lives. There are going to be people who will be hurt by the "short-term loss".

        A lot of the Naderites after 2000 gleefully proclaimed that "things have to get worse before they get better". That's great if you aren't going to be one of those people who isn't going to be having life "get worse before it gets better". And in the "short-term" there can be many long-term disastrous consequences that will take years, if not decades, to reverse.

        So I ask you to reconsider your position. A "short-term loss" is hardly anything but "short-term". It can have very "long-term" effects.

        by oceanstar17 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:55:12 AM PDT

        •  Don't get me wrong

          Right now Hillary would still have my vote in the general election, assuming that Bloomberg doesn't jump in. From what I know so far, Bloomberg would have my vote over Hillary. John McCain, no I couldn't do that.

          But a few weeks ago it would have been 90/10 Hillary versus McCain, right now it's about 70/30. If she continues on her current course or tries to pull some kind of shenanigan with the Michigan/Florida delegates or the super-delegates, it's possible that it could go below 50/50.

          My point is only that I will reserve my right to vote how I want, that Hillary or any other potential candidate cannot win the nomination by any means necessary, and then turn around expect me to fall in line.

          by pragprogress on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:46:41 AM PDT

          •  Well

            I have to say that we don't live in a proportional consequences and that there are significant consequences to a third party vote. Bloomberg isn't going to win and McCain is not a viable alternative. You have the right to vote for whomever your want--the system grants you that right--but there are possibly severe consequences to voting third party.

            by oceanstar17 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:07:07 PM PDT

      •  OMG...

        so did I!   Ack... still a bad taste in my mouth.

        I actually agree about ridding the party of crappy folks who lack convictions.  Once a nominee is decided, we all have to continue the groundwork for that.

        And THAT I wholeheartedly support.

        Simply taking on the "D" letter does not make one a person I can support.  

        by HadIt on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:56:11 AM PDT

      •  Yeah, you'd be better off if...

        you had lost ALL of the last 7 presidential elections instead of just 5 of them.

        :)

        by Jim Riggs on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:57:13 AM PDT

  •  McKinney '08!

    bleh.

    by burrow owl on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:41:43 AM PDT

    •  you sound like a winger.

      by jj24 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:53:55 AM PDT

      •  That's why I'm voting (D)?

        That makes sense.  Thanks for clearing that up.  Good luck with getting Kucinich on the Green ticket, by the way.  Sheehan was a strong VP candidate, but with Kucinich, you guys might top 2% and act as spoilers again.

        by burrow owl on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:55:47 AM PDT

        •  criticizing the person who singlehandedly

          fought to get congressional hearings on katrina BEFORE we were in the majority shows your real affiliation imo.

          the only people who criticize fellow dems and fellow leftist activists are people who want the left to BECOME the right.

          why don't you just go back to your rt-wing hellhole.

          by jj24 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:13:19 AM PDT

          •  If a little levity w/ Kucinich makes one a righty

            you apparently live in a 99% righty world.  

            by burrow owl on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:26:31 AM PDT

            •  mckinney, brainiac.

              by jj24 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:33:37 AM PDT

•  It's an expression of vanity

  "Pick my candidate or I'm outta here."  Nobody with a genuine concern for the country's future would say that.  Well, they might say it, in a moment of partisan exaltation or mental indiscipline (they tend to go together), but they wouldn't mean it. To say you would sit out a race between Clinton and McCain (to make a theoretical discussion as concrete as possible) is to say "fuck off!" to tens of millions of people who would be helped by a Clinton presidency and hurt by a McCain presidency.   Maybe your latte would taste better if McCain won, if you're really partial to Sour Grapes flavoring, but that's not supposed to be what it's about.

  by Rich in PA on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:29:33 AM PDT

  •  no-it's an expression of scrutiny. any D will do

    will not do.

    by jj24 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:37:32 AM PDT

    •  Specific claim, specific rebuttal

      Some Democrats are, depending on your viewpoint, way better than others.  But can you name a specific Democrat who would be worse than--or even equal to--a specific Republican?  

      Twenty years ago I would have said that there are some extremely conservative Democrats who would have been worse for the country than the most liberal Rockefeller Republicans.  But we no longer have any Democrats quite that conservative (thanks in part to the end of the Cold War, which had legitimized conservative Democrats), and we certainly don't have any Republicans even remotely that liberal.

      So, to take your comment and answer it, literally any Democrat (among those who would run for President) would indeed do, given that someone will be elected President in November and it will be either the Democratic or Republican candidate.

      by Rich in PA on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:46:15 AM PDT

      •  "i'm not as bad as an R" is no campaign slogan.

        by jj24 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:47:13 AM PDT

        •  lol...true..

          but from some of the commentary here it may be a bumper sticker this summer.

          by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:48:09 AM PDT

          •  good idea.

            by jj24 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:49:10 AM PDT

        •  We're not in a slogan contest

          And I'm not asking you to renounce your support for Obama, or even your negative feelings about Clinton.  People here are saying something very specific: if Clinton is the nominee, they will decline to vote or they'll vote for someone else, which means either the Republican nominee or a third-party candidate.  That is the only thing I'm questioning, and you can create all the rhetorical diversions you want but it's not an answer.  That's because you can't answer the question without admitting that it's just a bluff, or that you're genuinely willing to sit out November because feeling good about your ideological rectitude is better than giving the country a better vs. worse president.

          by Rich in PA on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:52:11 AM PDT

          •  did i say who i do support?

            didn't think so.

            i think of how she worked actively to bar my candidate from debates.

            i'm on my 2nd choice already.  there's only one candidate i will not vote for, and that's the one whose positions, over time, have earned my overwhelming disdain.

            imo, she is no different than voting R.  i understand what the DLC is about, and she is DLC leadership (look @ lieberscum for more info).  i am not interested in a harsh corporatist, global-dominionist dictatorship, and i am not interested in a benevolent corporatist, global-dominionist dictatorship.  and Bill is reminding all of us of everything we got pretty fucking sick of in the 90s.  what a liability... but they're so blind to themselves.  

            i loved HRC's denial speech last night - starting with, "i'd like to thank the band" - where she went on and on about super-tuesday as if she's going to sweep that up.  it's all too reminiscent of our current president's inexplicably stubborn insistence to ignore reality.  4 more years of that?  no fucking thanks.

            let me sum:  i disagree with her hawkish votes, her persuasion of other dems to vote for war in iraq, her corporatist idea of health care, her rovian campaign strategies, her demeanor, her toxic divisiveness, her denial of reality, and her relationship to the DLC.  in fact, she symbolizes, in a way only perhaps lieberscum does, the neocon wing of the democratic party, and the promise of 4 more years of what we are experiencing now.

            anything else you'd like to know?

            by jj24 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:07:02 AM PDT

            •  No, you've answered to my satisfaction!

              You've (finally) said that you think "she is no different than voting Republican."  I will cheerfully put that out for people to chew on.  But I won't be coy about it: I think that is ridiculous, and there are other words I'd use, but I don't let my child use them so I won't either.

              by Rich in PA on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:15:17 AM PDT

              •  don't be coy, talk about her record.

                and about "words you don't let your child use", grow the fuck up.

                please.  talk about clinton's record - you'll be the first who had the balls to argue her merits on the merits.  you know why?  b/c examining her record shows her to be what she is.

                by jj24 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:10:07 PM PDT

        •  It is if you're the Democrat

          Luckly we don't live in a multi-party democracy.  Democratic principles mean something.  One candidate's emphasis may differ from another's.

          Give me your take, what is the major POLICY differences be BHO, HRC, and JRE?  

          Do each of their policies, whether differing or not, stand up to R's positions on the same?

          by redlief on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:14:32 AM PDT

•  well, it's MY opinion....

  ...that Clinton is unworthy.

  That doesn't mean I'll vote for the opposition; it just means I might have to leave that part of my ballot blank.

  by johnviking on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:32:55 AM PDT

•  let's be clear - it's just if HRC is the nominee.

  and it's arguable how definitively she represents the democratic base.  i think this sentiment of not voting for her no matter what specifically speaks to that doubt.

  no one has the clout to tell me, or anyone else, what party they belong to.  period.

  by jj24 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:34:03 AM PDT

  •  But this site is for Democrats

    if you claim not to be a Democrat, why are you sucking up the air around here?

    This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog

    Markos Diary, 2004

    by redlief on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:11:34 AM PDT

    •  hey, mccarthy, settle down on the witchhunt.

      i haven't claimed to not be democrat.

      running around this diary bitching about how this is a democratic site in order to shut people up, and schooling people AS IF your scrutiny on anyone else's affiliation or views is relevant, is more than a little annoying.

      by jj24 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:17:15 AM PDT

•  I will not vote for Billary

  So there
  try and make me

  by tom3256 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:34:03 AM PDT

  •  Then don't complain if we end up with

    Presidents Giluanni, McCain, or Romney. You will have forfeited your right to complain if they win.

    by oceanstar17 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:43:13 AM PDT

    •  No..he hasn't.

      Its up to the Democratic Party to give us a candidate that can win...that can draw in the moderates and Independents it will take.

      Criminey...not all of us will vote for Pee Wee Herman just because he sticks a "D" by his name.

      by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:46:58 AM PDT

    •  I will not complain at all

      If Billary is the nominee
      Will be fitting justice for the Clintons

      by tom3256 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:50:44 AM PDT

      •  And justice for impoverished people?

        As McCain, Giuliani or Romney extends MORE tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% while cutting back on the social safety net?

        by Montague on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:15:49 AM PDT

        •  It doesn't matter to them

          And they don't care because they are martyrdom liberals.

          by oceanstar17 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:19:50 AM PDT

        •  Well it is Billary

          That signed Welfare Reform and that was destructive of the social safety net.
          I think Bill bragged then that the era of big government is over.
          The Clintons are no friends of the impoverished.
          Look it up
          Bill gave a  greater tax cut to the rich 1% than George did.
          Bill cut the rate by 8% and George 5%

          by tom3256 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:38:54 AM PDT

          •  I don't have the desire to look it all up

            But taxes on the wealthy were VASTLY higher during the Clinton years than the Bush years.  Saying anything else is a total fraud.

            A strong economy that helps all members of society is a friend of the impoverished, and that's what we got back then.

            But if you really think McCain will help the poorest members of society, please go vote for him.

            by Montague on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:01:59 AM PDT

            •  Stop spinning

              I will tell you and save you the trouble of looking it up
              Clinton cut the tax from 30% to 22%
              Bush cut the tax from 22% to 17%
              Please do the math

              How about repeal of the Banking laws
              That led to this economic mess

              by tom3256 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:17:43 AM PDT

              •  Stop seething n/t

                by Montague on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:30:15 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, we know.

    You've said that a billion times.

    You will simply be irrelevant and that's fine, too.  No one cares about your masturbatory non-vote but you.  

    Beautiful thing, that.

    by lightiris on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:49:39 AM PDT

    •  Apparently you care

      And I will say it another billion times before November.

      I will vote for Obama and not Billary
      Get a clue

      by tom3256 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:53:12 AM PDT

      •  I care?

        Nope, you are an easy target, the carp in the barrel.  You and people like you deserve a bop on the nose whenever possible.  Since I came across one of your pontifications today, I commented.  

        This is a public forum, remember.  Caring isn't a factor.    

        Masturbatory purity voters are all the same.  They think it's all about them.  Smile.  We'll be thinking about you on election day.  Not.  

        by lightiris on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:01:58 AM PDT

        •  Simple my vote is mine

          Does not belong automatically to any person or party

          I cant tell you here what I think about idiots like you

          I probably will vote but leave the top blank if Billary is the nominee

          by tom3256 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:33:32 AM PDT

•  I agree

  Yes, I agree that this site has become a clearinghouse for personalities and not issues. Almost everyone agrees that the candidates are not very far apart on most of the issues. So stop screaming anti-(    )this and anti-(    ) that.

  by 1seeker on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:34:07 AM PDT

  •  not voting for HRC is a "personality" issue? hmm.

    by jj24 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:35:14 AM PDT

    •  Not voting for HRC is a personality issue

      Funny take on that, since I did not say anything about any specific candidate. Proves my point doesn't it

      by 1seeker on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:37:43 PM PDT

•  "You're not Democrats"

  Nope. I'm an indie. Nice to meetcha. Nominate someone who didn't vote for the aumf in November and you've got my vote. Don't, and you won't. Pretty easy.

  by discocarp on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:34:22 AM PDT

•  Eh

  Most of those proclamations are bluster, driven by primary passions. I suspect our little diary polls that reflect these statements are just a way for people to express frustration without it costing anything.

  Also, it depends on where you live. If you're in a very red or blue state, you can safely indulge your umbrage and vote down ticket. If not, I believe most people will support the nominee.

  by bumblebums on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:34:39 AM PDT

•  No, we're not

  We're liberals.

  by doublerunner on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:35:13 AM PDT

•  My vote is mine.

  It belongs to no party, no group, no candidate.  It is my vote, and I will cast it for whomever I choose to cast it.  If I find the Democratic nominee for any office to be unacceptable, I will not vote for him/her.  That a candidate has a D after his/her name does not entitle him/her to my vote.

  I take my vote very seriously, not simply as another tally-mark on a candidate's scoresheet but as an endorsement of that candidate's views, leadership, and rhetoric.  If I cannot in good conscience endorse one or more of those three criteria for a candidate, I cannot endorse the candidate with my vote.

  Please do not try to tell me who I must or must not vote for in order to post on this site.  My vote is my own; it does not belong to a party, a group, or a candidate.  And it most certainly does not belong to you.

  by mistersite on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:35:59 AM PDT

  •  Then don't complain if a Republican wins

    the election.

    by oceanstar17 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:41:55 AM PDT

    •  i'll continue to complain that HRC ran.

      by jj24 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:46:12 AM PDT

    •  If a Republican wins my state, Maryland...

      ...I'll be surprised as hell.  Democrats could run a Voldemort/Stalin ticket and still win Maryland by 6%.

      That said, nowhere in my original post did I say who I was or was not going to vote for - mostly because I don't plan to make a decision on that for a while.  All I said was that my vote is an endorsement of a candidate, and that if I cannot endorse that candidate, I will not vote for him/her.

      by mistersite on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:46:14 AM PDT

  •  I don't personally care

    ...which candidate you vote for.  Your choice.  But whomever that nominee is in the end, it will be awful to see F*** [nominee] come September.  

    by HadIt on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:43:07 AM PDT

  •  That sounded like a lifetime movie climax speech.

    And it was just as moving.

    * sniffle *

    by burrow owl on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:44:34 AM PDT

    •  ROTFL!!! n/t

      by Montague on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:17:39 AM PDT

  •  Your vote is yours, this site is Democratic

    start spouting Ru Paul or McCain or Nader crap on this site and see where it get's you.

    I suggest all that believe we are party neutral here, re-read FAQ

    This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog, Markos 2004

    by redlief on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:08:57 AM PDT

•  You say it as if

  there are people with that attitude about all the candidates:

  "will NOT VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT if that nominee is [Fill in your personal voodoo doll here]."

  You say it as if there are lots of people who say they "will NOT VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT if that nominee is Obama." or "will NOT VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT if that nominee is Edwards."

  There is only one candidate that causes that level of divisiveness. I fear that candidate will bring the same divisiveness to the general election and lose because of it. However, my bigger fear is that even if she wins it will continue through her Presidency.

  There is a huge (HUGE!) segment of Americans who will never (NEVER!) get behind her and it's not because she's a Democrat but because she's THAT Democrat.    

  by Dopeman on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:36:12 AM PDT

  •  I used to feel that way about Hillary

    Then I realized that the 40% who won't vote for her isn't going to support Edwards or Obama either.

    by oceanstar17 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:42:35 AM PDT

    •  Same here n/t

      by Montague on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:18:21 AM PDT

    •  I know personally

      several (serious) Republicans who could and would vote for Edwards, possibly Obama. I think the dynamic is different.

      by parryander on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:30:28 AM PDT

•  Mostly lurker here

  You get style points from me for highlighting your main point like that.  Gave me a smile in the midst of all this craziness.

  by Willow72 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:37:49 AM PDT

•  Gawwd! Not another self-appointed guardian

  of Democratic correctness.

  Democratic values have always meant far more to me than the "Democratic" label. I'll be voting for the person that I believe best represents those values. By doing so I'm convinced I'll be a better democrat than if I were a mindless Party zombie.

  by Lepanto on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:37:58 AM PDT

  •  not a guardian nor correct

    I don't care which candidate you vote for.  But if one chooses to vote for a non-Democrat in November, why on Earth would they come to a site specifically about Democrat electoral victory.

    by HadIt on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:45:37 AM PDT

    •  Breaking news....

      There's a lot more than just a President who will be getting elected next November.

      by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:57:49 AM PDT

•  I agree with you 100%

  There are very high stakes with this election. Voting third party elects a Republican. We don't live in a parliamentary proportional system like Israel, where even minor radical, fringe parties can win seats in the Knesset if they can poll a few percentage points of the vote.

  Here in the US it is winner-take-all. Despite what the far left believes the Green Party is never going to be a viable party. While it may be a regional force in places like San Francisco, Berkeley, Boulder, parts of New Mexico, parts of Colorado, parts of Montana, Madison, Minnesota, Iowa, Ann Arbor, Amherst, Cambridge, and other college towns, it won't ever be a national contender. And voting Green elects a Republican.

  There are too many factors at stake here. Justice Stevens is 86 years old and could die at any time. The environment has suffered. Just on cabinet and judicial appoints alone there is too much at risk here. So I will vote for any Democrat even if it is Mike Gravel or Dennis Kuchinich.  

  by oceanstar17 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:39:42 AM PDT

  •  yep - the stakes are SO HIGH that HRC shouldn't

    have run.  but having run, she should HEAR what the base is SAYING (so lieberesque that she doesn't), and understand just how divisive, how nonrepresentative, how not what we need she is.  she is a self-proclaimed front-runner, and who is going to argue with her?  if she becomes the nominee, she will not get a huge sector of her own party's base, and she won't get one single rt-wing vote. ironically, she is the ONLY candidate that stands between us and a democratic presidency.

    i'm sorry, but i define that as unelectable.

    by jj24 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:45:21 AM PDT

•  Today seems to be the day for...

  "This site will be what I want it to be dammit" diaries.

  I rather enjoy the diversity, but hey, that's just me.

  by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:40:37 AM PDT

  •  not what *I* want

    Unless this has changed, way back when, this site was specifically focused on Democratic electoral victory.  There are a zillion progressive/liberal sites.  The fact that progressivism and the Democratic party overlap doesn't make Dem=progressive.

    One is strategic, the other is moral.

    by HadIt on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:50:16 AM PDT

•  I'll vote for the Democrat

  But my invovlement in the campaign truly does depend on whether or not I'm inspired by the candidate.  Yes, the D has my vote.  But does he/she have my money and my time?  It depends. . .

  by Matt in AA on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:43:48 AM PDT

  •  agreed 100%

    I'm with you there.   Without question.

    by HadIt on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:46:29 AM PDT

•  You are missing another BIG point of DKos

  to elect LOCAL democrats?   STATE Democrats?

  So lets say I change my mind and do not vote for Hillary but do vote for EVERY OTHER DEM ON THE TICKET.

  I have yet to hear someone say they won't vote for ANY Dem if Hillary wins, only the top of the ticket.

  Little progressive Dems become big progressive Dems.  Even if I don't vote Hillary, my DEM vote WILL count for countless others on the ballot.

  Talk about cutting off your nose despite your face.

  PS- there is also a blurb about "reform" in the Kos FAQ's.  

  Sorry, even if I decide not to vote Hillary, you
  ll still have my username to pass over.

  by CWalter on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:47:32 AM PDT

  •  I kinda agree with that...

    True.  My point is that if I personally chose to not vote for the Dem presidential nominee, then I would come to a Democratic site like this one and post about the Dems in other races that I do support.  

    by HadIt on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:02:10 AM PDT

    •  We don't know who the nominee is going to be

      yet..

      Many here are working hard to make sure that the nominee IS someone they can vote for in November.

      by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:06:54 AM PDT

      •  that's great

        and that's exactly as it should be.

        The point is, in November, if this site - which is dedicated to Democratic success - becomes a site of "Don't vote for [Dem nominee]" then what's the point of the site?

        by HadIt on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:11:14 AM PDT