In fact, this seems like as obvious a slam-dunk issue as we’re likely to see. I honestly can’t even see a debate on this particular point.

You and I have discussed this before and I will agree as I have before to at least listen to you but I doubt I could stomach voting for her EVER. As far as the supreme court issue goes look at her voting record and tell me you really think she will be that much of an improvement over McCain on who she nominates, I personally don’t see it but am willing to let you try convincing me. Now Obama I believe would be good for the county on a number of issues including who he would likely nominate for the supreme court.

BTW I am a registered republican and hate what my parties so called leadership has done in the last few years but I firmly believe Billerie is a bigger threat to our country than McCain..

All elections are about putting together voting coalitions. The Democrats needed the Nader voters in 2000 because they didn’t get enough of the swing votes (I didn’t say “centrist” votes. Those are words you put in my mouth). Having said that, most swing voters are centrists. Depending on the point in US history, they may swing a bit left or right of center (wherever that is), but they are centrists, nevertheless.

Currently, we have polarized voters (for presidential elections … local elections are a different animal). Some will never vote for a Republican. Others will never vote for a Democrat. Many of these voters are large majorities in certain states, which means that swing votes in those states aren’t useful.

The only place swing votes are useful, these days, is in swing states which could go either way in a presidential election (and these states do not include Mass. and Utah). If, say, 1% of the 10% or so of swing voters in, say, Florida are to the far left, and decide to waste their votes on a far left candidate, letting the far right candidate win the election, then so be it. It’s stupid, but so be it.

But it would be even more stupid for a left-center candidate to try to appeal to this 1% and turn off the other 9%. The candidate might win with the 9%, but can’t possibly win with just the 1%.

Man, people are so bad at basic math these days.

The point is Democrats don’t earn the centrist voters either because they don’t stand for anything. They always move to the right because they’re afraid of the Republicans who say mean things about them. Better to pander to the right than do anything for their own base who never hold them accountable.

And if you guys nominate Hillary, I don’t see how you can blame anyone but yourselves for John McCain.

Our only real weapon is the willingness to with-hold our votes.

*Snicker* *Snarf*

Yep. In order to save the village, we must destroy it. In order for a Democrat to get your vote, he/she must alienate the rest of the 10% of the electorate or so who are swing voters who are actually the ones who will decide this election.

When you’re done spreading fairy dust and making daisy chains, perhaps you’ll consider that you’ll still have to live in the real world come November. Oh, and by the way, this ain’t a parliamentary system we have here. No coalition governments necessary. Whoever gets a simple majority rules the legislature and whoever gets just enough electoral votes gets the entire executive branch for at least four years.

So, if McCain wins in November, by all means, pat yourself on the back and tell yourself what a great man you are for standing on your principles. A great man. Superman.

Doug: For what it’s worth, I’m not a Democrat. But note my point in the post – halfway is better than none of the way. When a third alternative emerges that has a chance of succeeding, I’m down with it. Or when one emerges that has no chance at the time, but that might grow into something, I’m down with that. Or if we get to a point where there really IS no difference between the two parties with the only real shot at winning, count me in there, as well.

But this is 2008 and none of those conditions exist. So idealism takes a back seat to stone cold pragmatism.

If we want the Democrats to win in November, and I do, then we have to make them take principled stands. The professionals who run these campaigns know perfectly well what to say to get votes. In 2006 they understood that people wanted out of Iraq and for the Bush administration to be held accountable for their crimes. So that’s what they ran on and they won. If we want our candidates to take principled stands then we have to have the discipline to say we will only vote for you if you adopt the stands that we expect.

These are no trivial points. The survival of the planet as a thriving entity depends on our ability to break the corporate control of the decision-making process. Both of the Democratic candidates are advocating giving tax-payer money to health insurance companies. And we are kidding ourselves if we think that any President, Republican or Democrat, who relies on the foreign policy establishment in Washington is going to get our troops out of Asia within ten years.

Our only real weapon is the willingness to with-hold our votes. As an independent/Green/non-Democrat I seem to be hearing alot of, “haven’t you learned your lesson from 2000?” But the question is have the Democrats learned their lesson from 2000? Will they once again refuse to budge an inch from their right of center orthodoxy? Maybe put Joe Lieberman on the ticket again? And have we, the voters learned anything from 2006? The Democrats are crap, crap, crap! They are a lousy, lousy party. We can’t sit back and play, “don’t rock the boat.” We have to go toe to toe with them, not because we want McCain to win. But because we want them to win.

PS: You Democrats would be insane to go with Hillary Clinton. That is absolutely your surest shot at losing.

Maybe the Dems deserve to lose. Clearly, the more cohesive team is the opposing team.

Would Gore have given the green light for the 9/11 attacks, as Bush and the neocons clearly did?

I guess we’ll never know. But we know this:

Gore gave the election to Bush by not contesting the Florida vote theft. In Fahrenheit 9/11, there is a highly emotional scene on the floor of congress with numerous black Congressmen from Florida begging for an investigation into the illegal disinfranchisement of at least tens of thousands of African Americans (the presidency hung by 500 votes).

Gore sits there smugly ignoring them. Not one Democratic senator is given permission to pursue the case and hold an investigation.

This was clear. This was deliberate. This was the Democrats giving the election to Bush/Cheney. This could have had a lot to do with the upcoming 9/11 attacks. The reins of power were decided to be given to the Rethugs, as they would capitalize on it to the greatest extent, and the Democraps would maintain their image as the lesser evils.

Your vote was meaningless. Don’t sweat it.

70 Disturbing FACTS About 9/11
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/02/no-george-monbiot-these-are-facts-of.html

But this doesn’t address the crucial Supreme Court question. And there’s a good argument to be made that it’s the biggest question there is in November.

Just today I read Howard Wolfson, Hillary’s chief spokesman, said: “We do not believe at this point that Sen. Obama has passed that key commander-in-chief test” that Clinton would require for a running mate. Can they be more insulting?

Brandon

I hope not.