This message was self-deleted by its author

[KMOD]

This message was self-deleted by its author (KMOD) on Sun Nov 1, 2015, 09:12 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[marym625]

1. I want to know where all the lurkers are

And why don't they comment?

[marym625]

9. But WHY?

I want comments! Damn it!

[Treant]

63. I mostly lurk.

The general lack of anything resembling respect for science, the constant play of hot button topics (see lack of respect for science re: hot button topics as well), and so on are a real turn-off. The visibly biased jury system doesn't help.

Do I want HRC? Not really, but I guess I'll grudgingly vote for her if she's a candidate*. Who do I want? I'm not sure. Let's see who throws his or her hat into the ring and what they say about their positions on issues.

*Queue ridiculous "Do you want a Republican to win?!?!" argument here. Answer: no. But if baggage-laden HRC is the best we can do, the bench is really, really shallow and Dems deserve to lose.

[pipi_k]

103. This is how

I feel about it too.

Do I want HRC? Not really, but I guess I'll grudgingly vote for her if she's a candidate*. Who do I want? I'm not sure. Let's see who throws his or her hat into the ring and what they say about their positions on issues.

*Queue ridiculous "Do you want a Republican to win?!?!" argument here. Answer: no. But if baggage-laden HRC is the best we can do, the bench is really, really shallow and Dems deserve to lose.

Not real fond of HRC, but if she's the candidate, then I'll vote for her.

Right now, there aren't a lot of of other choices, as nobody else has shown a serious interest.

And there's still so much time between now and next summer when things will (hopefully) be more established as far as D candidates go

[marym625]

121. +1000

Except on the science. I must miss what you are talking about.


Please post in a science area and keep us honest

[merrily]

21. If I had started lurking here within the last year, I don't know if I'd start posting now either.

For about a year, it's been like two armies shooting at each other.

Some of them registered years and years ago, though.

I am always interested to see what finally motivates a very infrequent poster to post.

[marym625]

31. I lurked

Without registering for 10 years

Then I lurked after I signed up for another 6 months. Now, you can't shut me up.

I used to run 2 Facebook pages. One was pretty popular, the other very. Then I left Facebook and that's when I started posting on DU

You're right about commenting now. But the insanity seems to be calming down.

[merrily]

48. Most people went the other way, from message boards to Facebook and other social media.

As far as the two armies calming down, I hadn't noticed.

[marym625]

122. I guess I spoke too soon

On the calming down

Ah well. Such is life.

[merrily]

136. No, you may be well be correct.

I just hadn't noticed. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[AnAzulTexas]

60. because any questions or doubts

about HRC or any other right leaning DINO gets sent to a jury or an outright ban.

its a DU staple that silences discussion on those that don't support each and every single democrat

[whatthehey]

102. Then how come GD is saturated with whining about her?

[marym625]

124. whining?

[marym625]

123. Yeah, I can see why that would keep people away

[marym625]

2. Here's a good article on Martin O'Malley

Martin O’Malley: The nation’s new JFK?
http://www.dailyiowanepi.com/2015/03/24/martin-omalley-the-nations-new-jfk/


Why don't you do a poll? I would support him, against who we now know are running

[marym625]

8. Now you're talking!

I will check your journal in the morning. I'm going to bed

[merrily]

22. I'd vote for O'Malley over Hillary and Webb in a New York second.

I hope more people run, though. I'd love to see a field of at least ten, for starters.

[marym625]

33. At this point

I would be happy with 2. This coronation bs must stop.

And I will not vote for Hillary. Period. If she is the nominee, I will vote independent. If I have to leave DU or stfu, so be it

[merrily]

38. Well, Jim Webb appears to be running and so does Hillary, so I want more than two.

[marym625]

79. Oh, don't get me wrong, I do as well.

I just meant, pretty much, anyone but Hillary.

Someone posted a "what if" about Hillary running as a Republican. They showed how she would be their perfect candidate. Was a great post. Sorry I don't have the link. I can't find it right now

On Edit: here it is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251400284

[CTyankee]

81. would you still be ok if we got a President Rubio or Cruz and an eventual

Supreme Court that reverses Roe v. Wade?

I ask this not to be snarky, but to find out what you think you might feel if that should happen. Of course, your vote is just one and I'm not interested in blame. Rather, I want to explore how you think you'd feel if lots of Dems did that and we got a batshit repuke for president.

As for me, I am going to support Elizabeth Warren because I want a progressive woman. I will work for her if she changes her mind and runs. But if HRC is our candidate, I will vote for her because I just can't accept a republican in the white house.

I have no bitterness against anybody because everybody's vote is theirs alone and theirs to make. Just curious about how folks feel on the consequences of their vote.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

83. I'll answer that, even though it's aimed at someone else....

Would I be 'ok'? No, of course not - a President Rubio or Cruz will undoubtedly do things to make my life even more miserable, and my death ever sooner.

But maybe, just maybe, that would be the shock needed to get idiots to quit voting Republicans into power. I thought we had it after Bush, when he was miserable enough to drive Americans to come out and vote for our first black President, a man who embraced liberal rhetoric (although not most liberal ideas) in campaigning, even if he then governed as a moderate when all of his policies are taken into account.

So if we get another truly dreadful Republican in the WH, surely we'll see wave elections for the WH and Congress to follow.

[CTyankee]

85. It won't help my granddaughters if Roe gets reversed.

See, that's the thing. Your argument posits that it would be bad but a lesson would be learned. However, we both know that a reversal of Roe would have serious, even deadly, consequences for young women, such as my granddaughters, who need the protection of their reproductive rights.

I can't take that chance and I just won't. I'd rather have HRC and whatever policies of hers that I don't like I can voice my opposition to.

A reversal on Roe (not to mention other horrible decisions made by newly appointed, youngish RW justices who are there FOR LIFE) would be a devastating blow to women and their families. That is unacceptable to me.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

90. Won't help my niece either.

And as I said, they'll probably do things that will result in me dying sooner.

So I'm not HOPING for a crappy Repub in office, but I am hoping that if one does get in, some of the people who simply shrug and skip voting will get off their butts next time.

[CTyankee]

93. You are right about all of the health consequences to people if a repub gets in.

But I urge you to think this thing through. I have staked my argument on women's lives but there is also the setbacks to women's rights. HOwever, what you can conclude is that rights can be reclaimed but lives cannot. I am not interested in a teachable moment for people who shrug and skip voting. When women's actual lives are at stake a line must be drawn. I take this very personally. I would never forgive myself if I did anything to hurt those girls and other folks' girls. Simply unacceptable.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

95. Sometimes whichever choice you make, people will die.

The question becomes a matter of 'which people' and 'how many'. The ones you know today, or the ones who will die sooner in days to come, if we simply keep sliding down the path we're on. It's why union members put their lives on the line to fight for their rights in the early 20th century, dying by Pinkerton bullets in the hopes that someday they would win safer workplaces where they didn't have their bodies destroyed by the time they were 30.

We've got our own fights, and right now we're not doing nearly as well. And if we don't get off our butts and face them head on, for instance, it won't be some people, but the entire human race down the drain. We simply can't afford to keep electing middle of the road types who are good on a few issues but do diddly squat about the behemoths coming to wipe us out as a species.

[CTyankee]

98. And I will be right alongside you in that fight.

I don't just fight for my own flesh and blood, but they do come first. And I understand that the lives are others in this fight are critically at stake. Make no mistake about that.

[marym625]

84. I would feel proud I didn't go against my beliefs and the agenda that the

Democratic party should have.

If HC is the nominee, I don't believe her SCOTUS appointees would be any better than the batshit crazy Republicans. She is using the absolute worst person, as far as banking regulations and economy, possible, Larry Summers, as her main adviser. She is for keystone, the TPP, NSA spying, etc. Everything there is to continue with the agenda for a corpocracy. Not to forget a warmonger.

I also would blame the democratic party for not putting forth a candidate that is on the side of the American people, the middle class and the poor, small business, etc. Being right on women is very important, no question about it. But it's not enough. Not when we have the largest gap in pay between the C class and the average worker in history and in the world. When we have more and more children going hungry and fewer and fewer middle class. When the top 3% is gaining wealth at an unprecedented rate while the average person is losing it.

I will be fine with my vote. How will you feel when there is complete deregulation of Dodd Frank and other banking regulations? When the keys are turned over completely to the corporations? That will do more to harm social justice than anything.

Let us not forget that she is basically being endorsed by some of the batshit crazy Republicans. That should be a huge red flag

[CTyankee]

89. HRC will NOT appoint any SC candidate that is remotely anti-choice.

Say what you will about her, that is one thing she won't budge on.

I can fight the good fight for Dodd-Frank regulation, but I have no evidence that HRC would deregulate Dodd Frank type of legislation.

But my granddaughters lives are more important. Honestly, can you say you'd potentially sacrifice the LIVES of women over what you think might happen on Wall St. deregulation? We have no specifics as far as I iknow on what HRC would do on that. We do have specific warnings from republicans on what they'd do to Roe. They have told us clearly and in no uncertain terms. You simply have to understand that simple fact. I urge you to think that through to its logical conclusion because once Roe is gone and god knows what ever else a RW SC could wreak upon us, it will be with us and our granddaughters for most of their reproductive lives. I'm sorry, but I remember the days before Roe and the way young women were literally slaughtered by self induced or back alley abortions. I will not in ANY WAY abet that happening.

[marym625]

91. First, I don't agree with you on that

I don't believe that is her first priority. Money is.

Second, why not demand that the democratic party push for a candidate that follows ALL of the agenda and not just some of it?

The fact that THE conversation is about voting for Hillary if she is the nominee at this point in the process is counterproductive and dangerous. We're backing ourselves into a corner and telling all other potential candidates for a primary, don't bother.

My nieces lives, and my nephew, are the most important lives in the world to me. I have been fighting for women's rights my entire life. Not just adult life. Since I was 10 years old. I walk the walk, I don't just talk. So do not lecture me about how important women's rights are.

I firmly believe that the main agenda for Hillary rodham Clinton is money and that is what will matter to her in appointing a SCOTUS Justice. She is cow towing to Republicans that are anti-choice, anti-women.

She is bad for America. Democrats should be seeking and supporting a candidate that is a Democrat in every way instead of pushing for someone that isn't and acting as though she is our only option

[CTyankee]

96. let me reiterate my earlier statement about working for E Warren in the

primaries. Even if she eventually doesn't run, I want to work for her strong voice on exactly the issues that you cite. You and I are together on that. I will work and fight for Warren. I want her to be our party's nominee. I hope she is.

so please don't misunderstand where my stand is.

I am talking about the eventuality, if it comes to pass, where we have HRC against a RW republican who has sworn to appoint SC justices to overturn Roe. That is the issue at hand. And a decision must be made. I will vote for HRC. I know she will not appoint SC justices who want to overturn Roe. Not only does she have a strong track record on women's issues, and reproductive rights in particular, she also has a daughter and a granddaughter. Those facts aren't going to change because she could find a justice that would be unacceptable to us on the finanical regulation issue but fine on choice.

I am not interested in lecturing you. What I have outlined here are my strong beliefs in what I can see as a certain outcome if a republican takes the white house. All I ask is that you think thru that eventuality.

[marym625]

100. I have

And I firmly believe what I have stated. As firmly as you believe what you have.

Again, I honestly believe that this conversation is bad for the party. We have to stop pushing it. Start pushing for the candidate we want that is a real possibility. Because the more we push for Hillary in any way, the less likely we will have other candidates in the primary

[CTyankee]

117. You have my promise that I will work hard for a more progressive candidate

than HRC. I have simply thought thru this whole scenario and what might happen. I have no intention of backing away from progressivism in the upcoming primaries.

I, too, don't wish to linger on this subject. I am eager to get busy in my local area to get our ideas front and center. We have a strong and lively progressive Democratic party here in New Haven. We have progressive Senators and congresspersons. I'm very proud of our delegation to the United States Congress. I think you would love it in CT!

[CreekDog]

119. that's off the rails, the idea that Hillary's SCOTUS appointments would be equal to batshit crazy

Republican appointments.

You just lost ALL credibility on this topic, period.

I can't take anything you say about Hillary seriously now. I'll have to verify it elsewhere before even considering that it's true.

[marym625]

120. If you did anything else but verify

Regardless of what is said or who says it, then that's a problem for you, not me

Fine by me. Anyone that cannot see she is a Republican when it comes to economics and foreign policy us blind to reality

[OKNancy]

134. FWIW, Hillary voted NOT to confirm Roberts and Alito

another interesting tidbit: Feingold voted YES to Roberts.

[closeupready]

105. That's where I'm coming around to. I once thought I'd be able to hold my nose and

vote for her if she won the primary, but I really don't think I'll be able to do even that.

[marym625]

107. I know I can't

The only way will be if there isn't even an independent candidate with liberal values

[ND-Dem]

3. the second coming of fdr is who i'd like to vote for. or the ghost of mlk or rfk. someone

with some principles and spunk instead of a time-serving, self-serving 'politician'.

[marym625]

10. check post #2

[ND-Dem]

34. mm. let's just say, i'm not that impressed. not the second coming of fdr by a long shot.

not terrible, mind you, but a little too dlc for my taste.

[marym625]

36. I don't know enough yet

But over Hillary, I would take him

Night night ND-Dem

[ND-Dem]

42. yeah, over hilary i'd take him -- on the basis of what i know so far. but it's not much.

[BainsBane]

65. To have an FDR

We would need an American public actively mobilized in social movements, as was the situation in the 1930s. They didn't sit around waiting for the Second Coming of a political messiah from another era. They got off their asses and worked to demand the government meet their needs--on the streets in DC and in cities and towns across America. In response, FDR worked furiously to put band aids on capitalism to ward off nascent revolution. Now we have a situation where people are not only unwilling to engage in widespread social protest that Americans did in the 30s, they even lack the initiative to educate themselves about the social context that gave rise to what they claim they want. As long as people's idea of political activism is limited to sitting around and complaining online, they will get exactly what they put into it--nothing. If all you want is a patrician millionaire, they are easy to come by in political circles. If what you want is a president that responds to social movements, the populous has to mobilize those social movements in order to force the president and congress to act. The chances of that happening in the way you would like are slim to none, and the greatest obstacle--I assert--is not in the politicians but the public, or more specifically those who imagine themselves on the left. Politicians have shown they will respond to the demands of the populace, but the segment of the population that has been willing to organize to have their voices heard is the right. The Tea Party has been working diligently for seven years to make their agenda a reality, as as a result they have candidates like Ted Cruz and Scott Walker responding. If the left had shown a fraction of the commitment the Tea Party has to reforming politics, we might have better options. Instead, we have people who insist not voting constitutes political activism, when that is in fact doing nothing. Now we have you and a few others holding a seance for the departed. It all amounts to nothing, and it shouldn't come as a surprise that what it yields is likewise nothing.

[stillwaiting]

78. You have no idea what any individual poster does outside of DU to help build...

... a movement or build awareness of the need for progressive politics.

It's really unbecoming to hold individual posters responsible for the lack of progressive politics in this country. Especially since our system is so corrupt now and Big Business funds THEIR candidates to win primaries to serve them.

I agree with you regarding the need for a lasting and sustained movement (many, many YEARS long and it can never end basically) needed to help elect progressive politicians in our currently corrupted system, but blasting people for posting opinions on DU and basically ASSUMING that they aren't doing anything else and continuing to say what they are doing amounts to nothing is quite prickish, and THAT behavior really amounts to nothing.

Sharing opinions does help build some solidarity in this world, and it helps to see that there are more people out there fighting for our values and beliefs. That can empower us as we go in to the real world and fight for real change.

And "holding a seance for the departed" is prickish too. But you no doubt know that. Holding up politicians from our Party's past as role models for what we want to see in the future has value. It provides focus, and it even provides a sense of pride in our Party (something that many of us sorely need today).

[BainsBane]

118. Sharing opinions can build solidarity

but solidarity must be a goal. It has become clear to me that for many the goal is the opposite.

I don't know what people do in their offline lives, but I do know how they respond to suggestions about organizing. I also can discern political trends and phenomena in the nation. If the state of political mobilization were anything approaching what is was in the 1930s, there would be no concealing it. Additionally, I have found those who complain the loudest about the Democratic party are also the most resistant to any proposals for change other than substituting one member of the political elite for another.

Holding up FDR as a model doesn't provide focus. It is escapist and ahistorical. Presenting a conservative view of history in which great men act from on high promotes the conservative worldview (not as in GOP but in the traditional meaning of the word) it comes from. It does nothing to promote activism or change, and it ignores the blood and sweat of the millions of Americans who actually made the New Deal. If one refuses to understand how social change comes about, that leaves no possibility for bringing it about in the future.

[merrily]

44. FDR was a brilliant politician for a Depression that came on the heels of the Russian revolution.

He did what he thought he had to do to avoid a revolution against capitalism and the rich and to preserve the institutions of banking and of investing in the securities of US companies. That included a range of things from welfare to WPA to pro-union legislation to the FDIC to the Securities Acts to revising bankruptcy law to put an independent trustee in charge of publicly traded companies that file for protection under bankruptcy laws.

What FDR would do today, I have no idea.

I don't want to focus on any one person, or personality or type. I want someone who is pro-human, pro-99%, pro-honesty in politics, etc.

[Bluenorthwest]

99. On the right Pat Robertson wishes for Reagan to return from the dead....

That whole 'heroes of the past whose flaws we have forgotten' routine is in my view best left to the likes of Pat.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

5. MATHS!

(eek)

[merrily]

11. "What candidate do the 250 plus want?" Someone who is not DLC, Third Way, New Democrat, etc.

Many would very much like Warren to run, but know that the party is discouraging primary challengers, to put it mildly.

Many would like Sanders to run, but know the candidate has to get party money and backing to have a prayer of winning and Sanders won't get either.

Most of all, they want a real primary, not none or one that is only a dog and pony show.

I can't say I am excited about O'Malley yet, but I would vote in a primary for O'Malley over Hillary, though, any day of the week and twice on Tuesdays.

[merrily]

19. No, I said I was leaving the other THREAD and I did leave it.

[merrily]

26. k

[petronius]

13. I heard somewhere that trumad is declaring a candidacy, so that's probably where the other

250 votes are going. It's gonna be a landslide, mark my words...

[msanthrope]

66. I know. Just ask President Dennis Kucinich. His run started right here,

when he won a poll of DUers in 2008. Oh, the recs were flying that day!

[winter is coming]

72. Only if he runs with Robb.

Because curmudgeon goes so well with dingbat.

[G_j]

14. what you are saying is

there are a lot of people unhappy with the situation they are being presented.

[G_j]

32. unhappy that Warren isn't running, Sanders is severely challenged financially and logistically

and that everybody talks as if Clinton is the only viable choice. Personally, I don't believe that. I'm for Bernie.

[Rex]

18. Yeah that does kind of put things into perspective now doesn't it?

Nah I kid. SPARTAAAAAAA!!!


THIS. IS. MEME!

[Scootaloo]

39. I think you mean... "MMMMF! MF! MRRRMPHMMMM!"

[delrem]

20. And aren't you the demanding one! nt

[delrem]

27. Do you demand that I make you a sandwich, like you demand "An Answer!"?

Why should I give a shit about that?

[KMOD]

30. I offered to make you a sandwich,

dummy!

[delrem]

35. Then make it. Dummy!

[KMOD]

37. I changed my mind.

Sorry.

[KMOD]

47. I so very sorry, for you humor suppression

Nighty-night.

[delrem]

49. I quite enjoyed it. Thanks. nt

[snooper2]

111. Enjoy your sandwich ROFLMAO while you are on vacation again!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

54. He's got a couple weeks to grow one.

Sense of humor, that is.

[KMOD]

137. lol

I did not alert, but I'm curious as to the results, if someone would so kindly PM me.

[TreasonousBastard]

25. Probably nobody...

they just hate Hillary for some reason.

More'n likely some herd mentality happening. Pay it no mind unless you have a cure.

[marym625]

40. Nothing to cure

Better suggestion would be to pay attention to the arguments against instead of saying people can't think for themselves

Now I really am going to bed. Good night

[betsuni]

29. Surely there are people like me who don't have an opinion yet.

I don't even know who might be running. I don't have a firm opinion about Hillary Clinton -- don't hate her, don't love her -- I read a biography about Clinton once, but it's strange, I don't remember a thing. As if it self-erased. I don't have anything interesting to say. My husband is lucky because here in Japan he can vote for commies and socialists and there are parties with names like the I Love Vinegar Party. So much more fun.

[KMOD]

45. Yes, there are many people like you.

We call them the majority.

[Art_from_Ark]

70. The problem with so many parties in Japan

is that they tend to splinter the left-leaning voters so that the right-wingers nearly always end up winning elections.

And the "Commies" in Japan aren't really "Commies"--they're more like a European labor party.

[betsuni]

74. Yes, it's true.

The husband refused to tell me who he voted for in the last election for a long time, finally admitted that he felt embarrassed for voting for the commies instead of socialists because it's useless. The right-wingers always win. I can't vote, of course, so I vigorously support commies because I prefer to dress drably and refuse to care about personal appearance and enjoy saying "commies."

[Art_from_Ark]

77. The Communist Party of Japan should change its name

The name alone is a big turn-off to a lot of voters, but their platform is hardly "communistic". I've seen their campaign literature and support their stance on a wide variety of issues, like stopping the next tax increase (that increase to 8% last year really hurt), withdrawing from nuclear power and promoting renewables, reversing the widening income gap, ensuring a wholesome food supply...

[betsuni]

86. Seinfeld reference:

[Major Hogwash]

50. It's SRO in the Major Hogwash washroom!!

So, where do the other 250 plus, stand?

Ever since I put the Hawaiian Breeze air freshener in there, it has become the place to go!!!

[Hekate]

51. Good Question. One wonders, one really does. nt

[djean111]

52. I would not concern myself unduly with DU rec's.

Some of us rec just because we find a post interesting. Not because we agree with it.
I think it a bit premature, at best, to consider the rec-ing a particular post about candidates is mandatory, that reading a particular post is mandatory, that recs for a post actually indicate anything like one of those pledge demands that pop up on a regular basis.

I think "anyone but Hillary" is a fair answer, though. Rec-ing posts about any candidate is not mandatory. Neither is participating in a poll. I would not put a lot of credence in either, this early in the game. But getting bothered by number of recs on one or two particular posts, and drawing conclusions from that, is, IMO, a waste of time.

[KMOD]

127. I'm not bothered.

I'm just curious as to who posters are for. I already am aware of who they are not for.

[sabrina 1]

53. I am one of the 250. I didn't see the other two threads. I would have rec'd both of them. Did it

occur to you that we don't all see every thread?

I did see one for Barbara Lee and rec'd that one.

Just link to the Warren and O'Malley threads and I will rec them

[DFW]

55. That does it for me. I'm running

I'm running AWAY from all threads about people who have not even declared they are running.

[Doctor_J]

68. that's everyone except Raphael Cruz at this point

[DFW]

73. My point exactly n/t

[U4ikLefty]

56. I will never vote for anyone who voted for the IWR. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

57. "What candidate do the 250 plus want?"

Me.

[longship]

58. Nobody... Yet. Still 19 months to go.

Plenty of time.

Where's the fucking fire?

[pnwmom]

59. I think most people are waiting to see who is running and what issues they're running on. n/t

[rpannier]

61. Waiting to see who runs?

It's a guess
Not supporting HRC does not mean you are supporting Warren or O' Malley at this time
Maybe they want Biden to run. Maybe they want Sen Brown or Gov Brown, maybe they want Lieberman
Not sure why re'ing one thing has anything to do with not rec'ing the others

[Sherman A1]

62. Precisely

People have a right to their opinions and one opinion may very well be that they don't like HRC but have yet to decide upon whom they do like. I wonder why this is so confusing or is an issue to some others.

[Marrah_G]

75. I am also waiting to see who is running before deciding who to support

[lamp_shade]

64. Probably Kucinich. Many of his devotees are still here.

[BainsBane]

67. All the threads on fantasy presidential election have made me cynical

But my sense is what people want most is to complain, to form intra-group identities based on what they despise, which ostensibly is "corporatism" and the 1 percent but in actuality seems to be Democratic voters and especially DUers who don't share their hatred or uncritical worship of one individual or another. I think you see all those recs against and very few for because you have a political attitude that is defined by what they oppose, with little thought as to what it would put in its place. The primary focus seems to be anger, anger toward Wall Street and the maleficence that ate away at their retirement funds, anger toward the Democratic Party, and anger toward segments of the Democratic electorate who dare to care about their daily lives and vote accordingly.

[betsuni]

69. Wonderfully said and true.

Sorry to gush, but I can't help it.

[BainsBane]

115. Don't be sorry

I'm more than happy to receive the compliment.

[Fumesucker]

108. There's plenty of anger, hatred and uncritical worship to go around

I don't see a lack of those things on any side, even when it comes down to plants you have the pro and anti GMO and then there's the battery electric vs hydrogen fuel cell brouhaha in E&E.

Watching BDS morph into ODS and now into HDS or CDS I've become more cynical too.

I hated that when it was thrown at anyone critical of Dubya and it's still being thrown at anyone critical of authority.

Bear in mind that some of us are quite liberal living in conservative areas and DU can be a lifeline to something approaching sanity a little closer than our neighbors do. I think a lot of us come here to vent as much as anything, letting the anger and the pain out in real life carries so many negative implications in some places that it's not socially prudent to do it. Some of us stand up under a daily outpouring of right wing talking points in real life and come here to blow off steam after that. I've worked a place where they had Limbaugh and some others on every day all day in the shop, it was existential torture to have to hear that bilge and I didn't last long.

[BainsBane]

114. Good point about living in conservative areas, and anger in real life

Not something I face myself, but I can imagine it would be frustrating.

I tend to wish people would think more about how they can effect political change at the local level. Democrats do themselves a disservice by placing so much hope and expectation in the presidency. As long as large segments of the country remain so conservative, national politics is going to reflect that.

[KMOD]

129. Thank you for your post.

I do try to understand the dynamics of DU, and do enjoy the many points of view.

I believe you post helps explain a lot, and I appreciate it.

[Capt. Obvious]

71. 5 people recced this post

What is their agenda?

[leveymg]

76. We want one who will likely have to be drafted - Michelle Obama

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

80. Not every DUer reads every OP, strange as that may seem. nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

82. Give me a viable candidate for the nomination and I'll vote for him or her.

If it's Hillary, I'll vote for her. If it's Warren, I'll vote for her. If it's O'Malley, I'll vote for him. All of those are viable candidates in my mind.

Right now, my preference in the primary is for O'Malley just because I know he did a lot of good for Maryland, but really the whole primary wars thing here is so incredibly stupid. It was stupid in 2004 and 2008 and it will be stupid again in 2016.

[LWolf]

87. I answered this question

a few days ago here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6399846

and posted my thoughts about Martin O'Malley here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6404859

As for HRC, I have never wanted her to be POTUS, and have said for going on a decade that she wouldn't get my support.

It's likely that your 250 HAVE talked about what they want in various other threads. If you really want to know, I'd start with this:

Many of us want a candidate that is not a neo-liberal.

[Orsino]

88. Does it matter where they stand, if they will be eliminated in your purge? n/t

[KMOD]

130. my purge?

[Zorra]

92. The obvious answer is that we want a traditional FDR type Dem to run,

a candidate who will be 100% of, by, and for the people, who will protect our right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, instead of working with tyrannical oligarchs to maintain and increase their control of our government and every aspect of our lives.

How can you not already get this?

[Bettie]

94. Not sure if I saw the post

But, what is wrong with wanting a primary rather than a coronation?

More ideas, more arguments being out there is a good thing.

I suspect that most of those people will support the eventual nominee, Hillary or not.

[MosheFeingold]

97. I feel left out

I would support basically anyone but Clinton in the primary.

[darkangel218]

101. Maybe someone else, besides the above mentioned?

[Xyzse]

104. I don't rec, but where I stand is as follows:

1 - Hillary Clinton - I will not support her in the primaries, but if she wins the primaries, I will vote for her in the General Election.
2 - Elizabeth Warren - I might support her in the primaries, and would most likely at least send monetary help during primary season, but since I am an Independent in MD, that is about as much as I can do. I will vote for her in the General Election.
3 - Bernie Sanders - Similar to Warren, but if both runs, I am not sure who to go with.
4 - Martin O'Malley - Similar to Warren and Sanders, but if all three runs, I am going with this guy.
5 - Robert Reich - If he runs, I will switch party affiliation and become a full fledged Democrat, and will fully support him in the primaries, up to how far he goes.
6 - Al Gore - I would support him almost as much as I would Robert Reich. I'd do the same things, with just a tad less enthusiasm.
On Edit:
7 - Jim Webb - My support towards him is similar to Clinton. I like him, and he might be able to do well, but he is more like a bygone era Republican, more so than Hillary. He just does not have as much baggage, name recognition and influence.

[Man from Pickens]

106. One doesn't need to decide on a preferred candidate right this minute

to believe that Hillary is unacceptable as a representative of our party

wouldn't vote for Charles Manson either, and he killed a LOT fewer innocent people than she has

[Tuesday Afternoon]

109. the plus caveat.

250 - 80 = 170

[tularetom]

110. There are no giants on the earth in these days

FDR, JFK, LBJ, where are candidates with that kind of stature now?

[mike_c]

112. not HRC....

That's my first requirement for a candidate that I can support. There are others, of course, but that's the first.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

113. At this point, Bernie Sanders. But, I'm open to other progressive, anti-war candidates.

Which leaves Hillary out.

[KamaAina]

116. Bernie?

[ScreamingMeemie]

125. Maybe they aren't sure, but they are sure they don't want HRC...?

It's a rather simple explanation.

I don't support HRC when the primaries come around (and I'm thinking I have to re-add her to my trash can list), but that doesn't mean I'm sold on another candidate because it's early.

Who would I completely support because she/he believes in everything I do? Myself. But I don't see that happening, so you'll have to wait and see. Like Christmas.

[liberal N proud]

126. Ted Cruz

The 250 want Ted Cruz.

[DonViejo]

128. I recommend posts be read even if I disagree with the article...

if the writing is well thought out and reasoned, I'll recommend it be read by everyone. Just because I recommend it, does NOT mean I agree.

[PassingFair]

131. A Progressive candidate.

Any progressive will do.

[upaloopa]

132. It is too early to be playing these games.

IMHO let's not start the pissing contests until the primaries. DU in 2008 was a mess with the Hillary vs Obama food fights. I think that is when DU started to go down hill. We've never had so many people who come here looking for a fight before 2008 as we do now.

[stage left]

133. I thought there were a lot more than than 600 people who belonged to DU.

I will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee.

[Panich52]

135. As one who strives to be an informed voter, I make no (temp?) decisions until at least 2nd debate.