We are going to have to pull together DU'ers

[fitz_777]

Im a Dean suporter through and through. I think that he can do the most for us to get us out of the funk that Chimpy and Co. has us in. How ever I am a little nervus Clark might beat Dean out. I would have a bad taste in my mouth because my candidate is on the tail end. But for the good of the party and the nation, I would have to give my full suport to Clark. Are you ready to give your absollute full suport another candidate to get rid of the Chimpman ? We HAVE to ! Dean in 2004 !!!!

[mmonk]

1. absolutely

[Halle]

2. from Mosely-Braun at the

Brown-Black debate: everyone responded to her by promising to support ABB - if the candidates can do it, we can do it. If it seems hard, think of 4 more years of Bush, Inc.

[edzontar]

4. She rocked!!!!

Go Carol!

[newyawker99]

11. Hi Halle!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[edzontar]

3. You are right, of course, but perhaps this is the wrong place

To preach unity.

Just look at some of the other threads today.

[Bluzmann57]

5. Said it before and I'll say it again.

No matter who the nominee, I honestly believe that the Democrats will be united behind him for the ultimate goal of getting bush, and his insane plans to ruin this great land, out of office.

[blm]

6. The Constitutional argument on why I cannot support Dean.

Ignore Hart's warnings at great risk to our nation. Bush did.


Kerry is candidate best able to keep America safe
Danger of terrorism is significant and lasting
January  09,  2004
Concord Monitor

by Gary Hart

Some time back I stated my support for Sen. John Kerry based on constitutional grounds - namely that the president has the responsibility to manage the domestic agenda, be head of state and be commander in chief of the military forces - and that Sen. Kerry best met these unique standards. The age of terrorism, however, has added a new, and even more important, dimension to the office - protector of the American homeland.

In recent years we've settled in to a pattern of accepting the inadequacies of national candidates on the grounds that whoever is elected can learn on the job and can select advisers experienced enough to fill in the gaps in presidential experience and command.

The immediacy of the terrorist threat now denies us that luxury. The next president must walk into the Oval Office prepared to set national priorities, repair damaged alliances, respond to international crises - and protect our nation from further attack.

As a co-chair, with former senator Warren Rudman, of the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st century, I experienced the sickening feeling of predicting terrorist attacks and seeing nothing done by the current administration to prevent them. I also participated in the documentation by the Council on Foreign Relations of a desperate lack of urgency about homeland security even after 3,000 Americans were killed. This situation is unacceptable.

Uniquely among all candidates, including the incumbent, Sen. Kerry has recognized the need for much greater urgency regarding preventing and preparing to respond to further attacks.
>>>>>
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2004_0109d.html

[mouse7]

9. I think we need the whole thread on this one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=107152

read post #15

[blm]

10. THAT'S your argument against Hart's Constitution based support?

Did you even BOTHER to absorb what Hart said?

Why don't you go study Dean's record on nuclear programs and his longtime support for Reagan and Bush's foreign policy? That is, if you have any sincerity about anti nuclear sentiments that you use against Kerry for the merest adjustments in his stance from 1980s to today. Kerry STILL gets high ratings from the anti nuke groups.

[CMT]

7. in all probability

most of us will pull together in the end to support the nominee.

[Killarney]

8. Of course, I will support whoever the D party nominates. :)

:toast: