On Supporting A Democratic Nominee

There's a front-page post right now on John Edwards' apparent refusal to commit to supporting Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee. The comments have gotten pretty heated and pretty nasty, and frankly, I don't want to be a part of that. It's disgusting, what debate on this site can turn into sometimes.

However, I did post a couple of comments, against my better judgment, and the response has gotten me thinking. This website used to be about serious political thought and progressive thinking, not just horse-race blogging, and I'd like to invite you back to that long-gone component by asking a question.

As a Democrat, is it ever acceptable for you to not support a Democratic nominee? Indeed, if you don't support a nominee, are you still a Democrat?

I hope you noticed that I carefully said "a Democratic nominee," not "the Democratic nominee," because the question may apply to candidates at all level of government, not just the presidency. This was briefly touched upon in the series of comments which inspired this diary.

Here's Commenter A:

if you think you get to pick and choose (none / 0)

your an independent.

get it?

That is, if you think you can vote for a mix of Democrats and non-Democrats, you're an independent, not a Democrat.

Here was my response:

No (2.00 / 1)

I consider myself a Democrat and, in answer to the poll question above, I would absolutely support Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee.

HOWEVER, being a Democrat doesn't mean you have to vote the straight party ticket. In fact, I can't stand the morons who don't bother to educate themselves on the issues and the candidates and make honest selections, and blindly just check all of the "D" or "R" boxes.

Most of the time, after reviewing all of the candidates, I end up voting for all Democrats. Sometimes, someone corrupt sneaks in and gets nominated by our party. I will not vote for a corrupt politician, regardless of party. Sometimes, especially in local races (like, county commissioners or whatever), a Republican or independent might be legitimately more qualified and have better ideas. I feel I'm justified in choosing not to support the Democrat.

I support good government first, the Democratic Party second. Most of the time, there's never a conflict, and the Democrats are the best choices for our country. But sometimes, when there is a conflict, I choose to pick the best person for the job, even if that means breaking with the party.

So, am I a Democrat? I think that I am.

Commenter A responds to me:

Youre what we IN THE PARTY (none / 0)

system...define as a "strong dem leaning independent".

Thats what you are, It doesnt matter how many words you writee about your feelings about this.

We have primary systems to choose our candidates....its not a cafeteria, where you get to pick and choose...we fight amongst ourselves to select our nominee...and then we fight together to support our Partys ticket.

You dont have to do this, butt then that choice would make you an "Independent"

And someone new, Commenter B, jumps in:

Re: Youre what we IN THE PARTY (none / 0)

Sigh...

This is a really fruitless discussion between the two of you.

And Holden, your idea of the democratic party reminds me of... a very undemocratic party.

The democratic party isnt a party where you give up to vote your conscience just by checking "D" on the voter registration form.

The democratic party isnt a party where you pledge to vote "D" whatever the choices.

Just by voting once or a few times for a non democrat or abstaining to vote doesnt mean you are an independent. It just means you have your own brain and are using it.

Whoever considers himself a democrat, is a democrat. Its not you to decide who is a democrat.

What would indeed be very wrong, is that someone running in apartys primary, loosing the primary and then running as an independent.

But John Edwards is no Joe Lieberman!

And, finally, Commenter A responds to that:

whats with you people? (none / 0)

what dont you understand about the word 'Independent"?

look up and notice that TWENTY FIVE % of the folks in this poll said that they would not...

God - thick headed pain in the neck Naderite PINOs - GOD DAMN!

What the hell do you think we hold Primaries for - so you can say....nh...Im going my own way?

that means your  "I" not a "D".

JEEZE!

I've removed the usernames above because I'm not trying to call anyone out or embarrass anyone. Commenter A's style is much more confrontational and closed-minded than I like, but he brought up a point which got me thinking. What does it mean to be a Democrat, and what does it mean to belong to a party?

Let's look at it, from greatest involvement to the least involvement.

Are you a member of the Democratic Party if you hold some position in the National Committee or a state or local party?

I would say yes, absolutely. There's no doubt that Howard Dean, as Chair of the DNC, is a Democrat.

Are you a member of the Democratic Party if you hold an elected, public office and are affiliated with the Democratic Party?

Again, I say yes. Senator Harry Reid is the Democratic leader in the Senate, was elected as the Democratic nominee for Senate in Nevada, and is publicly affiliated with the party.

Are you a member of the Democratic Party if you are the party's nominee for some office?

Yes, provisionally. If you've sought the party's nomination and are publicly affiliated with it, then sure. However, as our friends in New York know with the Liberal and Conservative Parties, sometimes a candidate is nominated by more than one party. Is that candidate a member of both? Well, no, it depends on which he chooses to affiliate himself with.

Are you a member of the Democratic Party if you are registered as a member with the party?

Some states require you to register as a member of one party or another, and I would say that those who choose to register as Democrats are Democrats. I think that seems perfectly reasonable.

Are you a member of the Democratic Party if you publicly support Democrats, but are not a registered member?

Now it gets murky. If you're exclusively supporting Democrats, though, I would say that yes, you're a Democrat. (Supporting, by the way, I would say is volunteering, donating money, encouraging your friends, etc.)

Are you a member of the Democratic Party if you vote exclusively for Democrats, but do not publicly support them?

Even murkier. Suppose you're casting a straight Democratic ballot every election, but you're not out there getting friends and family involved. Can you still call yourself a Democrat? I say, yes. From the definition Commenter A gave above, I think he would say yes, too.

In a given election, if you vote for all Democrats except for in one office, are you still a Democrat?

I come from a pretty conservative area, and sometimes Democrats don't file for all of the offices. If the local Drain Commissioner is a Republican, and he's been doing a good job, and no Democrat runs against him, should I still vote for him? If I vote for him (and Democrats in every other office), am I still a Democrat?

I say yes. Commenter A, I suspect, might say no.

If you have the opportunity to vote for all Democrats, but you choose to vote for a non-Democrat, are you still a Democrat?

A variation on the last one. If there is a Democrat who files against the Republican Drain Commissioner, and the Democrat that files is a man who has no experience, no skills or ideas, and has gone out of his way to insult you and the electorate, what happens if I vote for the Republican? Am I still a Democrat?

I say yes. Commenter A definitely says no.

Commenter A asserts that primaries are the time to get your guy selected as the Democratic nominee, but if someone you don't like is the nominee, you're bound to support him if you still call yourself a Democrat. But what about nominees selected by conventions, or races where only one "bad" Democrat files? Or am I morally obligated to run myself if I don't like the Democrat(s) that have filed?

What if you vote for two non-Democrats? Or three? Is voting Green better or worse than voting Republican?

Here's where things really fall apart. At what point do I start and stop being a Democrat? If I vote for 51% Democrats and 49% non-Democrats, am I a Democrat? If I vote 40% Democratic, 35% Green, and 25% Republican, am I a Democrat?

When you're reaching that point, I agree with Commenter A, you're not a Democrat anymore, you're an Independent and a swing voter. But where are the lines drawn?

And what happens when my questions above conflict with one another? I hate to use Zell Miller as an example for anything, but he was simultaneously a Democratic office-holder and publicly supporting George W. Bush-- and Bush is no Drain Commissioner. Was he still a Democrat?

Frankly, I don't know, but I'm curious to know what you all think. If you feel that you're a Democrat in your heart, are you a Democrat? If you're publicly affiliated with the Democratic Party, like Zell Miller, but you're no longer supporting any of its positions or candidates, are you still a Democrat?

For that matter, is there a difference between being a Democrat and being a "member of the Democratic Party"?

I don't know. I know that I am absolutely certain that I'm a Democrat, but some folks apparently disagree. What does it mean to be a Democrat?


Poll
Based on the diary above, is Fitzy a Democrat?
Yes
No
Sometimes

Votes: 7
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Dems support Dems (none / 0)

Independents pick and choose who they'll support.

Nnaderites screwed Gore and Elected bush!


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 09:21:59 PM EST

Re: Dems support Dems (2.00 / 1)

I don't believe I've said anything about Ralph Nader or Al Gore. I agree, Gore should be president, and probably would be if Nader hadn't run. It makes me as upset as the next guy.

But that doesn't address the substance of what I was asking. At what point do I stop being a Democrat? When I vote for one Republican for Drain Commissioner? Or when I vote for Ralph Nader? What does it mean to be a Democrat, and am I a Democrat?

If there's no Democrat running in a local election, how can I support a Democrat? Do I become a "Naderite" or a Republican or an Independent because of where I live?

I'm sure I'll be voting for the Democratic nominee for president, but if it's Mike Gravel, am I allowed to have second thoughts?


Walberg Watch - Following Radical Conservative Rep. Tim Walberg in MI-07
by Fitzy on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 09:32:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't believe I've said anything about Ralph (none / 0)

no kidding...thats the whole point...talk about ignoring the "elephant" in the living room...

--

Edwards isnt running for the school board...jeeze...he's running to be the

HEAD OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!!!


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 09:36:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dems support Dems (none / 0)

I will never support a Rep. Bill Jefferson, who's been indicted on I forget how many charges for the money in his freezer. I'd vote GOP before I voted for Jefferson. Does that override the fact that my voter registration form says Democrat, and that I have a DNC card in my wallet?

All voters pick and choose who they want. Those who find themselves picking Democrats 80, 90, 100% of the time may choose to join that party, in which case they become Democrats. But just as an American may not always support what his government does, so too can a Democrat side against his party from time to time without actually leaving it.


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 01:48:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dems support Dems (none / 0)

using jefferson is taking my point to ridiculo ad absurdum...

we decide TOGETHER who to select, its part of OUR  social contract as a member of a political Party....believe me, I now do NOT think that Edwards is an honorable man, but I wish to be, so I would vote for him if my brethren overrules my wisdom and chooses him to be our nominee.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 02:11:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dems support Dems (none / 0)

How is it ad absurdum? Our party selected him, and I was in New Orleans for the 2006 election. That seems to be EXACTLY your point! And if not Jefferson, than fine, Traficant.

I can certainly respect someone who blindly


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 08:17:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dems support Dems (none / 0)

My keyoard's messing up. Blindly votes straight ticket, but for a number of the points made, I don't think it's the only way to be in the party.


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 08:18:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

well tthen leave those spots blank (none / 0)

dont vote for the R -

and Im tryig to make a point here since it seems 1/3 of the people here and at kos voted nader 2000 and these sites say they are for dems to elect dems,  so Im reminding people what Party loyalty means.  

Mostly , that it means Naderites - who are willing to do it again - should be shunned by real dems.  

Rrrrgh...That be my point, Matey...


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 11:37:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well tthen leave those spots blank (none / 0)

Well, I feel like saying "Don't vote for Nader!" or "Don't siphon Democratic votes for a third party if it throws the election to a terrible regular party candidate!" is a very different message then "You're not actually a Democrat if you ever vote for a non-Dem even once!"


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 11:43:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You wrote that whole thing and didnt even mention (none / 0)

GORE=BUSH + NADER = IRAQ!


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 09:29:05 PM EST

That's correct (2.00 / 1)

I didn't mention any of that, because I wasn't trying to talk about that, I was trying to find out what the intelligent folks around here believe it means to be a Democrat.

Look, Holden, I've got no beef with you. I asked questions which I feel were legitimate. The very least you could do is respect that and try to address what I have to say.


Walberg Watch - Following Radical Conservative Rep. Tim Walberg in MI-07
by Fitzy on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 09:35:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ok -ill justt tell ya again (none / 0)

dems support dems...and move on.

Ill know youll have plenty of others wholl agree with you...

you know...those dem leaning independents..

which doesnt mean theyre not fine people, just not MEMBERS of the Party.

wasnt this all what the Lamont/ Lieberman anger here was about btw?


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 09:45:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok -ill justt tell ya again (none / 0)

It occurs to me that voter registration is not a secret, but ballots cast are. So are you telling us, Holden, that party membership is actually a secretive thing where we just have to take a voter at their word? That it's entirely possible George W. Bush, despite his public statements and his registration, has always voted for Democrats and may actually be in our party? I mean after all, there's no way we can look at his actual ballots...

What we can do is look at party registration. And that's what counts, NOT electoral purity. Tell me, if Kerry suddenly ran as a Republican and Romney as a Democrat, would I have to vote for Romney? Being a member of a party does not make one honor-bound to blindly follow the [D] or [R]. That is the difference, perhaps, between a "Democrat" and a "Strong Democrat."


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 01:52:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think your young butt has got to get itself (none / 0)

outt of "government" classes and off to a political convention.

Denver isnt too far from Texas, as every Coloradan SURELY REGRETS and complains....

You need to see what the Party structure, system and idea, is really about.

Ask everyone you meet if they can help you find work at or for the convention.

Hell, ask Prez Bill or his traveling aide Doug Band, youre in he catbird seat in NH, nothing wrong with enjoying its perks...

Youll never forget or regret it.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 02:21:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think your young butt has got to get itself (none / 0)

I'm headed to the Young Democrats of America convention this weekend (Prez Bill will even  be there), and I've been to the NH state convention. So I do know what the Party structure, system and idea is about. People can know the same things and still disagree, Holden; different ideas do not mean less knowledge.

("Transplanted" Texan means I'm no longer physically in Texas; I'm in NH and sometimes ID.)


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 08:20:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think your young butt has got to get itself (none / 0)

I know - youre the Dartmouth Dude.

Seriously, try to get to doug Band and say youll do anything to help in colorado...

ya gotta be there.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 11:42:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Supporting A Democratic Nominee (none / 0)

If you haven't registered in the Democratic Party when you registered to vote, you are not a Democrat.  While I appreciate independents who vote for Democrats, they are not Democrats.

I think you left an important category out of your musings above: If you are running for the nomination in a Democratic primary are you then obliged to support the winner of that primary even if it isn't you?


by jfashwell on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 09:38:55 PM EST

Re: On Supporting A Democratic Nominee (none / 0)

If you haven't registered in the Democratic Party when you registered to vote, you are not a Democrat.  While I appreciate independents who vote for Democrats, they are not Democrats.

That's a great definition, which I can mostly agree with, but there are states where you don't have to register as a member of a party. My father, for instance, hasn't voted for a single Republican in 10 years, but before that, voted for about a 70-30 mix. He's not a registered anything, but he only votes for Democrats. Is he an independent?

If so, that's fine. I'm just looking to see if MyDD readers can provide me with a definition of "Democrat" that can work in every situation.

I think you left an important category out of your musings above: If you are running for the nomination in a Democratic primary are you then obliged to support the winner of that primary even if it isn't you?

I did leave that out. I also left out the question of whether it's okay, as a Democrat, to vote in Republican primaries.

I guess I didn't articulate this well enough, but this wasn't supposed to be a John Edwards diary (and, in hindsight, the title is a little misleading in this respect). But on John Edwards, some people-- like the commenter I cited in the diary-- were saying that since he wouldn't commit to supporting Clinton if she's the nominee, he wasn't a real Democrat.

I'm asking, what criteria determine if you're a Democrat?


Walberg Watch - Following Radical Conservative Rep. Tim Walberg in MI-07
by Fitzy on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 09:48:13 PM EST

Oops (none / 0)

That's supposed to respond to jfashwell's comment.


Walberg Watch - Following Radical Conservative Rep. Tim Walberg in MI-07
by Fitzy on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 09:49:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Supporting A Democratic Nominee (none / 0)

I would say your father is an independent who leans Democratic. If he registered as a Democrat, he would be a Democrat. I don't think there's any state that doesn't offer the opportunity to register as a Democrat so I think my original definition is right.


by jfashwell on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:18:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Supporting A Democratic Nominee (none / 0)

I guess that's a fair and consistent definition, but I feel like it cuts out a lot of what you'd call independents who feel like their home is in the Democratic Party. I'd love to see some data on actual registration versus partisan self-identification polling. I think it'd be interesting.


Walberg Watch - Following Radical Conservative Rep. Tim Walberg in MI-07
by Fitzy on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:19:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i dont believe in the trinity any longer but (none / 0)

i celebrate XMAS

I CANNOT CALL MYSELF A CATHOLIC ANYMORE

because I dont believe in the trinity

OOPS

but i sill consider myself a cultural christian - though i am not bound by is beliefs or rules

i take from any faith and myth structure that i like...

Im an Independant on these things


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 11:48:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Supporting A Democratic Nominee (none / 0)

Pride and vanity are not going to help John Edwards get elected.  ALL other candidates immediately pledge to support Hillary or whomever is the nominee.  They certainly don't have to be asked twice!  It's a given.  

John Edwards needs to get over himself.  


by AUD on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:12:07 PM EST

Of course Edwards will support the Nominee (none / 0)

But saying whether or not he'll support Clinton plays exactly into that inevitability meme promoted by the Clinton campaign and the media. As if she's automatically going to be the nominee and everyone else is just wasting their time on democracy. Here's just another non-controversy that seems like it coulda been stormed up from Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly's head fake outrage hard-on.


by KainIIIC on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:16:46 PM EST

Re: On Supporting A Democratic Nominee (none / 0)

This is an interesting question, and one I have thought about before. One thing I think you are missing in your questions is that for some, like your Commenter A, whether or not you are a Democrat doesn't just depend on your current behavior, which is what most of your questions seemed to focus on, but on your past behavior. This is most notably the case with regard to the 2000 election, and this seriously troubles me.

In 2000, I was 19 years old. It was the first time I voted for in a presidential election. And I voted for Ralph Nader. I did this for a number of reasons ranging from issues (most notably trade) to problems with Al Gore to a hope that the Greens  would become a viable third party. I think a lot (though not all) of my reasons were naive or erroneous, and I definitely think I seriously underestimated how horrible Bush and Cheney were.  I really have no interest in debating the 2000 election any more. If anyone wants to blame me, individually, solely and completely for the Iraq War, fine go ahead.

Since 2000, I have volunteered for Howard Dean's  campaign, worked for 13 months as an unpaid intern on a Democratic congressional campaign, have given both money and time to the Democratic Party and Democratic campaigns, I voted for Democrats in 2002, 2004, and 2006, I helped lead a draft movement for my preferred Democratic candidate for president, and I have stated repeatedly that I will vote for Democratic nominee in 2008 and have convinced reluctant friends and family to do the same.

But wait: I have not always voted for Democratic candidates in local elections since 2000. Where I live, the Democrats pretty much control everything. In some of the local administrative  positions, these Democrats can be ethically challenged. So, one time I voted for a Green (the only alternative) for Sheriff; another time, I cast a write in vote against the unopposed court clerk candidate.

So am I a Democrat? I like to think so, but I'm sure Commenter A would disagree with me.

Going back to the Nader issue briefly, I said I was seriously troubled by the attitude some Democrats have towards that election and weather one is considered a Democrat or not. I think a lot of 2000 Nader supporters were like me: young, idealistic and tragically naive and shortsighted.  A lot of these folks have since been active in Democratic campaigns, as have I. But it seems like some folks, including too many on this blog, would ask them a question before they can help canvass  for Hillary or Barack or whomever: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a Naderite?" If they answer yes, are they still welcome to help the Democratic Party? I think the people who ask that question would be more likely send them away and force them to wear a green "N" on their clothes for the rest of their lives. And that's wrong.

In 1948, a young man who had served in World War II served as a delegate at the Progressive Party convention to support Henry Wallace against Democrat Harry Truman His name was George McGovern. That same election, a young newspaper editor in Illinois endorsed Thomas E. Dewey over President Truman. His name was Paul Simon.

Is George McGovern a Democrat? Was Paul Simon? If  the answer is "no" then I am not either. But at least I'm in some damn good company.

Finally, Fitzy, on a personal note, I wanted to thank you for this diary. You're an intelligent guy and a class act; thanks for trying to bring back the days when this blog was more interesting place to be.  

 


by Paul Simon Democrat on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:17:03 PM EST

Re: On Supporting A Democratic Nominee (none / 0)

I welcome anyone who shares Democratic Party ideas to become a Democrat. We shouldn't be discriminating against people who may have thought something else in the past.

I don't know whether this happens in other states, but last year we had someone running in a Congressional primary who spent all his time in forums and in the press talking about how all the other candidates were holding the wrong positions on issues.

Immediately after losing the primary, he registered as a Republican and became an anti-Democratic Party blogger.

Have other people run into this?


by jfashwell on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:31:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

any nader voer who knows they were wrong (none / 0)

iss 100% forgiven.

when I taunt people here with the phrase Naderitte - its because fully 1/3 of the people here and at kos say they may not vote dem in nov and I want dems to ostracize these folks.

the ones that don know and wont ever admit that they fucked up bad in 00.

and be sure Nader is running again....


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 11:54:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: any nader voer who knows they were wrong (none / 0)

Although I appreciate the fact that you are willing to forgive folks for their past votes, I respectfully suggest that your use of the phrase "Naderite" as a taunt will not be helpful in achieving the goal we both want: making sure the next president is a Democrat.

I think your use of the phrase "Naderite" will: 1. alienate past Nader voters like myself who are now working hard for the Democratic Party by resurrecting the ghost of 2000, and 2. alienate folks here who are currently saying the won't vote for whichever candidate if they are the Democratic nominee-instead of name calling why not try emphasizing the virtues of all the Democratic candidates and the problems with all of the Republican candidates?

We are still a year out from the general election; a lot of folks on the blogs who say they won't support whichever candidate if they are the Democratic nominee are just talking big, and they won't follow through on it. Let's see how they talk once they see who the Democratic and Republican candidates really are. With all the time there is until the general election to win people over, there is no reason to go around taunting people who are currently saying they won't support the Democratic nominee.


by Paul Simon Democrat on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 11:55:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

bs any naderite thatt want tto join us can (none / 0)

any that threaten to leave us again - can go straight to hades..

naderites have a lot to be forgiven for

you folk didnt do a lil boo boo

you said dems were corrupt and then set the world aflame!


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 04:46:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: bs any naderite thatt want tto join us can (none / 0)

Ah, silly me. I thought you actually wanted to help Democrats win and gave you suggestions on how to go about that. Turns out you actually just want to insult anyone who disagrees with you. Well, you are an expert on that; there is nothing I can do to help you there.


by Paul Simon Democrat on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 02:39:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

deep (none / 0)

i point out your insults and you pretend its all about me.

typical of your type here online...


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 03:41:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Supporting A Democratic Nominee (none / 0)

A current example is Florida panhandle Democrats. They are registered Democrats, they elect (conservative) Democrats for local office, but they vote Republican in statewide and most federal races. As far as the Democratic party and any national Democratic campaign is concerned they are not Democrats, functionally they are Republicans.

If you don't support a party's national candidate then you are probably migrating away from the party.  You may be worth courting for the right candidate, but you are not part of the base of the party.


by souvarine on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:53:44 PM EST

Re: On Supporting A Democratic Nominee (none / 0)

Can't one be part of the party but not part of its main "base"?


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 01:53:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Supporting A Democratic Nominee (none / 0)

i dont believe in the trinity any longer but (none / 0)

i celebrate XMAS

I CANNOT CALL MYSELF A CATHOLIC ANYMORE

because I dont believe in the trinity

but i sill consider myself a cultural Caholic - though i am not bound by its beliefs or rules

I take from any faith and myth structure that I like...BUDDHIST, HINDU, NAVAJO...

Im an Independent on these things...and so, though I am welcome to attend Mass, I am not allowed to take the wafer... because I choose not to accept required teachings, I am considered to have "left the Church"...I accept that.

Im a catholic-Christian leaning religious Independent.

It doesnt mean that when that time if year comes around - I dont get excited to once again, join WITH the fold...

Just like dem leaning independents at presidential election time.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:07:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

bw he reason I still consider myself (none / 0)

a cultural Catholic is because of Dorothy Day and the Catholic worker Movement.

I hope you have looked into their great work.

I once had a long chat about his with Mrs. Clinton and how at 14 she formed a babysitting co-op for migrant workers due to her reading about Miss Day and her work.

A  sad thing in the new CBS poll was hat 2/3dss of those polled said that they didnt believe that Mrs. Clinton was "religous"

If you tell Doug Bland or President Clinton that you plan to go to seminary after school and youd like to help dispel this myth about this poll and Dems not being people of faith - like Joe Biden too - I guarantee that he will hear you, help you and find a place for you.

Seize that moment.  Make it happen.  Get to Doug when all are trying to get to he Prez...he will get you to the prez or get your info...if you mention that poll and how you want to help change young peoples views about us "Godless" Dems....

Who better than you work on an issue that might decide the election?.  How many YDs at that convention do you think are planning a life in the clergy besides yourself?  Lets guess....maybe...None!

Are Democrats anti religion? The GOP says yes...we must prove to the American people that this is untrue...or we lose.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:30:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Supporting A Democratic Nominee (none / 0)

Nothing wrong with your question, but quite frankly several of you, including yourself took liberties with what Edwards point was about which as a nother poster stated on this thread- was to puncture the Clinton as inevitable meme. In other words, he wants the nomination.  You and others casually gloss over his real point in favor of your own objectives. Thats fine so far as it goes, but let's be clear about what you are doing and what he actually said.


by bruh21 on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:42:58 AM EST

Re: (none / 0)

I have voted for Republicans on the local and state level in the past.  If I am happy with their performance in a certain area, I am not a Democratic purist, especially at the micro level (city and county level.)   However, when it comes to national politics, I draw a major line.  Look at the Senate for starters.  A  D- next to that name means something.  Often they vote as a party block, in unison.  A Democratic Senator always beats a GOPer.  Period.  The same is true for president, but even more so.   So, NATIONALLY, it is an obvious litmus test for me.  If you refuse to vote for the Democratic candidate for president and/or your state Senator/congressperson, the Democratic credentials are just not that strong.  I would argue they are not really there, that person is really more of an Independent who often votes Democratic.  Nothing wrong with that, but in the interest of truth in labels, and in the context of a discussion or debate, it has to be made clear.

Just MHO.


by georgep on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 09:51:59 AM EST

Re: (none / 0)

I have to agree with George on this.  I think there is a substantive difference between voting Green, Republican or Dem at the local level and even the state level.  However, the primary issue is that a person who is running for President as a Democrat must have a demonstrable party loyalty.

The idea that Edwards is trying to counter the "inevitability meme" just doesn't hold water.  Candidates get asked this very same question in every cycle, and it's an easy answer - it doesn't even require much thought. The media didn't suddenly spring this question on Edwards because they're trying to elect Hillary Clinton. That should be obvious from the coverage she's gotten in the last few weeks.  They asked the questions because she's still the frontrunner.  If Edwards were ahead in the polls, they'd be asking her the same question.  If she gave the same answer he did, I'd be just as pissed at her as I am currently at Edwards.

The nominee becomes the nominal head of the party.  For some one who was also running for that job but didn't get to refuse to say they would support that person is not acceptable.

Holden is right.  If you can't vocalize your support for the nominee for president, you're a Dem leaning independent in my book, and that's absolutely fine.  If this is case when your actually a candidate, you have no business running as a Democrat.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 10:42:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Supporting A Democratic Nominee (none / 0)

  Fascinating discussion.  We seem to confuse things a bit by applying political party leader obligations to party members (and voters in general).  I think they are separable because the roles and relationships are very different.  I believe you can say a national level candidate has an obligation to support--publicly, at least--the eventual party nominee.  Senator Edwards has already received, and would expect again, the support of his rivals should he win a spot on the party ticket.  That having been said, if he felt Senator Clinton had failed to support the Kerry/Edwards team, then, in kind, he wouldn't really be obligated to actively support her as next year's nominee.
   Voters as a group have no obligations to party leaders or nominees, to state the obvious.  They can pick whoever they like or choose against a repellent nominee.
  Dues paying party members have some obligations, I feel, because they are receiving benefits of party membership.  The closer you are to power, the greater the requirement for loyalty; but fealty is reserved for that power elite which preserves and shares political power among themselves.
  Grassroots organizers (those furthest from decisionmaking circles, according to my theory) may have devotion to causes, but not to the party or its leaders, and often detach themselves after their particular issues are resolved.  
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. Will Rodgers
by The Totalizer on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 05:50:49 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.