"Do you still believe that there was no difference between the candidates?"

[Clintonista2]

-Al Gore, speaking at the 2004 convention to those who abandoned the Democratic party to vote for Nader in 2000.

Maybe, just this once, we can learn a lesson and use it for 2008.

[tedoll78]

1. Undecided here, but I agree.

I doubt we've learned. Too many around here seem more than willing to f*ck the world over because the 70% liberal candidate won instead of the 90% candidate.

[onehandle]

2. I see Ds. I see Rs.

I pick the D.

[stray cat]

3. I see some Ds I like better than others but definitely don't want any of the Rs!

[AllyCat]

5. Me too. Unless the D acts like an R and then there is really no difference. n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. If there's no difference, I need to see the proof:

1) Scream out loud how you're going to stand for the people vs. corporations
2) Show how you have done precisely that by giving specific HUGE instances in which you did
3) Show me that you want to impeach Bush and Cheney NOW, RIGHT NOW.

[stray cat]

7. The proof to me was Bush in office for 8 years.

In 2000 I thought how much damage can one person do. Now I know and won't make the same mistake. I don't think Gore would have behaved the same way.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. Oh you mean the voting in the general election? I agree with you.....

I HATE the Naderites! It may only be my opinion, but they're scum because they put their tantrum before the need to keep Repugnicans out of office. As a result, old people suffered, working poor suffered, military young kids died, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

[stray cat]

12. Yes, sorry - I was strictly speaking about the general election.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. I'm with you. I'm going to vote for whoever is the Democratic Party nominee. nt

[TwilightZone]

6. I doubt we've learned anything, at least here on DU.

The same arguments are being made about our candidates being Bush-lite. The same people are proclaiming that they'll take their toys and go home if the candidate they want isn't nominated. Recent DU polls show that about 30% of the poll participants would vote for the (R) or stay home if the nominee isn't their first choice.

I hope that it's all just grandstanding, but I fear that it is not.

[vi5]

13. I don't grandstand...

I've voted for the dem in every single election every time it was possible from my first time in 1988 to present. I've spent countless hours lecturing my third party, more liberal than though friends over the past 8 years of Bush.

But I'm tired of falling for it and having the football pulled away from me every time. I'm tired of being Charlie Brown.

I'm tired of putting myself out there and waiting for the next thing. I'm tired of "Wait for Bush's popularity to tank....then we'll get stuff done with all those republican jumping ship." and it doesn't hapen.

I'm tired of "wait until democrats control congress. Then we'll have supeona power and we'll get stuff done and hold Bush's feet to the fire." and then it doesn't happen because well, the majorities aren't big enough.

I'm tired of taking candidates at their word that we can trust them. And that goes for Obama and Hillary. I don't want to have to trust that Obama's "Let's all get along and work together" and his repeating of republican talking points on Social Security and the Donnie McClurkin thing are just abberations and that when he gets into office I can trust him to do the right thing.

And that goes for Hillary who I've watched do what's political expedient over what is morally right far too many times. I don't want to have to trust that when she's elected she'll always do the liberal thing and that she won't do certain things to simply avoid appearing weak or soft.

I'm seriously closer to sitting this election out than I've ever been in my 20 years of voting. And it kills me to say that but I can assure you it's not grandstanding and it's not an "if you don't do what I want I'm going to take my ball and go home" because the fact is that I'm not looking out there and simply seeing them playing the game by different rules than I like and want to take my ball and go home. It's that I see them playing an entirely different game which is completely foreign to me and which I can't possibly join in. And it kills me. But it's the truth.

[TwilightZone]

15. While I don't disagree with most of what you said...

The fact that there is a razor-thin margin in the Senate is indisputable. Considering that margin a controlling one isn't really indicative of reality, especially when our "margin" includes Senators like Ben Nelson.

In my opinion, we can't pursue a more progressive agenda unless we get elected in the first place. Electing a Democratic president and firming up support in both houses of Congress would allow us to do so.

No guarantees, of course, but it's certainly much more likely to result in progressive change than electing Romney or Rudy.

[vi5]

16. And I know this...

...which is why I'll still in all likelihood wind up being good ole charlie brown yet again and pulling the lever for whatever dem is the nominee. And I'll likely wind up flat on my back again as they continue to pander to the worst elements of our country and our culture rather than inspiring people to lift themselves up and do what's right even when doing what's right is the more difficult option. Which is why I'm heartbroken watching and hearing Bill Clinton act the way he has, because his election was the last time I ever saw and felt anyone do that (despite his triangulation).

But it still sucks and I'm still disgusted by our options.

[TwilightZone]

17. Campaigning vs. governing

Pandering and animosity are unfortunately the norm in recent elections, but the hope is that candidates do what they usually do, which is run down the middle, then shift to their side of the aisle once elected.

That hope may seem like a slim one at times (especially with our candidates appearing to pander to the right annoyingly often), but I think that solid Dem majorities would eliminate some of the political fear our representatives seem to have about pursuing an agenda to the left. Congress, at the moment, seems to err on the side of caution out of the fear of veto. That obviously wouldn't be the case with a Dem in the White House.

All just my opinion, of course.

[robbedvoter]

8. Good point! But, but Raygun signed MLK day bill!

link corrected
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4140340

[no name no slogan]

9. In the primaries? No, there's not much difference

The top three are more alike than they are different.

[SteppingRazor]

11. The two-headed snake argument is a pretty stupid one.

Just look at any major issue -- healthcare, the Iraq War, the economy, or what have you -- and the consensus view of Democrats and Republicans is like night and day.

Democratic presidential candidates
Health care -- some form of healthcare system that would get healthcare to every American, though each of the three differs on how to accomplish that, and none of them are for a single-payer, nonprofit system.

Iraq War -- all three are for bringing home the troops, except for some to guard our embassy and participate in counterterrorism ops.

Economy -- End the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, use the money to pay for the aforementioned healthcare plans.


Republicans
Health care -- status quo, but with more deregulation. More competition between private insurance firms will guarantee lower costs, or so they claim.

Iraq War -- status quo. The surge is working. That is all ye need to know.

Economy -- Cut taxes even further, because lower taxes means more revenue in the bizarro world of Republican economics.


There are massive differences between Democrats and Republicans on almost every issue. Sure, a lot of us would like the Dems. to go even further. But to say that just because they don't go far enough they are the same as Republicans is just plain idiotic.

[LWolf]

18. The differences between HRC and Obama are becoming

more clear, anyway.

I won't be voting for HRC. I don't like the DLC or her DLC connections, and I don't like her campaign of ambiguity. I don't like her positions on too many issues.

At least she is not pandering to republicans, homophobes, and the evangelical right-wing, though. At least she still can use the word "Democrat" without apology.

[rucky]

19. Not much difference between the Dem candidates.

Varying degrees of difference between them and the Republican candidates.