When did the candidate become bigger than the party?

[polticalpout]

When did the candidate become bigger than the party?

Let me tell you something, I like a good political fight. Opponents going back and forth with both facts and emotion. It's gets people interested in politics and it can awaken even the most apathetic and disenfranchised voters out there. And I think our party's primary has done just that, and that is a good thing.

But I'll tell you what's not a good thing. These supporters from both sides, Obama's and Hillary's, attacking their opponent and their opponents supporters in such a negative fashion it makes me embarrassed for my party. I've heard some Obama supporters say they won't vote for Hillary if she's the nominee and I've heard Hillary supporters say they won't vote for Obama if he's the nominee, what's happen here? The fact is both Obama and Hillary are liberals. The fact is both want to help the middle and working class out and end the tax breaks for the rich corporations. The fact is both want a plan that brings health insurance to those that's can't afford it. The fact is both want to bring our troops home. The fact is, both are Democrats.

Keep that passion and energy for your candidate but stop this cannibalism that has been going on, because no woman nor man is bigger then the Democratic Party. And come this November, if your candidate wasn't our nomination and you don't think you can vote for the person who defeated them, just remember the last 8 years and vote for the Democratic party.

Thanks for your time.

[BeatleBoot]

1. Fact is: Most are Republican Poseurs

You assume they are Dems, but they are not.

http://republicansforobama.org/?q=node/359


E-mail to send to Texas Republicans


Attention All Texas Republicans and Independents!!

On March 4th, Texas Republicans and Independents will have an opportunity to end Hillary Clinton's (and Bill's) presidential ambitions once and for all!

Since Texas has on open primary, Republicans and Independents should sign in at their polling place and request a Democratic ballot. They should then vote for Barack Obama. Even James Carville admits that if Hillary loses Texas, "she's done!" Republicans can help make this a reality!!! Just think, no more Clintons in the White House!

Voting Democratic this one time will have NO effect on your ability to vote in the next Republican primary or obviously on your vote in November. Since John McCain has the Republican nomination locked up, voting for McCain or Huckabee at this point will have no effect on the outcome on the Republican side.

After you vote during early voting or on March 4th, you ARE NOT done! Report back to your regular polling place at 7PM on March 4th to sign the Barack Obama list for caucus delegates. In a little known Texas voting quirk, 67 delegates to the Democratic convention will be seated because of these caucuses. This is a full one-third of the total number of Texas delegates. For Hillary to lose, she has to lose the primary votes AND the caucus votes.

I urge you to vote against Hillary Clinton by voting for Barack Obama. Please forward this e-mail to all your Texas Republican and Independent friends so that we can help ensure the Clinton's defeat on March 4th!!!

[Alexander]

3. I see one of the posters referenced by the OP is gracing us with his presence.

Too bad.

Tell me, will you vote for Obama in the GE? Because I'll vote for Hillary in the GE, if it comes to that.

[Demagitator]

52. Interesting

:rofl:

[karynnj]

54. That email proves nothing, nor do the Rush calls to vote for HRC

The fact is that this year was seen, at least since Nov 2006, as a sure win for a Democrat. This ups the stakes in the primary. the winner is seen as a nearly sure shot to be President. There were at least 3 candidates around whom people have rallied as the best future President. Within each group, people in defining why their choice was better, made a case that has now deteriorated into rejecting the other two - partially because they are blinded by the golden halo they gave their completely human favorite. On top of that, even normal political actions - highlighting the political advantages of the favorite candidate to the disadvantage of the others is taken as "swiftboating" - when, in most cases, it didn't come close. (I am not absolving all campaigns of dirty tricks - just saying that there is NO universal agreement on who has done what. I, of course, see the other side as the dirty one. Does anyone ever see their side as cheating? I bet even Bush people don't.)

Aggravating that is that the internet lets us all set up our own groups where we reinforce each other. This reinforces the biases that brought them together in the first place. No group is immune to this. This will make it harder to get everyone unified behind the eventual candidate. That happened in 2004 to a lesser degree - and it hurt. Ironically, some Dean people, because of differences on Iraq had difficulty supporting the man, who has been a leader since the election in pushing viable exit plans. As President, I was more confident in 2006 that he would get us out than I was this year with any of the 3 candidates. The saving grace there is the choice was so stark, Kerry got their votes.

This year, there are similar reluctances. There are Edwards people speaking of the others not caring enough for poverty and healthcare, when Obama worked as a community organizer on the South side of Chicago and HRC worked, even if unsuccessfully on healthcare in the 1990s. Both will likely have a Democratic Senate and House behind them. Compared to the huge difference between them and McCain, the policy differences among the Democrats is small - and the end result passed through Congress may well be identical. Neither House act merely as scribes to the President.

This is also something I might have to work through. I have problems with the fund raising corruption and some of the arrogant actions of the 1990s on the Clintons part and think they hurt the reputation of the Democratic party. I also think that many of the Clinton media hanger ons hurt Kerry in 2004 by never even trying to get his record (far more impressive than any of the top three this year) or vision out - and they were the majority of the Democrats in the media. If she becomes the candidate, I will need to move beyond this and see the choice for what it is - and McCain and HRC are far apart on Iraq and other issues. (On Iraq, her political posturing in 2006 is as big a problem as her not speaking out when it was clear Bush was NOT going as a last resort. She is still more likely than McCain to do the right things)

If this primary season ends next Tuesday or after PA, there will be time to mend fences - and they need to be mended. Now, a call for that is premature - they ARE still fighting. What we can do here is to treat each other with more respect - which I can see happening in the real world. In my country, the county seat has a green in the center of town, which has cars flowing through continuously. This Nov, I was out there waving an Obama sign with other Obama people and enjoying the honks and cheers from motorists and passer-bys. There was also a group of Clinton people. We knew some of them, they knew some of us - they commented when we arrived that it was cool we were both there - and neither Republican had people there. (The town leans Democratic, but the county is extremely Republican.)

[Bicoastal]

2. I was just thinking about something...

...it wasn't until later into this century before a lot of people actually WANTED to be President. People like James Buchanan, James Garfield, William Howard Taft--they didn't entirely want the job, but their parties essentially forced them to.

It's why a Shermanesque statement meant more then than it does now--'cause back then, there was a threat of it really happening. You could be nominated and elected without entirely wanting it.

[LWolf]

4. Perhaps at the same time the party became bigger than the issues. nt

[polticalpout]

5. Could you explain? /nm

nm

[LWolf]

50. Sure.

You asked, "When did the candidate become bigger than the party?"

For me, the candidate has always been bigger than the party. I'm an issues voter.

For me, the only purpose of the party is to move issues forward. The only way to ensure that the party will do so is to elect those candidates who will do so. Running on a party's ticket doesn't ensure that a candidate will work for the issues. Anyone can register as a Democrat, and anyone can run as a Democrat. The party only has meaning in its relationship to the issues.

I choose a candidate, vote for a candidate, based on issues, and that candidate's record and position on issues, not based on their identity with a party.

Of course, the current war between the Clinton and Obama supporters is a bit over the top, considering that they aren't really that different. There's no point in calling for party unity, though, when uniting behind either one of them won't act on the issues of the day to make the changes I wish to see. That's just me, though. Perhaps you can convince everyone else that party should trump issues.

[sandnsea]

6. Clinton and Obama are not the same

and I am a little leary of all these new people showing up trying to convince people they are. They're not. Hillary has proven her lack of integrity on a daily basis for several months now.

[polticalpout]

9. You don't get it.

Each of these candidates have negatives but the point is you shouldn't focus on slamming them or their supporters that's what the Republicans are going to do. Use your time, energy, and resources to show the positives about your own candidate, because guess what? Which ever candidate is nominated is going to get the support of the one who wasn't and they will graciously accept this support with open arms, so please think about that.

Hillary will need Obama and her supporters to win against McCain.
Obama will need Hillary and his supporters to win against McCain.

To think otherwise would be damn foolish.

And you "new people" comment means nothing? # of posts don't mean a damn thing, I've been around DU since 2002.

[Cha]

10. She gets it just fine..you don't

get it as far as I'm concerned. They're not the same and I'm not going to pretend they are.

[polticalpout]

12. No one is claiming them to be the same

But they do say the same core values. And their differences do not justify how a large # of supporters from each camp is treating the other.

[sandnsea]

13. Not in my book they don't

You might believe all her new-found liberal values. I don't believe it for a minute. She favored the war. She favors outsourcing. She favors a health plan that is a gift to the insurance industry. She is cozy with corrupt business associates. She uses voter suppression to try to win campaigns. She lies on a daily basis. She doesn't share any core value of Obama's that I can see.

[polticalpout]

15. Well if you think all that...

Will you still be able to support Obama if he is choosen for the nomination and graciously accepts her support and gives a grand speech about her and her supporters? After all one with intergerty would reject support from that kind of person you described above, no?

[sandnsea]

21. I fully expect him to do that, he has to

Because there are way too many Democrats who don't see through her and that's not his fault.

[polticalpout]

22. "He Has To".... It's funny how integrity works isn't it?

Politics are complicated aren't they? Sometimes an action that looks and maybe is bad, is necessary to do for the larger good. Keep casting stones and one or two might blow back to hit you in the head.

[sandnsea]

24. There's a difference between graciousness and corruption

and I'm sure you get the difference too.

[polticalpout]

29. Corruption?

I know about Chicago politics (see Rezko). I just hope the stones you are throwing don't come back and hit your guy. I mean that.

[sandnsea]

31. Yep, Rezko,

I was right. This is just a Clinton ploy to try to take the heat off Clinton.

[polticalpout]

34. Rezko is a Clinton Ploy??

I don't get it?

[sandnsea]

36. Your thread

Anybody who can toss out Rezko when pretending to be supportive of both candidates, while ignoring the truckload of corruption around the Clintons, has another agenda imo.

[polticalpout]

38. No so

You have been the one throwing stones, I'm responding to you, show you it's so easy to go both ways. Use your energy to and passion to support you candidate instead of tearing the other one down, that's my message.

[sandnsea]

45. Hillary is not a good choice

I would be pointing out her flaws no matter who was running against her at this point. Any other Democrat would have been a better choice.

[theboss]

14. Stop thinking DU is the real world`

We have no power or influence outside of this tiny tiny sphere. So much of the fighting here is just political porn. It's posts to masturbate to.

[polticalpout]

16. Well, I guess that's why I posted it in the DU. /nm

nm

[DavidDvorkin]

7. Every four years

None of this is new.

[FlyingSquirrel]

8. I'm bigger than the party.

:D

[mtnsnake]

18. .

[FlyingSquirrel]

55. A very good point, concise and perfectly cogent.

Very well, I'll clear out my ignore list again just for that.

;)

[FrenchieCat]

11. The party actually got so small, we haven't been winning elections

like we should have till 2006!

We are growing the party now.

You may think that it is about the man, but it isn't....that is only what you have concluded.

In actuality, it is about us.

Watch and listen.

[stillcool]

17. it really is...

and it is amazing. I think we the people were waiting for someone to inspire us to do what we could have done all along. It's funny how 'movements' happen, and how ordinary people become extraordinary, because it is the right time and the right place. Like Martin Luther King. In 1870 The 15th Amendment gave former slaves the right to vote and yet it wasn't until 1965 that the Voting Rights Act was passed. I'm sure there were many many people who came before and tried to do exactly what he did, but it wasn't time. People weren't ready. In that case too, it wasn't the man, it was the people.

[polticalpout]

19. I think living through the worst President ever helped push the movement . /nm

nm

[lastliberalintexas]

20. As an outisider without a candidate, I don't get it either

Clinton and Obama, despite the protestations to the contrary I've seen have already been posted inthis thread, are very much alike. They have very similar voting records, have received similar support from the same special interests, and would help us take baby steps in the right direction but neither represents revolutionary change of any sort. They are good, solid Dem candidates, and each would make a good president.

I just can't understand the vitriol from the campaigns directed at the opposing camp. Their insignificant differences aren't worthy of such fear and loathing.


Though perhaps it is their similarities which have created the problem. Perhaps if they were further apart on the issues, then the campaign would be less personality driven and less dependent on the intangibles over which people have become so inflamed. I don't know, obvioulsy. :)

[sandnsea]

23. And Bush and Gore weren't different either

Opposing the war. Big Difference. Calling out the PNAC Wolfowitz/Perle ideology in Oct 2002. Big Difference. Opposing NAFTA. Big Difference. Introducing a Constitutional Right to Health Care, even though at the state level. Big Difference.

Honest campaigning as opposed to voter suppression and blatant lies and distortion. Another Big Difference.

I think people have to be wilfully blind to miss it.

[lastliberalintexas]

27. Are you really the same sandnsea from 04?

Sometimes I wonder.

Clinton's healthcare proposal is actually probably better than Obama's, Obama had the guts to oppose the war. They each want to bring fiscal responsibility back to the federal budget, roll back Bush's taxcuts on the wealthy (which each originally opposed), raise taxes on the wealthy, are both adamantly pro-choice and both will nominate sane individuals to the Court for a change. Clinton is too hawkish and Obama is too religious.

Good god you're right- they're polar opposites.

[sandnsea]

30. They're different

Clinton's health care proposal is not better, mandates without having a clue what the rates will be is insanity. Somebody who is looking out for low income people understands that. Yes she's more hawkish and that is such a huge difference that it should get ANYBODY off the fence. Pro-choice and tax policy is not enough to say they're exactly the same.

[lastliberalintexas]

35. So on the off chance she gets the nom, what will you do?

How could you dare to vote for such a candidate as Hillary Clinton, someone who gave a brilliant anti-war speech in Oct 2002, represented a very liberal state which actually opposed invasion, and then turned around and voted in favor of the IWR? Inquiring minds want to know just how much it would take for you to be able to support such a person. :)





And posters who remember the 04 primaries just might be as curious as I am. :think:

[sandnsea]

37. Vote for her because she's better than McCain

If she'd opposed the invasion, vocally and consistently, from Jan 2003 on, I might have a different view of her. SHE is the one that the media kept quoting with the Dems want to "stay the course" bullshit. She was the architect of the vote, the support the invasion but oppose the execution, the lot of it. She isn't going to change shit if she gets into office.

[lastliberalintexas]

39. I see you wisely ignored my reference to your support of Kerry

Kind of hard to explain one's hatred of Clinton for the IWR when one was a Kerry supporter from the beginning in 04. :shrug:



Sorry sandnsea, you've got primary blinders on. Clinton's not great, but she isn't nearly as bad as you and some other Obama supporters try to pretend. On the other hand, Obama's not great, but he's not nearly as bad as some Clinton supporters try to pretend, either.

[sandnsea]

43. Jan 2003 "Mr President Do Not Rush To War"

Oh yes I did, I was very specific. I know who opposed this war and who gave Bush a pass, time and again. All she'll do is put a happy face on bad policy, same as Bill did.

[MagsDem]

49. Do you ever post anything factual?

I just left you in another thread deliberately altering a Clinton quote, and here you are over here lying your ass off about her health care proposal. No idea what the rates will be? Only if you've paid no attention to the independent analysis of them and refuse to use MA as your worst case scenario.

Here are 3 things I gaurantee will never see the light of day if Obama gets elected:

1. Health care proposals

2. His "pledge" to repeal DOMA.

3. A repeal of NAFTA

Hopefully he won't win, but if he does, you take that to the bank.

[MagsDem]

28. Oh please....

NAFTA -- he has spoken in favor of it. on Sept. 8, 2004, he said that Americans "benefit enormously from exports, and so we have an interest in free trade that allows us to move our products overseas. The United States should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, but the country must be more aggressive about protecting American interests."
He didn't oppose it until he found out he couldn't win certain states by favoring it.

He also doesn't believe in single payer health insurance -- hell, he doesn't even believe in universal coverage. Voter suppression? Which candidate is trying to suppress 1.7 million voters in FL? Yep, Obama.

You're right about one thing -- you'd have to be willfully blind to miss all that.

[MagsDem]

25. I don't think Obama is a liberal

I think he's calculating, and not reliable on progressive values at all. He's the first democrat in 30 yrs that I just can't stomach voting for. Perhaps because he has made it clear he will pander outrageously to bigots and rethugs to get their votes. I've held my nose and voted for a lot of dems I didn't think were very good on our issues, but he took it over the line for me. Sorry to disapoint you. Sometimes principles trump party.

[polticalpout]

26. "he will pander outrageously to bigots and rethugs to get their votes" Huh??

I have no clue what you are talking about, did I miss something?

[MagsDem]

41. More than I can express

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXq9mLCKuCI

An Obama rally. Obama knew in advance that McClurkin would make these statements - his views are a secret. He later said it was important to understand all points of view. LOL! Yeah, and when is he going to invite the grand dragon of the KKK to speak at one of his events so we can understand the KKK's point of view too? I'm guessing no time soon.

More choice words from Obama's rally buddy, McClurkin (and yes, this was previous to him inviting him to headline the rally):

From the Christian Broadcast Network:
"His main purpose, though, is to help sexually confused children. "How do they know that they are homosexual?" asks Donnie. "If you ask them and go back far enough, it’s usually a pinpoint place." For the ones that want help, Donnie is there for them. There are young boys who weep at the altar. "They want help," says Donnie. "That’s what I’m there to do." The gay community is saying that Donnie is a threat and that he is trying to convert young children or control their minds. "I’m not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children. Someone has to be the voice for them, and the children are only hearing one voice right now," he says."

Yeah, we gay people are always killing children, because you know, it's a fun thing to do.

[polticalpout]

46. Hmmm, Obama seems very gay friendly in votes though

He supports a full repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and has denounced McClurkin's views. Hillary is also gay friendly, as she marched in the gay pride parade in NYC in 2000.

[MagsDem]

48. I'm not saying he is anti-gay -- I'm saying he will throw gays under...

the bus to get votes from bigots in a heartbeat, as he has demonstrated. Name me another dem presidential candidate that has so brazenly pandered to homophobes? I sure can't think of one in my lifetime. Call it an issue of character -- I just don't think he's got much of that. And this is not the only issue that makes me question his character either.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

32. And sometimes, your head is so far up your ass

all you can do is gripe about your situation. I fear your current predicament has great bearing on your disposition and demeanor.

[MagsDem]

42. You know who's head's up an ass?

Any candidate that would invite this jerk to headline a rally, knowing what a bigot he is:

Donnie McClurkin:

His main purpose, though, is to help sexually confused children. "How do they know that they are homosexual?" asks Donnie. "If you ask them and go back far enough, it’s usually a pinpoint place." For the ones that want help, Donnie is there for them. There are young boys who weep at the altar. "They want help," says Donnie. "That’s what I’m there to do." The gay community is saying that Donnie is a threat and that he is trying to convert young children or control their minds. "I’m not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children. Someone has to be the voice for them, and the children are only hearing one voice right now," he says.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

47. Yep. Could have banked on that.

[leftstreet]

33. The parties are no longer known for their platforms

I don't know specifically when identity politics took over though.

:shrug:

[Mezzo]

40. When they started saying,"I know repubs who will vote for one, but NOT the other" so that means...

we should do what the Republicans want. Hillary Clinton is GOP tested, Democrat Approved. Barack Obama is not GOP tested, and he was not against the war from the beginning as he is wont to say he was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN30M6StFfk

Either one will be better than McCain, and I stated out as an Edwards girl, but the bashing of Hillary (and I do mean freeper like attacks) have been so absurd, I am strongly in the Clinton camp now.

[defendandprotect]

44. When they wanted to use the beauty of the candidate to distract from

the ugliness of the platform --- !!!

[JVS]

51. 1992

[zalinda]

53. I don't like either one, but I've come to hate

Obama. I can't stand to listen to him at all. You know the reaction you get listening to Bush? I feel the same reaction listening to Obama. His cadence absolutely turns my stomach. And, of course, you all know that the cadence is all a put on, and that he never did it before he ran for President.

zalinda