A party this divided always loses....always!

[Uben]

Do a history check. When a party is so bitterly divided as ours is, they have always lost.

All the in-fighting has assured four years of McFailure.

We have to go back to "winner takes all" primaries to avoid this shit.

Gloom and doom? No, history and facts,

[acrosstheuniverse]

1. Thanks Hillary

With power comes responsibility. She doesn't give a shit about the country.

[Debi]

24. Definitely about the Democratic Party and any Dem who is running

for US Congress, Governor, State legislature or County Board in 2008 x(

[cali]

2. Not yet.

If it goes beyond June and especially if it goes to the convention, I'll be in agreement with you. There's still time for dems to pull it together.

[acrosstheuniverse]

5. Hillary already announced she is going to the convention with this...

she is fucking it all up on purpose.

[cali]

7. yeah, but JE said the same thing

shortly before he stepped aside. I'm not sure how much weight to give that. I think it depends on how well or poorly she does in PA and NC.

[susankh4]

3. Draft Al!

I am starting to see this *may* be the only way. That or the Clinton/Obama ticket I have been calling for since last year....

Gads. Why do we allow ourselves to become so polarized?

[ossman]

4. haha now that you lost. How considerate of you.

[girl gone mad]

6. It's progress.

Maybe Clinton supporters are srarting to get to the "bargaining" stage.

[acrosstheuniverse]

8. Yeah this is bad...

because her anger could erupt all Summer long.

[DerekJ]

10. saved

[cleveramerican]

9. Your jumping the gun just a bit

These divisions will work themselves out.
They always do.
Don't short circuit the primary process!
Have faith in it.

[Uben]

12. Show me one time they have

When a primary is this closely divided, the party has always lost. The division has never "worked itself out".

[cleveramerican]

13. I think you are overstateing these " divisions"

name one president who didn't create some "divisions" during the primary process.
the divisions you are concerned about are the most normal thing in the world.
They appear and disappear at every primary cycle.

as for an example....
Reagan in 1980. Barely eeked out the nomination and won in a landslide.

[Uben]

15. Barely eked out the nomination?

The 1980 Republican National Convention was held in Detroit, Michigan in the month of July. The tally at the convention was as follows:

Ronald Reagan – 1,939
John Bayard Anderson – 37
George H.W. Bush – 13
other 5

[cleveramerican]

16. See ,By the convention all the divisions had " Worked themselves out"

see what I'm saying. Same thing will happen this year, by then everybody will be in the tank for one or the other.

I'm not hammering you, I just see it very differently.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

23. Because he gave Poppy the VP slot.

Jesus!

[Uben]

11. Consider this..............

One in six dems said they would not vote if their candidate loses the nomination. One in five Clinton supporters said they would vote for McCain if Clinton loses.

This is reality! There is no way to fix it now, short of nominating a different candidate, which I think is highly unlikely.

To get the required votes, the only scenario I see with possibility is some kind of agreement between Clinton and Obama for a combined ticket, and they need to do it NOW!

If either refuses, they will be responsible for our loss in November.

Yes, we can dream, but we don't live and work in dreams. If you want hope and change, you had better start changing your way of thinking and hope it's not too late to salvage this thing!

[Asgaya Dihi]

17. I doubt that's possible

Weeks ago that would have been a good option but after the last few weeks I don't think either could live with that. She obviously has no respect for him and I'd imagine he's not happy with her at this point. After several years of Cheney running things from the VP office do you really think he'll risk that she won't do the same? Things aren't the same as they were then, we know what a powerful VP looks like now.

We'd end up with four years of a power struggle between them. I wish it would work but I don't see her working under him happily and I'm not sure it's a smart risk. For them or for us.

[whirlygigspin]

18. shoulda coulda woulda gone with the no brainer safe bet, but nooo...

[VolcanoJen]

27. The no-brainer safe bet dropped out after ONE contest, Iowa!

Can't tell you how disappointed I was with Joe when he threw in the towel.

I'd love to see him on the Obama ticket, though. I think it's a huge winner!

[rock]

21. Dems voting for McCain

That was said in the heat of the moment. Such a poll is less than worthless. I'm voting for the Democratic Candidate.

[Blue_In_AK]

28. Don't believe what people say

in the heat of a primary. When all is said and done, my guess is that when faced with the real possibility of a McCain presidency, people will come to their senses and vote for the Democratic nominee. Ask them how they feel around October or so.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Feel Free To Share Your Facts With Us

Let's see what ya got.

[thoughtcrime1984]

19. You know what might create even further division?

A third candidate that didn't run for the office being crowned as the nominee. Whether or not it is Gore or someone else, it reeks of a bad idea to me, especially at this point in late March. This does not speak to my feelings of Mr. Gore, I like him and respect him. However, I think the two candidates that have been campaigning for over a year, and have each garnered 10M+ votes apiece, deserve to be the two that continue to be considered for our party's nomination. I think that news story from the UK was meant to start a fire where there isn't one, IMO. If we didn't want our party to be "deeply divided", why are there Primaries all the way into June, which only potentially drags out the process? Perhaps the convention should be in June, with Primaries ending in April. We can win this Presidential Election, we just need to perhaps tone down the infighting between the two campaigns. We will rally around one of these two candidates, it will happen!

[mmonk]

20. Only if you allow it. And with what we've been through, that would be

ridiculous.

[OzarkDem]

22. Obama and Axelrod believe in "divide and conquer"

its been the keystone of his race from day one as evidenced by his early use of the "race card".

Is he aware that it damages Dems chances of winning in November? That's truly an interesting question and one that merits discussion. I can't believe he doesn't realize the risks in running a divisive campaign. The problem is, he's done it in the past when he ran in Illinois. It worked ok there, but success of divisive campaigns at the state level doesn't translate into success at the national level.

Is Obama naive enough to think Illinois politics are just like national politics? Is Axelrod, they guy who only knows Illinois politics, convincing him this disastrous strategy will work? Do Dems really want to trust the future of their party to a couple of Chicago machine politicians? I don't.

[backscatter712]

25. The party will be united...

after Hillary's lying, cheating ass is ground into the fucking dirt!

If you ask me, I say we achieve unity through an Obama victory.

[Blue_In_AK]

30. That's really "uniting" talk, Backscatter...

This is exactly what keeps people divided. The more you talk like this, the more Hillary's supporters will defend her. Everybody needs to dial the hysteria back a bit.

[kwenu]

26. Fortunately, Obama supporters don't buy that. Obama will be President. Hillary will be bitter.

[Zynx]

29. 1948 was worse, but Truman ran an unusually good campaign and Dewey an unusually bad one.