Wake up democrats!

[Poofler]

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] bdk, the one-man poly forum BS Task Force Squad.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the depth of the Bush hatred is rooted alot more in Florida 2000 than it has to do with Iraq.

The dems have had sour grapes about him from the beginning.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make it sound as if the outrage over the utter mess that has been Iraq is much a ruse. I'd only hope you'd be kinder than the Democracts should have been if Pres. Obama happens to make a similarly costly folly, in similarly dubious circumstances.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] bdk, the one-man poly forum BS Task Force Squad.

[/ QUOTE ]

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
What the OP describes as a radicalization of the Democratic party is really just a super standard play to the base primary campaign. Both parties candidates usually move away from the middle during the primaries. As for whether the Dems are painting themselves into a corner, a poll I saw yesterday suggested that Obama's position on negotiating with dictators is popular. Even among the general public, much less the Democratic base. I love it when there's a happy coincidence of being right and being politically popular.

Also, the Dems are perfectly capable of nominating a moderate: its Hillary. I know conservatives (irrationally) hate her, but she is popular among moderates, just like her husband. Also, I'll admit that I didn't pay close attention to the debates, but I can't imagine the Dems didn't talk about terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Iron, I love you, and I can't thank you enough for voluntarily submitting yourself to the thankless task of moderating this forum.

But you're seriously like the Alan Colmes of the 2+2 Politics forum. You're a self-identifying Democrat, and you seem to have good intentions, but you have a knack for buying into every Republican/right-wing talking point designed to marginalize Democratic candidates specifically and liberalism generally.

You've agreed that the Democrats are "mov[ing] away from the middle" (without specifying how.) You've bought into "Obama's position on negotiating with dictators" (but defend it as "popular.") You describe Hilary Clinton as a "moderate" despite her (admittedly obscured as of late) hawkishness on the war in Iraq and potential war on Iran.

Do yourself a favor and read Bill Scher's LiberalOasis every day and his book Wait! Don't Move to Canada: A Stay-and-Fight Strategy to Win Back America and George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives. You'll thank me later, I promise.

[iron81]

I define a moderate as someone who has a good mixture of conservative and liberal positions. The reason I call Hillary a moderate is that her hawkishness is certainly a conservative position, but she has many liberal positions on areas like Abortion and Health Care. The fact that Hillary has largely dropped her hawkishness is in fact a move away from the middle because more of her positions are now to the left.

I suppose I know where you're going because I'm identifying anti-war as a liberal position, but given its unpopularity, being anti-war is the center.

[old dogg]

Please define "anti-war"
I mean i don`t believe in war for the sake of war,but if we are given no other choice but to wage war,like in the case of national security or what have you i`m all for it.
So does this make me anti or pro war?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Iron, I love you, and I can't thank you enough for voluntarily submitting yourself to the thankless task of moderating this forum.

But you're seriously like the Alan Colmes of the 2+2 Politics forum. You're a self-identifying Democrat, and you seem to have good intentions, but you have a knack for buying into every Republican/right-wing talking point designed to marginalize Democratic candidates specifically and liberalism generally.

You've agreed that the Democrats are "mov[ing] away from the middle" (without specifying how.) You've bought into "Obama's position on negotiating with dictators" (but defend it as "popular.") You describe Hilary Clinton as a "moderate" despite her (admittedly obscured as of late) hawkishness on the war in Iraq and potential war on Iran.


[/ QUOTE ]

iron I like you too, and of course appreciate the moderating job you do in this forum, but I agree with bk here:

"you have a knack for buying into every Republican/right-wing talking point designed to marginalize Democratic candidates specifically and liberalism generally."

You did it here, too -- repeating the "Democrat X doesn't have a plan and lacks serious policy positions, and just wants to withdraw from Iraq" which is essentially nothing more than a coordinated and widely-disseminated right-wing talking point meant to marginalize candidates who oppose the war.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree and so does every recount ever taken.

It should also be noted the Reps would be just as bitter if it had been Gore winning by <1000 votes and they would be the ones spouting the "stolen election" nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like when Nixon narrowly lost to Kennedy and it was found that many dead people in Chicago had voted?

Nixon did not contest it, for the good of the country.

Any older 2+2ers that can shed some light on if the repubs cried "stolen election!" for years after? back in the 60's?

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
The presidential election of 2008 is critically important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note to any future wannabe politics writers: Do not ever start posts about election cycles off like this. It is either an overexaggeration or it is only true because it is the [censored] presidential election. the last election I can think of which might have been more than critically important is 00, and that was because 9/11 turned it into a "high leverage" presidency, to use a baseball analogy (and its debatable how different gore would have acted, i really dont know).

[old dogg]

hmmm... 9/11 happened in 01