Ta-da!  Dean is first.

FOR DISCUSSION:

This quote from Arhad's letter has thrown things into confusion: And in the end, only an announced candidate can win the DFA endorsement.

This was not part of the original announcement. So does that mean Gore will be thrown out by Nov. 6 and the numbers recalculated? Will the state announcements only include DECLARED candidates? If Gore doesn't announce by Nov. 6, his votes should not be used?

HQ will need to clarify this point.

Hubby and I won't be going to the convention.    I guess Matt will be in good company in Florida with his opinion of Howard Dean.   I feel sick.  

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1598

Ooh, I'm going to go find my "polls" post from four years ago! :-)

Tom Wrote: I don't really see why.  If a percentage of voters are so unenamoured with the announced candidates that they can't rally around one in sufficient numbers to secure an endorsement, it adequately sends a signal to the organization that they shouldn't endorse any of them.  That's the pulse the poll is trying to take.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FAIRNESS. The problem is that declared candidates were asked to submit answers to questions with video responses. They took time out of a busy schedule to do so. Now only delcared candidates can win endorsement. It seems to me including OTHERS who are not declared doesn't get at who DFA'ers support OF THE DECLARED CANDIDATES.

So now DFA is in kind of a quandary. Interesting.

Good firsties, Tom!

************
I left Froomkin's latest column on the last thread.

And it's time for vittles around here.

bbl

These pulse polls are very familiar to an Iowan because it is much like the changeable nature over time of "likely caucus attendees".

as a method of showing the nature of this membership for an endorsement it is pretty clear that we are too divided to do that

Indy wrote "So does that mean Gore will be thrown out by Nov. 6 and the numbers recalculated?"

It's possible but that's not my understanding.  There was no indication that this is an IRV poll.  I understood that the second and third place votes were designed to give the group some insight into the thinking of members who voted for another candidate, or noncandidate, first. 

As I suggested last thread, if a noncandidate draws more first place votes than the announced candidates, and thereby denies one of them a sufficient majority of votes to win an endorsement outright, I believe it would convince DFA that there is not enough consensus within the membership to endorse anyone, which is probably the way it should be.

173.

IMO Obama already has enough experience.

Hoke won't be driving Ms. Daisy or anyone else for that matter IMO.

Phil Specht
Tue, 10/23/07
1:49 pm

But there are other actions besides an endorsement. Recruitment emails and statewide announcements. Gore can't get those unless he enters the race. And also, Gore did not submit video responses. Accg. to DFA:

¹ DFA's commitment to the winner will be based on these guidelines: If one candidate receives more then 66% of the vote and at least 100,000 DFA members total vote in the poll, then the winner will get the DFA endorsement and at least one recruitment email to our membership. Fifty percent plus will win a recruitment email, but no endorsement. If no candidate gets 50%, then the winning candidate in each state will win a statewide announcement email.
² Over the last six months, we asked each of the candidates what they would do about Iraq and Global Warming. Five candidates created videos just for you and they are all posted for your review on the Pulse Poll voting page. If your favorite candidate hasn't submitted a video to DFA, please contact them and encourage them to submit one.

Published on Friday, October 19, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Al Gore’s Inaugural Address: January 20, 2009
by David Michael Green

Fellow Americans, and Fellow Citizens of Our Shared Earth -

More than two hundred years ago, the shores upon which we stand were blessed to provide home to an unusual outcropping of men and women who contained within themselves remarkable quantities of wisdom, energy and courage. These are qualities that are alone rare in anyone, and spectacular when combined.

They did the impossible - not once or even twice - but at least three times in their lives. They imagined a better way to live - free and equal - in ways we take for granted today but were altogether foreign in their time. A mere cognitive act, one might say of this first heroic turn, but given their context in the middle of the eighteenth century a nevertheless powerful and brave thing that we can only begin to appreciate, and one which was a predicate for all to follow.

They did the impossible again, when they assembled a rag-tag scrabble of an army under an inexperienced commanding general and proceeded to defeat the world’s greatest military power of the time in a long and arduous struggle against guns, weather, poverty and demoralization, for the prize of freedom and the opportunity to start anew.

And still they were not finished for, having won the war, they also won the peace by concocting a remarkable piece of governmental engineering that remains to this day our society’s foundational contract, the Constitution of the United States.

This exceptional generation of thinkers and doers were leading lights in arguably the most important social movement of human history - the aptly named Enlightenment - which rescued humanity from the chains of irrationality, prejudice and immaturity, and called upon us instead to think for ourselves, to trust our observations and our analyses, and to share a spirit of discovery and honesty that has opened fantastic doors of well-being for succeeding generations in every domain of our experience as human beings.

We Americans were fortunate indeed to have these Founders as the creators of our society, for rarely do a collection of people possessing such a remarkable combination of attributes ever come together in one place and one time, to such a remarkable effect.

Our Founders did their best to leave us something very much better than what they themselves had inherited, and their success in doing so was dramatic. They left behind what they actually described as an experiment, so unsure were they that this radical set of new ideas could work. And they called upon succeeding generations not to perform miracles - let alone three miracles at a time - but rather just that each live up to its potential, that each fulfill its obligations and promise, and that each preserve the gift the Founders had left to us.

My fellow Americans - my fellow stewards of the Founders’ gift - it is time for us to engage in an honesty of discourse which in this country has become sadly all too rare in our public sphere, to the point of near extinction. And that honest, frank dialogue must begin with an overt declaration that this generation - born into freedom, security and prosperity, truly the most fortunate humans ever to walk the planet - this generation has failed in its responsibility to honor and preserve the gift given us by America’s Founders, and by the succeeding generations who kept that gift alive, nourished it and improved it.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007...

Al Gore wins second book award

Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth was a box office hit

Former US Vice-President Al Gore has won an award at the third annual Quill Awards in New York.

Gore's book, The Assault on Reason, won the prize in the history/current affairs/politics category.

He won the same award last year for his book An Inconvenient Truth. His daughter Karenna Gore Schiff accepted the award on his behalf.

She said he was unable to attend as he was in Europe meeting leaders to discuss ways to combat climate change.

Gore was jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change earlier in October this year.

The 59-year-old also won an Oscar for his 2006 documentary climate change film An Inconvenient Truth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment...

Ultimately, I'm not sure of the importance of the endorsement.  As Sitka reminds us, most endorsements will get you a cafe grande if they're accompanied by $4.50.  Will DFA's endorsement even influence the opinion of many DFA members who have already decided they favor someone else in the endorsement sweepstakes?

I'll find it eventually, but to paraphrase:

Don't take too seriously polls you like

Don't get too depressed about polls you don't

The nomination is state by state, national polls mean little.

How the question is asked is important.

What the sample is (likely voters? registered voters?) is important

The size of the sample is important, as is the related margin of error.

Don't try to find trends in dissimilar polls, different sample sizes or changes within the MOE. 

Tom Bearse
Tue, 10/23/07
1:56 pm

Well, endorsements are questionable. But it will get some publicity, campaigns use them for their own purposes, and when they are accompanied by people signing up to help or donate funds, they mean more. Especially to the lower tier, non-money candidates.

Endorsements can backfire if the org can be isolated as a wacko, "far out there" organization.

Posted on October 22, 2007
National Nurses Movement Lauds Al Gore For Leadership on Single-

Gore’s New Statement Is Clear: It’s Time for Universal, Single-Payer Healthcare

The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee thanks Al Gore for his forceful new words in support of the kind of universal, non-profit, single-payer healthcare that this country desperately needs—and that is succeeding in nearly every other industrialized democracy.

The statement reflects a growing national consensus that a national, non-profit insurance system would clearly out-perform the private insurance corporations that spend up to one-third of their overhead on overhead and profits…and that it is long past time to put an end to the nation’s healthcare crisis.

On this issue, however, the public is far ahead of most of the political class. A March New York Times/CBS poll found that the vast majority of Americans want a total restructuring of the healthcare system, and preferred a single-payer system to the current private insurance system 47% to 38%. Unfortunately, many politicians continue to accept money from health insurance corporations, and push plans that mandate Americans to purchase expensive and inefficient private insurance products.

“Al Gore has long been a champion of the environment—and now he’s a champion of America’s patients. There is only one solution to our healthcare crisis, and that is the kind of guaranteed, non-profit, single-payer health insurance that we know works,” said Zenei Cortez, RN, a member of CNA/NNOC’s Council of Presidents.

Called “Healthcare Is A Right,” Gore released the following statement on his Current television channel:

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/october/na...

rich^kolker
Tue, 10/23/07
1:59 pm

Actually as Phil or others have pointed out, this is NOT a poll but a VOTE for an endorsement or at least national recruitment letters and by state. Grassroots democracy with a twist.

There is a right wing of the Democratic Party of 15-20% here in Iowa, and nationally they are well represented in Washington.

This organization is the progressive remnant of the Dean supporters that has become a home for progressives from other candidates. righties need not apply

There is still time for any of the lesser polling candidates right now to make a run by showing real leadership. Dodd is making such a move with the FISA hold. Biden is taking on Hillary for he Iranian war authorization vote.Neither has distinquished themselves as progressives, but neither are they right wingers either.

it will be interesting to see our poll numbers here as they are reflected in state totals from Iowa and New Hampshire where campaigning has been done

I wonder if SItka will attack the one who is spamming the blog with Gore material. Sitka, wasn't that your usual response?

My analysis after realizing this is a VOTE for endorsement, not a poll, is that Al Gore cannot win unless he enters as a declared candidate by Nov. 5.

That means votes for him cannot be used for the endorsement or recruitment letters. So will DFA recalculate the percentages and follow it or what? Seems to me people should realize this up front.

 Over the last six months, we asked each of the candidates what they would do about Iraq and Global Warming. Five candidates created videos just for you and they are all posted for your review on the Pulse Poll voting page. If your favorite candidate hasn't submitted a video to DFA, please contact them and encourage them to submit one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is there a single voter in this poll that doesn't already know Al Gore's position on global warming?

IndySteve

I agree the rules didn't anticipate this result and are unclear. If Gore wins though he should be approached by Jim personally before his votes are just flushed.

Actually, if you replace Clinton with Gore, the DFA poll profile hardly varies from other polls around the country, with the notable exception of Kucinich's numbers.

Phil Specht
Tue, 10/23/07
2:07 pm

First, this isn't a "poll" but a VOTE for endorsement. There is a difference because DFA is prepared to act on the results.

I can't say I know specifically WHAT Al Gore proposes to combat global warming as the others have stated in their videos (carbon tax? For example.) Since he wasn't invited to submit videos, does that favor him or not?

Candidates said things in videos that actually turned people off, as well as attracted them.

Indy wrote "First, this isn't a "poll" but a VOTE for endorsement."

You mean the Presidential Pulse Poll isn't a poll?

Phil Specht
Tue, 10/23/07
2:09 pm

Unanticipated results!! That is what makes life interesting....hoping for that in Iowa! ;-)

Maybe the result will be for Jim and Arshad to approach Gore. Who knows what will happen!

might it reflect that Clinton's support (as shown in national polling) is inflated by simple name recognition and celebrity Tom

Tom Bearse
Tue, 10/23/07
2:13 pm

Yup, it's misnamed. Polls don't have actions taken on them. Votes do. DFA has stated the actions to be taken based upon this vote. It is neither a pulse nor a poll! Presidential? Well, if Al Gore wins and then decides NOT to enter, it isn't even that!

Unanticipated results!! That is what makes life interesting....hoping for that in Iowa!

~~~~~~~~~~~

actually it is anticipated here that Edwards will win Iowa, so I think you want no surprises and are torn by Gore's support here which would happen in Iowa too if he was an option

Phil Specht
Tue, 10/23/07
2:16 pm

Most polls I've seen show Clinton winning Iowa. Edwards has slipped to third but within the MOE. Of course, impossible to really determine who will show up at the caucus but they all try to use some measure.

DFA put "other" in the vote (not a poll) after being lobbied by Gore supporters. It was a compromise to actually listing him, as I recall.

But now that has created unintended and confusing consequences since an undeclared candidate cannot be endorsed. Interesting....What happens now?

Is anyone at DFA reading this and have answers for us?

Indy wrote "I can't say I know specifically WHAT Al Gore proposes to combat global warming as the others have stated in their videos (carbon tax? For example.) Since he wasn't invited to submit videos, does that favor him or not?"

Isn’t that like saying I can’t say I know specifically how John Edwards would vote on the Senate bills he likes to weigh in, and senators have to vote on, since not being a member of the Senate makes it a little easier to express an opinion without having to confront voters and face the specter of losing reelection? I guess everyone uses whatever advantage is available to them.

Tom Bearse
Tue, 10/23/07
2:21 pm

True. Which is probably why sitting Senators almost NEVER win Pres. elections!

All the more reason to vote for Edwards of the top three!

Phil wrote "might [DFA's poll results] reflect that Clinton's support (as shown in national polling) is inflated by simple name recognition and celebrity Tom[?]"

I don't know.  Gore has name recognition and celebrity but, of course, he isn't a candidate.

I will state my belief that if elected President Al Gore will move this country as far and as fast to reduce carbon as the country will push Congress and since he would have been the popular choice of the nation should be a considerable distance. 40% of the Senate will get there with money from Big Oil so it may even take two more years and one more election to get it done.

Looks to me like it's all gonna be moot in any case: we are not NEAR the 100,000 votes required.

19.

Indy Steve
Tue, 10/23/07
2:03 pm



I wonder if SItka will attack the one who is spamming the blog with Gore material. Sitka, wasn't that your usual response?

Un like your anti Gore spamming ?

33.

I did vote for Edwards in the top three -- OEB.

Indy wrote "True. Which is probably why sitting Senators almost NEVER win Pres. elections!"

No, hardly ever.  The one I'm thinking of had barely finished his first term.

my answer to you if I was HQs would be that "we cross that bridge when we come to it"

Gore may respond by then.

Hi, puddle! I think it will easily reach the 100,000. Another 10 days to go!

Plus, recruitment letters (whatever they are) will be sent regardless.

puddle wrote "Looks to me like it's all gonna be moot in any case: we are not NEAR the 100,000 votes required."

I wouldn't rule it out with almost two more weeks left in the voting. 

stir fry beef for lunch and now work is calling

see you tonight

hi/bye puddle how about a lifeline for later?

the little guy here just celebrated a birthday, and a very special one at that(the one not seeming possible at times)

Phil Specht
Tue, 10/23/07
2:27 pm

The problem is people ought to know the rules going in. If they intend to drop Gore's numbers if he doesn't enter, that may affect people's voting. Of course, people can change at the last minute but how many people actually will? Or will they use the 2nd choice for Gore if he doesn't enter. Some people just put GGG!

One of the other candidates could still win by the rules now written, though it looks unlikely so it is a moot point.

bbl

Kucinich is still almost tied with Edwards.

Total Votes: 72478 as of Tue,
23 Oct 2007 14:33:20 -0400

Candidate Votes %
Al Gore 21495 29.66%
Barack Obama 15767 21.75%
John Edwards 13143 18.13%
Dennis Kucinich 12735 17.57%
Hillary Clinton 3755 5.18%

Linda*in*SFNM
Tue, 10/23/07
2:26 pm

I'm not against Gore. I just want him to decide. Maybe this poll/vote will be the tipping point!

My point was to Sitka -- to be consistent -- since he jumps on everyone who post candidate "news". I think your news posts on Gore are fine (albeit a bit long).

Interesting that Chris Dodd is running second in the Kos poll, based on his putting a hold on Bush's legislation, but still runs last at DFA.  

Tells you a lot about DFA, most of whom seem to be in a trance, waiting for Godotore

Indy, where do you get that anyone wants to drop Gore's numbers if he doesn't enter before this poll.

This is a poll of peoples preferred candidate. Period.

They have stated. If they wish to change, they will...AND, they can. The rules were clearly defined when it was released.

You can't just vote swap or keep changing how you think something should be interpreted as events in the polls change.

Linda*in*SFNM
Tue, 10/23/07
2:39 pm

Have you read the blog posts? Suggest you do because it's important.

Gore cannot get the endorsement or recruitment letters unless he enters. So who does get the letters if Gore gets the most votes.

It's not a poll. It's actually a vote for endorsements with rules. Although it is unclear what happens with undeclared candidates on Nov. 5....DFA needs to clarify now so people vote knowing the rules clearly.

Maybe Sitka is being consistent. Just because you choose your time to pop back and you see one example of something, doesn't make it the norm or that you may wish to claim.

Our time here isn't confined to a short time period of someone else making their appearance.

Indy, I've never seen someone argue and claim so many positions.

If it makes you happy to now not call it a poll, hay, go for it.

Game theory is relevant. IF people realize that Gore cannot get an endorsement or a recruitment letter unless he enters, would they vote differently? They want Gore to get an endorsement he cannot get unless he declares.

I'm off.

Sheesh, ya gotta do research. It's a huge mistake to evaluate a candidate or a potential candidate by impressions.

Al Gore is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Do the research on this fascist organization, do the research on how Gore's membership influences his position on Global Warming and pushing for a Global Tax on Carbon Emissions, do the research - go to his website and discover that he has 6 activated pages on what WE THE PEOPLE need to do to help fix the Global Warming problem, but he says nothing about Industry.
Wow! Could it have something to do with the fact that Texaco, Mobile, and Exxon Valdez also have memberships in the CFR?
Do the research and find out that the core mission of the CFR is to merge the United States like Kinkos with FedEX into a One World Government. No more Constitution, No more Bill of Rights, and no more Democratic Process.

Do the research - then vote for Dennis Kucinich for President.

http://www.dennis4president.com/home

Howard Fineman is reporting that AFSCME will go in the tank for Clinton:

"I’m told by labor sources that the endorsement will come next Thursday after a series of AFSCME committee meetings. The union, whose members by definition are no strangers to politics, has 30,000 members in the crucial caucus state of Iowa, plus 90,000 in Michigan and 110,000 in Florida – two other “early” states in the nomination process. 

" . . . .

"Hillary has diligently done her part as senator from New York, championing AFSCME causes in Congress. Her husband has pitched in by keeping in close personal contact with McEntee, who began organizing a half-century ago in Philly with pioneering appeals to local government workers

"The AFSCME bill of sale was a sale by Bill, who called McEntee to privately make Hillary's case."

Linda*in*SFNM
Tue, 10/23/07
2:45 pm

Frustrating....this is NOT a poll despite the name. It is a VOTE for endorsement with actions to be taken by DFA. But Gore cannot get the endorsement or actions unless he enters. That is the point of Arshad's letter.

Tom had a caustic remark on the last thread,  alluding to my frequent attacks on our wise and brave Congressional Democrats--Here's more (from Ralph Nader, if you're inclined to shoot the messenger):

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader10232007.html

Seymour Hersh, the topflight investigative reporter for the New Yorker magazine has written numerous articles on how the crowding of Iran, including infiltrating its interior, has become an obsession of the messianic militarist in the White House.

The Pentagon is more cautious, worrying about our already drained Army and the absence of any military strategy and readiness for many consequences that would follow Bush's "bombs away" mentality.

Then there is the matter of the Democrats in Congress. After their costly fumble on Iraq, the opposition Party should make it very constitutionally clear, as recommended by former New York Governor, Mario Cuomo in a recent op-ed, that there can be no funded attacks on any country without a Congressional declaration of war, as explicitly required by the framers of our Constitution.

But the Democrats are too busy surrendering to other Bush demands, whether unconstitutional, above the law or just plain marinated in corporate greed. Some of this obeisance was all too clear in the Democrats questioning of Bush's nominee for Attorney General, Michael B. Mukasey.

After the two days of hearings, no Democrat has yet announced a vote against Mukasey, even after he evaded questions on torture and argued for the inherent power of the President to act contrary to the laws of the land if he unilaterally believes he has the inherent constitutional authority to do so.

This position aligns Mukasey with the imperial views of Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Gonzales on the "unitary Executive." In short, reminiscent of the divine right of Kings, the forthcoming Attorney General believes Bush can say that 'he is the law' regardless of Congress and the judiciary.

57.

Susan Rapp

Susan, you need to. THat is false and made up websites making false accusations make you look foolish when you make such claims.

I guess people either don't get the point of this or don't care. Endorsements matter somewhat or we wouldn't care I suppose.

But DFA has a dilemma on its hands. If Gore wins the vote and has not entered the race by Nov. 5, what happens? That is the most basic way I can ask the question.

There's a fine line between being "coy" and being wise.  I'll call Gore wise.  The Clinton machine might be getting very nervous.

I don't understand the Dodd vote discrepancy and he's now my number 2 choice.

Nor do I know why in the world Ashrad wrote what he did, pushing Gore as tho Gore doesn't know what he's doing.  He's trying to push Gore into announcing before the 5th?  And if he doesn't, then this poll is confusing and I feel I wasn't informed of the DFA "rules" going in.  This has gotten messy.

So where are all these Clinton supporters?  I don't know any, yet the media says she's 5 million percentage points in the lead.  This is ridiculous, since she's polling so negatively.  Does this mean that all the other candidates are polling even more negatively?  I find that hard to believe.

Gore/Dodd 

John wrote "Tom had a caustic remark on the last thread,  alluding to my frequent attacks on our wise and brave Congressional Democrats--Here's more (from Ralph Nader, if you're inclined to shoot the messenger)"

Why don't you repeat it and we'll have the opportunity to decide whether it was either caustic or made any reference to the wisdom and bravery of Democrats in Congress.

...oh and this is the 2nd time a Kucinich supporter came here to spread these lies. How embarrassing.

The first one at least posted a fake website to show how they just posted false informaiton. You didn't even do THAT!


you are hurting your position and candidate by making such outrageous lies.

It appears that Al's climb today in the PPP (now to 29.75%) is mostly at the expense of Edwards and now of Kucinich.

It was also at the expense of Obama too but less so and his support has pretty much stayed steady at 21.75%.

Seems to me Gore supporters would especially want an answer to the question: If Gore wins the vote and has not entered the race by Nov. 5, what happens?

See if you can get an answer from DFA.

BBL

Susan Rapp wrote "Do the research - then vote for Dennis Kucinich for President."

At your instance, I've decided to do some research.  Here it is for your benefit from today's Plain Dealer, compliments of Shirley MacLaine:

"Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has claimed to have seen a UFO, according to Shirley MacLaine in her new book, "Sage-Ing While Age-Ing."

"Kucinich 'had a close sighting over my home in Graham, Washington, when I lived there,' the actress, a close Kucinich friend, wrote. 'Dennis found his encounter extremely moving. The smell of roses drew him out to my balcony where, when he looked up, he saw a gigantic triangular craft, silent, and observing him.

"'It hovered, soundless, for 10 minutes or so, and sped away with a speed he couldn't comprehend. He said he felt a connection in his heart and heard directions in his mind.'

"Kucinich's campaign and congressional representatives did not return calls and e-mail asking whether the Cleveland Democrat, now in his sixth congressional term, in fact saw a UFO or if there was some other explanation for MacLaine's recollection."

Here it is, for those who appreciate fine causticity.  Unfortunately, I can't accomodate you in this instance:

"What are you trying to say, that you haven’t been [on the Democrats' cases 24-7]?"

I wonder if SItka will attack the one who is spamming the blog with Gore material. Sitka, wasn't that your usual response?

I attacked no one, but rather said my piece about spamming and overly long posts long ago. You obviously noticed.  But unlike you, Indy, I prefer not to run a point into the ground once everyone has seen it.

Sitka
Tue, 10/23/07
3:09 pm

Oh, no you didn't. Anytime anyone comes on with info about their candidate, you jump on them. Only I notice you don't do it with Gore and his supporters. Interesting little bias there.....

Seems to me Gore supporters would especially want an answer to the question: If Gore wins the vote and has not entered the race by Nov. 5, what happens?

You're such a phoney baloney. One minute you're shilling for Edwards. The next minute you're saying you want Gore to enter but aren't a supporter. The next you're calling others supporters of Gore's for saying they want him to enter. Then you call him indecisive. And all the time you're angling to get DFA to endorse Edwards -- who is in 3rd place and about to lose that spot to Kucinich. 

Oh, no you didn't. Anytime anyone comes on with info about their candidate, you jump on them.

That's just false. I haven't said a word about spamming for months.

Only I notice you don't do it with Gore and his supporters. Interesting little bias there.....

It's only interesting you who tries to make points only you understand. 

Sitka
Tue, 10/23/07
3:17 pm

I shill for noone. But let me state it clearly for you (FWIW).

I support Edwards. I do not vote for people who are undeclared candidates.I want Al Gore to DECIDE. I believe indecisiveness in a President is not a good trait.  None of this is phony or inconsistent.

Whether I will support Gore IF he enters will have to wait until he does. The longer he waits the less likely I will.

69. I haven't been on them 24-7, but I do feel an obligation to remind everyone with some frequency that overall, the Dems are feckless, gutless, and without principle.

In other words, not worthy of support.

Maybe you're fooling yourself. But no one else. 

I haven't been on them 24-7, but I do feel an obligation to remind everyone with some frequency that overall, the Dems are feckless, gutless, and without principle.

And you don't even have to repost the same facts to demonstrate it. There's never a shortage of them. And I expect a whole new set of them once DCDems begin the rollover on Bush's latest demand for $46B more blood dollars for Iraq.

Sitka
Tue, 10/23/07
3:24 pm

Well, I guess that pretty much says it all. LOL. Glad you can speak for everyone!

What was inconsistent or phony about what I wrote in post 73?

John wrote "I do feel an obligation to remind everyone with some frequency that overall, the Dems are feckless, gutless, and without principle."

You've fulfilled your obligation with distinction. 

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/65892/#more

At a press conference in July, the president said Congress has one, and only one, role to play in shaping war policy: handing over big bags of money, with no questions asked and no strings attached. "Let me make sure you understand what I'm saying," Bush said. "Congress has all the right in the world to fund. That's their main involvement in this war, which is to provide funds for our troops."

With that in mind, the president is demanding that his ATM pony up once again.

Of course, the pre-emptive demagoguery came before lawmakers could even raise an objection.

I know some in Congress are against the war and are seeking ways to demonstrate that opposition," Bush said. "I recognize their position and they should make their views heard. But they ought to make sure our troops have what it takes to succeed. Our men and women on the front lines should not be caught the middle of partisan disagreements in Washington, D.C." [...]

"We must provide our troops with the help and support they need to get the job done," Bush said. "Parts of this war are complicated, but one part is not, and that is America should do what it takes to support our troops and protect our people."

Who would have guessed? Bush -- who already vetoed funding for the troops once -- insists that he get exactly what he wants, without exception, or his Democratic critics don't really support the troops.

And, of course, it's going to work, because it always does.

And some people wonder why I'm an ex-Democrat.

John wrote "And some people wonder why I'm an ex-Democrat."

Personally, I wonder how you ever became one. 

Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) apologized today for heated remarks he made during House Democrats' attempt last week to override a presidential veto of the SCHIP children's insurance program. The apology came following an attempt by Republican leaders to censure Stark, which failed 196-173.

So Pete, you've joined the Pelosi-Reid coward's club

there is a New Thread :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVC0Ua8Id9w

Personally, I wonder how you ever became one.

Tom, I was a Democratic supporter from 1960 onwards, and a registered Democrat from 1980 (when I became a US citizen).

 I only stopped being a Democrat when the party's leaders betrayed their core supporters and the country by signing on to the NeoCon express.

Personally, I wonder how you (or any other rational human) can remain a Democrat!

John wrote "So Pete, you've joined the Pelosi-Reid coward's club."

What an appeaser.  Wimpy Chris Dodd voted for the occupation.  That UFO chaser, Dennis Kucinich, flip-flopped on abortion.  Edwards is a policitical windsock.  Feingold voted to confirm Chief Justice Roberts.  Wellstone defended Gore from Nader's attacks.  How am I doing so far?

John wrote "I was a Democratic supporter from 1960 onwards, and a registered Democrat from 1980 (when I became a US citizen)."

That makes you a Johnson-Humphrey war sympathizer.

What was inconsistent or phony about what I wrote in post 73?

As I pointed out, it's the entirety of your posts with regard to Gore which demonstrate it.

In one post you'll feign a preferred support for Gore, the next you'll deride him for being "indecisive" (which only means you don't what or if he's decided), the next you angle to get Edwards the DFA endorsement (even though he's falling). 

But it hardly matters. Post your rejoinder and let's be done with it.

So Pete, you've joined the Pelosi-Reid coward's club

DCDems have been retreating for so long it's the only direction they know. 

Sitka wrote "DCDems have been retreating for so long it's the only direction they know."

Tell me all about it.  That pathetic weakling Stark, and that stinking freaking coward, Feingold, for his confirmation vote on Roberts, and that punk Dean.  What a sell-out.  He complimented Clinton for championing NAFTA.  I'm just getting warmed up.

LOL

::waving:: at everyone :-)

♥'s to all

Kindness is free!

Speak up. Your voice is muffled by coming from so far up the party's ass. 

Sitka wrote "Speak up. Your voice is muffled by coming from so far up the party's ass."

Pay more attention.  Don't you recognize political correctness when you see it?