Would you?
 

Would you ever consider being a temporary Democrat if your state was thinking of handing Hillary the nomination?

No. I couldn't take enough showers to wash the guilt from my soul. I will proudly go to my grave knowing I've never registered for a party. Yes, I realize that means I don't get to vote in primaries, but that's life.

I actually wondered about that very possibility this week, with the Texas primary 'n' all. I'm not registered one way or another, and I don't know if I'd have to do anything other than show up and pick a table to stand at. But then I got lazy and forgot about it.

Years ago I had registered as a republican (first it was 'cause I was young and dumb and then because my father-in-law suggested a good political move is to vote in the primaries for the person you thought your party could beat.) I changed that some years ago. Well, went in Tuesday and they said I was still registered as a republican. I had to sign a paper saying I would uphold the teachings of the church of the democrat or something (and those switching from pub to dem had to do the same for their party.) So I voted the dem ticket, but that cut me out of voting for county sheriff or county coroner as everyone running was a republican. Go figure.

Every state is different. The rules in every state are different for the primaries, some are open, some are closed, some have manipulated the system to include independents but exclude republickins. I crossed over and voted for Obama in an effort to exclude Hitlery. I have no idea who I am going to eventually vote for other than it will not be "that woman".

Temporary Democrat to what end? To vote Obama?
Why not just be an independant?


oh nevermind
These politics are making me sick. :greenface

Yeah, to vote for Obama since Bush/Clinton are one on foreign policy. In Pennsylvania, independents/ Libertarians/ Greens are all blocked from the primary system.

I understand the thinking here but I am not so sure Obama will be able to effect the change he says he can.


What I mean is he will have to compromise on some of his positions. He will have to come closer to the center to a more moderate position just as McCain will come closer to the center. It is the only way to get anything done in congress.

That's just my opinion. I know there is alot of passion and hope for the future and I hope with all my heart the Obama supporters are right and I am wrong.

Maybe...

Already did.. too bad she still took the state:neutral:

Why worry about Bush? He's not running!
Clinton has no real chance of winning (I hope) since all the Middle Eastern and South American countries would immediately lose all respect for the US and I believe that a majority of Americans realize that.

Obama is a possible but I don't see him winning.

To me, this is another "hold your nose and vote Republican" election, like the last one.

Clinton and McCain are both advocates of his foreign policy.

Holding noses and voting Republican didn't work out too well last time. I don't see how giving a nutter like McCain the nuclear football makes the world a better place. The nose holding cuts both ways, if Hillary gets the nomination antiwar folks will have to find a third party representative.

At this point, it's basically numerically impossible for her to beat him in unpledged delegates. (It's not completely impossible, but she would have to win every contest from here on out by a relatively huge margin, and no one believes that will happen.) The only question is whether the superdelegates will go against the general vote or not. Several high-level superdelegates have said it will never happen, because of the general anger and disillusionment it would cause, but I'll believe it when I see it.

I'm not sure what I'm doing yet, I'm still not registered.

I've heard very bad things about Obama's foreign policy, a lot of his advisers are hawks who are considered the democratic version of Henry Kissinger.


I don't really trust any candidate, but maybe thats because I'm listening to The Who right now....

bold text mine

What? They have so much respect for us now? :headshake

After the Neo-Com experience, we would do well to see who the advisors are. The only foreign policy advisor I've heard from is the lady (Samantha Powell?) who got fired for speaking her mind about Hillary. Her foreign policy positions were a clean break from the hawks. She had an interview on BBC radio over the weekend. Remember that rumor mongering is old school Clinton and her supporters take their Kool Aid even stronger than the change crowd.

Samantha Powers. I used to like her. She wrote a book a few years ago on the history of genocide that I read. Nothing profound... more depressing than anything else. I'm not sure why Obama would pick her as his foreign policy advisor. She's not that experienced on the grand scale, her niche is human rights. I was surprised to see her make the mistake of calling Hillary a monster and then asking for it to be off the record. She should know better.

But I am a Hillary supporter.

And to think some would say we'd get less respect with her from the Middle East and South America because she's a woman? What about Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto, Indira Ghandi... just to name a few prominent female leaders. I definitely think the US will be taken as seriously wwith her as Pres. What's laughable is to elect someone with as little experience as Obama.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us...rssnyt&emc=rss

A list of advisers:

Clinton:

• Madeleine Albright (former Secretary of State)
• Sandy Berger (former National Security Adviser)
• Richard Holbrooke (potential Secretary of State)

Obama:

• Zbigniew Brzezinski (former national security advisor)
• Anthony Lake (former national security advisor)
• Susan Rice (former assistant Secretary of State)
• Richard Danzig (former navy secretary)
• Joseph Cirincione
• Lawrence Korb (Center for American Progress)
• Richard Clarke (former counterterrorism czar)
• Samantha Power (noted human rights scholar)
• General Merrill McPeak
• Dennis Ross

Here are some articles on the Democrat's advisers.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3...city_linked_us

As a result, it may be significant that Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband’s administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush’s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama’s foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.

It appears that we are dealing with two groups of establishment players, with Obama's generally getting the Iraq war right and Hillary's pretty much getting it wrong. That means Hillary is definitely out and how much Obama will be his own man as President continues to be the big question. If he can sell me on the idea that we'll get a less belligerent foreign policy, I may give him a chance.

I think we'll know more once the general election begins.

No, we won't really know until about 2 years into the next president's term.

Or we can learn from history. While three months into the presidency, the foreign minister of Norway warned that George Jr would destroy the Oslo Accords. A short time later, this same administration threatened war with China over a silly spy plane (good thing Powell was there to quash their saber rattling). It did not take long to see what George Jr was made of. That is not the same man presented to America as a companionate conservative.

Every politician is lying about their foreign policy (and telling some truths). We must guess which campaign pledges they will discard when in office. For example, I don't believe for one minute that Obama, Clinton, or McCain will subvert NAFTA. Any pledges to do so are obvious lies for the benefit of people foolish enough to see NAFTA as NAFTA.

Nixon told us he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam war. His secret plan was to escalate. But then Nixon was always a liar. Just that too many were too tied to their emotions (and religion) to see the man for what he really was - Tricky Dick. What they say on the campaign trail must be tempered by what they really mean. Reading beyond those pledges is an art. Anyone who takes literally what a candidate says is only fooling themselves.

I am really surprised to see Zbigniew Brzezinski on the list of advisors to Obama. He's 80 years old! He's got some interesting theories on the "grand chessboard". He's known as a hawk and realist. Not in line with Obama's politics at all.

I thought it was his son, Mark, thats the advisor - not Zbigniew. Mark served on President Clinton's National Security Council as an expert on Russia and Southeastern Europe.

Out of three paragraphs of ranting by our resident unabomber, this much is true.

Hmmm. Obama has consistently espoused a strong, reality-based defense and foreign policy, so perhaps more in line than you perceive.

Hey thats the lady that ignored Rwanda and the hundreds of thousands got hacked to death, great job there.

Hey thats the guy who continually stole documents from the National Archives, great guy there.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/...ger.sentenced/

A realist, in politics, "encompasses a variety of theories and approaches, all of which share a belief that states are primarily motivated by the desire for military and economic power or security, rather than ideals or ethics. This term is often synonymous with power politics." This is not Obama. Chek out http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/polreal.htm to have a better idea of realism is.

Obama is an idealist, not a realist. And Obama certainly isn't a hawk.

Yeah, I became a Democrat today. :o

Apparently a TON of people did

(I've worked with that Mr. Passarella on election issues, and he is a competent, fair, and hard-working public servant, which is one reason why the media always quotes him.)

Also (double-posting here to avoid a big edit), the story points out that the new registrations last week leave the Ds with a 4% increase over the previous November.

Last week there were about 20,000 new registrants, and 30,000 people switching their registration for a total of 50,000 new Ds.

So 4% increase - maybe 5% with this week's additions - means over 4,000,000 Ds in the state. But the new Ds won't be 5% of the total number of voters.

In 2004, about 800,000 Ds voted in the Primary elections. If there are 100,000 new Ds after this week, that would be 12.5% of the total number of voters in 2004.

Well, in 2004 it was less important as a primary -- and of course, this is assuming that all these new registrants vote. Most of the switchers will; they are highly motivated. Some of the new registrants won't, though. But even if new Ds represent 5-10% of the total, that's still a massive number, in an election! So one possibility is:

The polls might be even less accurate than they usually are.

It's got to be a higher degree of difficulty for the pollsters.

I've been impressed by how Obama sees how these false poles are dynamic and work together.
So I'll defer to your poli-sci dictionary. Maybe we need a new word.

I didn't do it.

I just hosted my GOP lovin' Pappy for dinner. Someone told him that some of the new Dems will be temps voting for Hillary in hopes of giving McCain a better shot. Was there any polling of new registers?