<p>I thought I would start a thread for the Liberals because I can't find GreenDayFan's original thread. </p>
<p>I don't mind being called Liberal (although I prefer Progressive). Who do you think the Democrats should nominate for '08 and who do you think they actually will? What races are you watching in '06? My two are the Senate races in Vermont and my home state of Pennsylvania.</p>
<p>I actually hope Hilary Clinton runs (though she probably won't), I think she'd be a terrific canidate.</p>
<p>how do you know if you are liberal/ progressive(:D) ?</p>
<p>Heres the other thread. But might as well start a new thread</p>
<p>I really lean towards the Green party, but its unrealistic to think a Green or any independent candidate could be elected. Honestly, I think we should institute IRV voting. U know if it?</p>
<p>Yeah, I wish we had IRV, like many other countries do. I lean toward the Green Party, but more towards another thrid Party too. I saw Hilary Clinton speaking to Princeton the other day, she toned down the rhetoric from her MLK day speech--just when I thought she was getting good...</p>
<p><em>is also towards the Green Party</em> But I gave up a long time ago on a canidate winning an election, most people have never even heard of indpendent groups</p>
<p>we need a black president, but a woman? hell no</p>
<p>That's the problem with our winner-take-all style of democracy. If we were more parlimentary we would have more parties and thus more diverse voices being represented. I recommend <a href="http://www.idea.int%5B/url%5D">www.idea.int</a> as a good site to look at other forms of democracy. I lean to the Socialist Party, but support Greens as well. I plan to vote for democrats in larger important elections (such as the one vs. Santoroum, because Casey is the MUCH lesser evil).</p>
<p>That's why I love following other countries' politics so much. I would LOVE a parlimentary system. Imagine having Bush every week in the House of Representatives having to answer questions like Blair does...</p>
<p>
[quote]
we need a black president, but a woman? hell no
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, an african american president would be great, but realisticly, that won't happen for many years, nor will any other minority probably be elected. Also, a woman probably won't be elected for many years too. But what's wrong with a woman? Hilary Clinton and Colin Powell would both be strong candidates.</p>
<p>Well stonecold, if it's any consolation I don't really want Hilary--last election I supported Carol Moseley Braun (a black woman for President). :)</p>
<p>if the dems run hilary, it will be political suicide. Half of her party hates her, and the right dispises her. Good luck winning the red states and even some of the blue states.</p>
<p>I'm with Packer, pretty much. Running Hilary seems like a horrible idea. I'd like to see John Edwards on his own ticket this time, and I wouldn't mind seeing if General Clark can do better than last time, but I think Edwards is the best idea. It's important to see who will be running from the Republicans, as well, to set up a good match. In two years, the country and its politics will probably be slightly different, too. </p>
<p>I don't think it will be too far in the future before a serious woman or minority candidate, though. Just look at Obama. He should be fantastic in eight years or so. He is great with people, smart and sharp, with a good vision and a lot of talent.</p>
<p>Yea I would love to see Edwards run....I thought he was much stronger than Kerry.</p>
<p>I guess I'm the only pro-Hilary.... she can't be any worse than Bush</p>
<p>hahaha i was just watching the south park episode, where the boys are just flipping channels on TV, and some news anchor randomly says, "To which Ms. Clinton replied, I don't even like Vagina."</p>
<p>I like Edwards too (after the 2004 election, he seems to have pulled an RFK moment and moved more toward the left), but for 2008 I am in the Russ Feingold camp. I think Obama is the one the Democrats are training to be there breakaway guy in 2012--or even in '08 depending how things go. They want him to be in the Senate long enough to be visible and make a name for himself, but not so long as to have a record that the other side can distort and use against him.</p>
<p>Let me rant for a second, because something has been bothering me lately. It is this notion that the Democratic Party doesn't have a unified platform for every single issue that all of their members march in lockstep like the RNP. Hello: that means that they have people in their party with backbones and principles, and that won't march with the party platform if they happen to disagree on that issue.</p>
<p>That is one thing I do not understand about the Republican Party. They treat having a uniform voice as a good thing. With that many people, you'd think more would disagree. For example--the Libertarian wing. They obviously love what Bush has done for the free markets, but when do you hear them speak out against his massive spending? When the talk turns to domestic spying and executive power many (NOT ALL) of them just fly the "There's a war on..." line and march behind Bush. I just don't get it--how can following the leader regardless of your views be good for democracy?</p>
<p>That said, I still think the Democrats are generally spineless in that the big stars of the party try to play too much to the right, which will not bite their stuff anyway (Hilary is a good example--do you really think the moderate right will vote for her with the smear that goes on today?). I think the problem with the Democratic Party is that they are full of people with diverse views who stick to them out of principle, but never speak up or stick up for them. I think that the route to power for the DNC relies on making left turns.</p>
<p>What do you guys think the Democrats should do (since we are stuck with this two party system)?</p>
<p>Nothing gets done in a parlimentary style legislature like that of BRitain and Israel. It encourages stronger leaders to emerge and also encourages many factions and way too much discussion without anything getting done. That may work in a smaller country like Britain, but in the US where the Bureacracy is huge and the people are impatient, our system works quite well. Sometimes we may not be happy with who a majority of the people choose to be president, but at least he only has to stay in for at most 8 years. Also, a prime minister like Blair is able to stay in forever as long as his party doesn't vote him out or he doesn't die.</p>
<p>We have to stop being the bunch of idiots we have been for the last decade and shape up.</p>
<p>What's with the Democrats letting the Republicans define our party? </p>
<p>Since when is the American flag a Republican symbol? Why is the Republicans party the party of values? Why did we alienate all those moderate voters? What happened to the moderates in this country, anyway? Why are we letting the parties splinter into far right and far left? And why did the educated, the "average americans," the blacks, the soccer moms and every other group in our country except the gays go right in this split? Why is our party defined around swing issues? Where is our real platform? </p>
<p>We need to find that platform and stick to it like duct tape. We need to make this party more legitimate, respected, and powerful, and we should do it by re-defining to the public what this party is all about.</p>
<p>....end of rant</p>
<p>Well when you can convince the couple million of people in the U.S. to follow your newly formed theory, let me know.</p>
<p>Edwards will get eaten alive. I still think the Dems should have stuck with Dean--he would most definitely not have been merely "a vote against Bush" candidate, and would not have been pushed around like Kerry was. I was sad to see him drop out when Democratic voters lost their nerve. </p>
<p>Funny thing is, he was painted as a Liberal nutjob when he's actually more fiscally-conservative than either Kerry or Bush.</p>