America v. Coulter

Democratic Talk Radio will be on the air in Pennsylvania starting April 3rd

Stephen Crockett — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:26:58 EDT

Democratic Talk Radio will be on the air in the Lehigh Valley starting April 3, 2008 at 8:05 am on WGPA, 1100AM. The program will be streaming live on the Internet at http://www.wgpasunny1100.com/welcomepg.html. All programs will be archived on the Democratic Talk Radio website at http://66.39.111.188/arc.html for anytime streaming or downloading for Podcasting.

The program will feature book authors, talk show hosts, journalists, labor leaders, officeholders, candidates, policy experts, political activists and more, as guests. The program will be co-hosted by Stephen Crockett (from Maryland and Tennessee) and Dana Garrett (from Delaware.) Both are experienced political observers and talk show hosts.

Stephen Crockett writes the Democratic Voices opinion column which is widely available on the Internet. He is a member of the National Writers Union (UAW local 1981) and is active with the UAW Community Action Program. Professionally, Stephen Crockett has an extensive background in marketing, advertising and public relations. Crockett owns College Marketing.com http://www.CollegeMarketing.com .

Crockett serves as a public relations specialist for American Income Life Insurance dealing with unions in Delaware and eastern Pennsylvania. He represents the Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) Local 277 on many labor councils in the region. Crockett is an associate member of the Steelworkers’ (USW) union.

He serves as Editor and Publisher of Mid-Atlantic Labor.com http://www.midatlanticlabor.com. He has worked in dozens of political campaigns from New Hampshire to Florida. Crockett has been active in Democratic political circles in his home states of Maryland and Tennessee. He blogs on many different websites and is very active in the progressive Netroots community.

Dana Garrett is married and the father of two children. He is a former State of Delaware employee and Adjunct Professor at Wilmington College. He resides in Wilmington, Delaware. He has Masters of Arts degrees in Philosophy and English Literature. He writes for the blog Delaware Watch and is a co-host of the radio program Progressive Voices, which is broadcast by the University of Delaware (WVUD). His poetry has been published in anthologies and dozens of periodicals and journals.

Democratic Talk Radio would like to meet with your Executive Board and/or membership. Stephen Crockett can explain how you can assist Democratic Talk Radio and obtain addition benefits for your organization or union membership at no cost via American Income Life Insurance.

The Laborers’ Local 1174 have helped bring you Democratic Talk Radio by sponsoring the first 4 shows. Please contact Stephen Crockett at demlabor@aol.com or 1-443-907-2367 if you or your organization might be willing to sponsor broadcasts of Democratic Talk Radio. Airtime will cost us about $180 per show. You can sponsor a whole broadcast or just buy some ads. Ad rates are $30 per 1 minute ad or $20 per 30 second ad.

Sorry to repost this

JC — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:07:41 EDT

Yesterday, and I still am unsure just what I did, all my friends were deleted. If I befriended you and you still wish to remain friends, please shoot me a friend request so I can re add you.
Thanks and sorry for the trouble.
JC

IEDs (Insinuations, Exaggerations and Distortions

Mike Barack Hussein — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:58:48 EDT

Alternet has an article by Steve Rizzo talking about the intention of one candidate to either win the Democratic nomination or destroy the party. (That isn't exactly what he said; but that's the way it seems to me.) It is well written and helps to back up what FOS said earlier Throw mud, throw mud, throw mud, see what sticks.

link

Progress and its Price

Tim — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 22:43:01 EDT

The Democratic Party has always been ( in the past 80 years) the party of progress. It's one of the great things about the party that I am proud of being apart of. While Republicans settle in with the status quo and helping those who already can help themselves, we have been pushing the envelope and help those who can't easily help themselves. Again, another thing I am proud of.

I have been laying low since the debate and the Ohio primary, but, while surfing the TV channels, I noticed something on Hardball that puzzled me. The topic: are the Democrats dividing amongst themselves with this election? And, before I changed the channel, I answered the question: if we keep clawing at each other with our separate candidate camps, we might as well be. And what an unfortunate realization. I thought deeper about this, and how the corporate conservative Republicans in the media who have been baiting and switching us since 2006, and I really did have to change the channel! Luckily, I changed to Turner Classic Movies, where I watched the 1944 film Gaslight, with Ingrid Bergman, Charles Boyer, and Angela Lansberry. While watching,I noticed in particular nuances.
In the film, Charles Boyer plays mind games with Ingrid Bergman, to slowly and systematically make her go crazy . He takes her broach, and convinces her that she misplaced it and she doesn't remember where. He takes her glove at a party, and convinces her that she never had it to begin with. He moves a painting, convinces her that it is her fault and tries to "help" her remember where she put it. Ingrid feels like she is going crazy.
Now, picture Charles Boyer being the Republican Party operatives in the media, and the Democratic Party and the American people are the victims of the mind games. Only rather than a broach, it's the idea that we can fix our nations problems and both our candidates can do it. They replace it by offering little jabs of divisive language and discouraging tactics to make it seem that it's lost and we are to blame for it. Rather than a glove, its the idea that we can all rise up against divisive tactics. The Republican Party misplaces the glove and bombards us with further divisive tactics on their part and convince us we never had it to begin with. Rather than a painting, it is the idea that America can be better than it is, which is all something we as Democrats believe in. The Republicans misplace the painting and with the tactics they have been using plus a little more intensity, and we feel convinced that it is our fault and they try to "help" us. Have we gone crazy yet? To our credit, no we haven't. But whose to say we can?

The reason I bring that metaphor up is because as progressive as we are, we have a choice in what progress we want to achieve. Barack Obama, the first African-American president? or Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first woman president? That is the price we pay for progress, the ultimate, difficult choice of who to choose. That makes us the halibut that the Republicans want to catch and serve at the country club fundraising dinner for John McCain's presidential campaign. The American people have a say in the progress we make. From the American Revolution to the great, grand social changes of the 60s and 70s, the American people have a say in the progress we make. There will always be sticks in the mud, but there will always be trees growing from the moisture in the mud.

So, yes, this is a historical election indeed. We should be grateful that the Democratic Party is the frontrunner for social and political progress in this country. But, as progress is achieved, it can be easily manipulated against us. Let's think twice and rise above being pawns in the Republican game of quelling progress.

My thoughts on Rev. Wright

Julie — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:25:35 EDT

OK, there's an elephant in the room. I hate elephants - why I'm a Democrat.

On reading the various comments about the Rev. Wright's statements, it occurred to me that he wasn't saying anything vastly different from what a lot of us are saying: that is, America's arrogant treatment of certain other countries has led to a lot of hatred.

Many of us do not approve of the NeoCon dream of Global Empire, which is to be achieved by shoving the American Corporate Agenda forcibly down the throat of any nation or culture that might have the temerity to want to manage its own resources, form of government,and people. It's...well...it's unamerican ^o^

Now the Rev was obviously on a tear that particular Sunday, and couched his opinion in very strong terms. Many might say, "ill-advisedly strong". Cussing in the pulpit is not your standard Sunday fare.

But really, I think the remarks strike terror into people not because of their import, but because of the color of the man who uttered them. The fact that the Rev. is black causes people to read something MORE into his statements, which they subconsciously translate as,
"The black people are going to murder us all in our beds!" "The black people hate America!"

All this, because a black preacher read the riot act to a congregation regarding a Neocon agenda which many people here, black and white, have characterized as loathsome and undemocratic. Yes, he was undiplomatic in his choice of words. He told it like he saw it, and boy, was he pissed. ^o^ Be honest: if a white pastor said the same exact thing, would there be this big a stir? There would be a stir, no doubt, but would it really be the water cooler fare of the day?

Now I have one question to ask all of you churchgoers out there:

Can you honestly say that your Pastor, Priest, Rabbi, Mullah, Guru etc., actually dictates your day to day actions? You might think you'd be better off if they did, but seriously, do you do and think everything they tell you to, or do you take their thoughts on board, and go home to lunch?

just sayin'...

Anne Coulter site hacked

Julie — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:32:50 EST

Okay, the Natalie Portman line is hilarious.Photo: maxim.com
For some reason, Ann Coulter's comment that Jews should be "perfected" has really gotten the Internet going (as opposed to her comments that 9/11 widows are “self-obsessed” and "enjoying" their husbands' deaths, or that John Edwards is a "faggot," yadda yadda yadda). Coulter said the quote to Donny Deutsch (a Jew) on his show, The Big Idea, last week. But like you, the Internet sometimes comes up with its best responses several days after a slight is delivered...
from the Daily Intelligencer

Reuters: Fidel Castro Has Resigned As President

Cato Meador — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 02:43:07 EST

FINALLY....Cuba and the United States have something in common AGAIN!!!

We are BOTH getting rid of our DICTATORS at the same moment in history!!!

McCain and the Evangelicals

Sam Schoolsky — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:46:34 EST

First, let me say that I will be voting for a Democratic candidate for president. BUT.........

Those bigoted, “family value,” extremist, right wing pundits of the conservative airwaves; Rush Limbaugh, Neal Bortz, Hugh Hewitt, and Ann Coulter, (backed up by evangelical Christian leader James Dobson,) who claim to represent the “base electorate” of the Republican Party, are at it again, debasing and trashing Sen. John McCain, the presumptive presidential candidate of the Grand Old Party (GOP.) Coulter, who a few months ago declared on TV that Jews need “to be perfected,” stated that the only way McCain could have her vote is if he “put a gun to my head.” Limbaugh stated on air that McCain is “going to destroy the Republican Party.” The others have made similar disparaging statements about Sen. McCain, a true American war hero who speaks his mind and sticks to his opinions and guns.

Let’s face it, Sen. McCain ran in primaries against Rev. Huckabee, the darling of the evangelicals, and beat him soundly. Could it be that the religious extremists in the GOP are not the true “base” that controls the party, but rather the “base” is composed of all those who would rather see someone who wants to change the outlook of the United States and is not a tool of the so-called conservative talk radio hosts and their minions? In America the majority nominates, and evidently the majority of the Republican Party voted for McCain. Aren’t they really the “base?”

The one thing Mr. McCain has to do is not fall prey to the rantings of the extremists. Recently he has started to change some of his opinions and statements on many pressing subjects just to attract and pacify the evangelicals. If he continues this it is a major mistake, for he would be walking away from the “base” of the party that nominated him with their votes. Changes like this would be an insult to those who backed him in the primaries and probably would cost him many, many votes in the November general election.

I have always had a lot of respect for Sen. McCain as a straight shooter, even though I do not agree with him all the time (i.e. the continuing war in Iraq.) He stood up to the North Vietnamese in a prison camp for so long, and I think he should stand up to those in his party who want to remake America in their warped image.

A Proposal for the People: NO Telecom Immunity

Julie — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:10:25 EST

I am making a proposal here to have a nationwide 'Telecom Strike'. After the sad, sad support the FISA Bill got in the Senate, I feel the only voice left is that of the people themselves.

If we have ONE day where all computers shut down, all phones cease, even ATM and credit transactions stop - we can effectively look AT&T in the eye and say,

"Up yours, Jack".

NO MORE SPYING

No MORE IMMUNITY FOR CRIMINAL ACTS.

This retroactive immunity ploy effectively gives ANY Executive the power to do ANYTHING he likes in the future - because then he can grant all his henchmen 'immunity' after the fact. Please sign the petition at Firedoglake.

It isn't over. We are pushing members of the House to stand firm against telecom immunity -- please take a little time to sign the petition here. Have you called your Representative today?

Rush Limbaugh is still a Big Fat Idiot

Julie — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 02:08:48 EST

Wired

has a good one titled 'Rush Limbaugh Takes on Quantum Physics (and Global Warming) ^o^

Everybody's favorite cosmologist and climatologist, Rush Limbaugh, did a little bit yesterday on how global warming can't possibly be happening, because, come on, climatologists can't even accurately predict how many hurricanes are coming each year.

Ann Coulter will campaign for Hillary

Julie — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 10:19:23 EST

if McCain gets the nomination. She says.

So, what does this mean? Ann Coulter worked like a dog to help destroy Bill Clinton, and inveighed against his administration every chance she got. Suddenly she's on the air talking to Sean Hannity, and ahe's going to campaign for Clinton because she's "more conservative than John McCain"? During the course of the "interview" she mentions that Hillary "stood up and applauded" the Surge, while also mentioning that McCain is "soft on torture".

Here's the way I see it: She's a rabid Republican. The show she's on is rabidly conservative. She lies a lot.

I think it's pure propaganda. Rove et al worked hard to destroy McCain last time around, and they probably haven't changed their minds. What they are trying to accomplish here is murky, though. Why would they try to paint McCain as a liberal, unless they are trying to appeal to disaffected Democrats? McCain is emphatically not a liberal, and he has approved Bush and his War throughout. Since his only competitor is Romney, who is actually a weathervane in a suit, and thus unpredictable, it seems to me that McCain would be their best hope.

The Right has been excoriating Hillary since the campaign began, calling her everything but an out and out Communist. Now she's a Conservative? They can't seem to make up their minds - publically, at least. Privately, I have to think that this is a deliberate campaign. What the goal is remains to be seen.

For every disaffected Democrat they win with a strategy like this, they will lose ten Republicans. It's rather fun to watch the GOP eat its young, much like the Democrats have been. There's only one question left for me: does Corporate America want Romney or McCain?

Coulter gets a Pie ^o^

Julie — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:04:25 EST

Coulter in a well-deserved and rare position:
dodging a pie!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv9xa-VxchM&feature=related

and here is the longest and most thoughtful exposition of the whole pie philosophy. This guy could start a movement!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA1WQ_kVUYA&NR=1

Democratic Talk Radio show news

Stephen Crockett — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:37:37 EST

My radio show is going to be added to the line-up at Andy Johnson's radio station in Jacksonville, Florida within a couple of weeks and to a station in the greater Allentown, Pennsylvania market shortly thereafter. Both stations stream on the Internet. We hope to add a station or two in Delaware very soon after the first two.

All the DTR programs will be available for streaming or down-loading for Podcasts from the Democratic Talk Radio program page after the live broadcasts so you can listen at any time for years to come.

We would appreciate your help getting the Democratic Talk Radio website linked to Democratic or progressive websites. Here is the standard offer to exchange links with those sites.

"Would you like to exchange links? Our main URL address is http://www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com .

Thanks,

Stephen Crockett

Co-host, Democratic Talk Radio

P.S.- My Labor website is Mid-Atlantic Labor.com http://www.midatlanticlabor.com ."

Edwards Stays Focused on Issues as "Coast to Coast" Tour Begins

RDillon — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:07:27 EST

The plain and simple truth of the matter is that all throughout this primary John Edwards has been focused on the issues that matter to the American people. All throughout this primary, he has led on the issues with Progressive vision and has brought our other candidates back from the Never Never-land of centrism. Because of this, he has picked up much support from across the country as Democrats realize that they finally have a champion that will fight for their ideals without watering them down.

My Biggest Debate Impression

Julie — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:53:07 EST

For a moment I was taken back to a magical time...the familiar, authoritative voice, the black and white footage, and the profound sense that There Is An Enemy Lurking Who Desires our Destruction.
It sounded like the same voiceover they had in 'Fantasia'.
Classic Disney. Really, really good. Scared the poo out of me. All the Democrats assumed sober expressions and squared their shoulders...

and did really, really well. Bravo team.

Obama was on his game. Biggest contrast I saw was how inclusive he was. This is the key to his popularity, I think. All the others reacted with 'their' thoughts, etc. Obama managed to react with 'we'. Often he was simply paraphrasing what another candidate had just said, but he made it sound better - more oratorical, more inclusive, and more authoritative.

Hillary did a great job, too. She brought out her greatest strength, which is what she has managed to accomplish already, as opposed to her opponents hopes for future accomplishments. She even took a small bite out of Barack, which is pretty difficult.

Richardson was as cuddly as ever. Definitely took on the role of Peacemaker in a big way, calming and rallying the group when things started to get edgy.

Edwards could have been better, but he was not bad. He has a hard job right now. His best chance to pull ahead is to convince people that he really IS the one who can get it done and defeat the Special Interests in the cause of making a better life for ordinary Americans. He has taken a harder stance and a more combative one. I personally believe that any Democrat who takes on Insurance and Big Oil had BETTER be ready to go to the mattresses, because that's where it will wind up. How well this resonates with voters is another question. Half the country is on Prozac ^o^ they spook easily.

Definitely the big picture was Experience vs. Youthful Optimism, with Edwards/Obama on one side, and Clinton/Richardson playing Elder Statesman to the hilt.

As far as affecting the voting, which is the goal, I'd say Hillary probably helped herself a lot in this debate, where the other candidates' support will remain steady.

Dennis appeared at the end, speaking directly one-on-one with the announcer, who actually appeared sympathetic, and gave meaty questions which were eliciting intelligent, interesting answers, and then...the screen went blank, and there were 'technical difficulties...thanks, Mickey.

Political Prisoners in Mississippi

Julie — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:59:17 EST

There are political prisoners in Alabama, too. Karl Rove and his Merry Band of Canaries pretty much have things their own way down here. The MSM really ought to pay more attention to Southern Politics - our steamy climate seems to make for some pretty steamy scandals! Here's one in which Big Money (AKA the GOP) decides to throw the weight of the entire U.S.Government into deposing a few trial attorneys and judges who had the temerity to sue Big Tobacco successfully. Why hire Blackwater when the entire FBI is at your disposal? One FBI agent objected when a big Republican donor was given a Free Pass and all the Democrats were prosecuted. He was transferred to Guatamala. ^o^

Two takes - with thanks to the Cottonmouth Blog and Adam Lynch

Saturday, November 17, 2007
What Country Are We Living In?

In Stalin's Soviet Union, in Hussein's Iraq, in Franco's Spain, in Hitler's Germany, and in many third world countries, citizens were afraid to speak against their government, because they would be arrested and imprisoned. There might be a trial, but it would certainly not be fair, because it was with their judges and their rules.
We call these citizens "political prisoners", because they did not commit a crime - they were imprisoned for their political beliefs. In America, we are horrified by these dictators, and we're so glad we live in a country where that never happens.
But we would be wrong, because there are political prisoners in America - and Mississippi - right now! I am not joking, and I am not exaggerating. This is really happening...

Dem At Your Own Risk by Adam Lynch
November 7, 2007

The year 2000 was the dawn of the tort-reform craze in Mississippi, when out-of-state groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce poured money into state elections in an attempt to roll back court regulation. The Chamber interpreted Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz as too friendly to plaintiffs and targeted his campaign, dumping millions of dollars into an ad blitz supporting Diaz’ opponent, trial judge Keith Starrett, while refusing to identify its contributors. The Chamber even succeeded in getting an emergency appeal from ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to vacate injunctions challenging the legality of the Chamber ads. Diaz needed money to counter the carpetbaggers. Two Gulf Coast attorneys, both wildly successful at suing Gov. Haley Barbour’s beloved tobacco industry, guaranteed $153,000 in loans. Attorney Paul Minor guaranteed $73,000 in loans; Richard Scruggs guaranteed $80,000. With that money, Diaz barely managed to retain the judicial seat to which Gov. Ronnie Musgrove appointed him.

But Diaz had no idea he was winning a seat inside a firebox, and Minor had no suspicion that he was piling in after him...

and one more from Cottonmouth:

One of Karl Rove's first successes was to take over the Alabama Supreme Court. It worked so well, they moved to other states - Mississippi being one of the first. They hated Mississippi. This was where a lowly State Attorney General and his merry band of trial lawyers brought the vaunted Tobacco Companies to their knees big time - and cost them billions of dollars. Not only that, but the merry band of trial attorneys got wealthy in their endeavor and gave huge contributions to the dangerous Democratics. To really rub salt in the wound, their very expensive campaign in 2000 to take over the Mississippi Supreme Court failed, due largely to the contributions of those same trial attorneys...

Now do you start to see why trial attorneys (like John Edwards for instance) are their worst nightmare? Understand why one of the most important, and most overlooked pieces of legislation Bush rammed through the compliant Congress was Tort Reform?

Karl just looooves Judge races. No Judicial seat is too small to engender his interest, and for good reason. At the end of the day it's the judges who really decide how a law will be interpreted and applied, not the politicians. Of course, in America the judges ARE politicians...hmmmm

Think About This Just For A Moment... Please

Ron Griesse — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:59:55 EST

Did it ever occur to you why mainstream media is pushing for Hillary, and Barack? I personally have figured it out, and it makes perfect sense. America as a whole will not vote these two into office therefore it will give the republicans a better chance to win the white house.

This being said, yes I am biased as I am voting for Edwards, however, if you stop and think about it for a second, you will see what I mean. America is defiantly not ready for a women president. Call me what ever you like, if you were to ask the country as a whole, there is no way Hillary can win, and we will end up with another republican in the oval office if she gets the primaries. Now, I have been known to be wrong a time or two, but on this, I am sure of, and believe me if I am wrong, I will post a sincere apology to all you Hillary and Barack supporters out there. I am just asking you to think about how the media is going to sway, and swing this one.

As to Barack, his cause is a good one, but there are just too many Podunk idiots out there with small minds and a voter registration card. That being the case, I just do not see it happening.

I am not trying to slam Hillary or Barack here, I am more attempting to reason with your logic, and trying to make you see that it is vital to have a person on the democratic ticket in 2008 that is not carrying this kind of baggage with them. The average republican voters are no more than sheep. Hence, they will vote their ticket regardless of what it is doing to the country. We have to have a strong candidate on the ticket that can swing the independent voter our way, and if the media is scared of him, we may swing the independent voter. That person in my opinion is John Edwards.

All it is going to take is someone like Ralph Nader getting into the race, and the republicans will get it for sure. So before you cast that vote for Hillary or Barack, think about that for a moment.

John Edwards Poised to take Surging Campaign to Feb. 5 States

RDillon — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:24:12 EST

It has been a couple of exciting and satisfying weeks for the supporters of John Edwards. Despite considerably less media coverage than his two major rivals, and despite spending considerably less money that his two main rivals, the Edwards campaign has experienced a very real surge in Iowa and NH. It seems that his positive message of change and of building One America for all is taking hold the old fashioned way, face to face.

2008:The Year America Takes Back America

Tim — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:10:21 EST

As you are counting down to 2008 today and drinking that sparkling champagne and kissing your loved ones and toasting the new year and making personal new year's resolutions, as members of Partybuilder and of the Democratic Party, we need to remember, recognize, realize, and resolve to our Party's New Year's resolution: 2008- the year America takes back America.

While we can dwell on the past few years of Bushkie & his Cronkites( luv u Walter!) with 5 bottles of champagne and grief, we can also rise above our grief, anger, misery, and depression by devoting ourselves to making America an even better place that it was 10 years ago. We devote our political energy into recognizing our collective goal of establishing a party platform and supporting whoever candidate we elect to be a presidential nominee. To say who that will be is a matter of personal preference and our democratic value of majority vote over minority vote. But, I have told you that my posts will no longer be candidate preferential, because it is even more important that we remember our collective, full-party goal of having a Democrat in presidential office to help build America up from its slum and make it better for the people who live here, who want to live here, and for our presence abroad to be positive.
We need to remember that we are electing a person who is best qualified for the job of President Of The United States, and would easily reciprocate that quality to every single American.
Now, I cannot resolve to stop talking about my personal pick of candidates to choose from, but I can resolve to put personal preference aside so America can be lead appropriately, efficiently, and intelligently. I have met many people on Partybuilder and know that even if we disagree with each other, we share this goal.
What can we ask of the candidates? STICK TO THE ISSUES, they matter the most. I personally don't care what country Barack Obama's mother came from or what town Clinton came from, even though that plays a lot to their being who they are, all I care about is that they will stick to the issues and perform their job to the best of their ability if they get elected.

So, what can we, as a party, all agree on for the platform we need to formulate for the convention? What issues do we need to address? We can not take back America by furthering a Republican self-fulfilling prophecy I mentioned in my last post.

Happy 2008! HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!

Kucinich supporters: Iowa Caucus power?

Julie — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:03:02 EST

Paul Loeb, in an article entitled 'How Kucinich Supporters Can Help Stop Hillary', made a few points that I would like to hear folks discuss.

To sum up his position: Hillary is way too Corporate to appeal to a Kucinich supporter. Obama or Edwards are your best hope to see a Progressive Democratic Nominee.

His take on the Iowa Caucus system-

So how could Kucinich supporters, with their candidate polling at 1%-2%, even make a difference? First, because it's a caucus system, this favors groups that are organized and enthusiastic. Only 125,000 people attended Iowa's Democratic caucuses last round, but they sank Howard Dean's candidacy when he was the clear favorite going in. If Kucinich supporters could get out 12,500 people that's 10% of the vote, if 6250, 5%. Neither would be enough to qualify under the 15% threshold for representation, but if they could account for even just a few points difference in how the delegates are allocated, that might shift who comes first among the three leading Democrats. It might make the difference between Hillary being the nominee and Edwards or Obama.

We also need to bear in mind that Ralph Nader has threatened to run again if Hillary is the eventual nominee. If we think that doesn't make a difference, we're ignoring the last election results. Many Democrats blame Nader for Gore's loss, so obviously he can swing enough votes to be a factor in 2008.

For me, it's a crisis of conscience, AKA Politics, or Pragmatism vs. Idealism. Should I 'play politics' with my vote, thereby ensuring the demise of the candidate I feel best represents my interests, the candidate I feel is the best choice for a saner, safer, more prosperous America? If I do, can I blame anyone but myself if Progressive ideas aren't present on the eventual Democratic platform?

I'll let Loeb have the last word, since he has a decided opinion and I don't, yet:

Over the next six weeks you're going to have a choice. You can vote for Kucinich in your primaries and caucuses, make a symbolic point, and maybe give him a shade more clout to stay in the race. But whether he gets 1% or 5%, his presence when they're done is going to be minimal, and his coverage negligible as well. Your other choice is to do what you can to try to make John Edwards the nominee (or at least vote for Obama), and potentially help tip the balance in who ends up president. To me, that's the greater political impact.

What do you folks think? Should each of us vote our hearts, thus preserving the whole point of having a democracy in the first place, or do we, as Democrats, need to be political pragmatists who are ready to jettison ideals that simply won't sell in the USA in 2008?