2008

[funeralcrasher]

I tend to lean left on most issues and while I love the idea of a woman president, Ms. Clinton won't receive my vote if she runs in 08.  And I hate that.  She is powerful and obviously capable of handling public office but I do not want another elephant in sheep's clothing leading the way for Democrats. 

The democratic party seems to be splitting between commoners (DNC) and corporatists with (occassional) liberal tendencies (DLC).  (discussion of difference between DNC & DLC)  I've had enough of the latter.  I want this country turned around more than I want a female president. 

I will choose to support a democrat with backbone to vocally and unequivocally support gay marriage (Hillary has not), a renewed investment in the American workforce, and with strong unwavering support of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, which does not include widespread spying & monitoring of American citizens by their government.



Right now, Howard Dean is the only democrat I am remotely interested in supporting in 08, were he to run. 

Comments

[pkbarbiedoll.livejournal.com]

The problem with third parties isn't the third parties themselves. It's politics, specifically our One Vote One Candidate system.

When I vote for Nadar/Perot/ChickenLittle I effectively vote NO on all other candidates. That's what Americans have been raised and taught to accept.

But if we allow multiple choices per voter, like this:

1st choice: Elmer Fudd
2nd choice: Ralph Nadar
3rd choice: Russ Fiengold

Third parties instantly become viable.

Because our uniparty system values their power this will NEVER happen. Even though it would be good for our government.

[radargrrl.livejournal.com]

Agreed. But you do need that third party for a single transferrable voting system to work. Otherwise, there's no point.

I like, too, something the Aussies do, namely a mandatory vote.