Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Election 2008

Super Tuesday: Where's the Candidate That Represents Me?

By Tad Daley, AlterNet. Posted February 5, 2008.


Disenfranchised voters in more than 40 states lose the chance to not only influence the 2008 presidential election but also the course of history.
eugenedebs
Eugene Victor Debs
Advertisement

"I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it," said Eugene Debs, who ran for president five times in the first two decades of the 20th century, "than vote for what I don't want, and get it."

On Tsunami Tuesday, Feb. 5, I was really hoping to have the opportunity to vote for what I want.

For years, the presidential primary here in California, where nearly 13 percent of all Americans reside, was not held until June. This consistently meant that election after election, nearly 13 percent of all Americans exercised absolutely no influence at all on the selection of the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees.

However, when my state this year joined more than 20 others in scheduling our primary for the first week in February, many of us hoped that, at last, we would be able to vote on a full field of candidates who would come before us debating the full range of issues confronting our nation and our world.

No such luck.

With only seven primaries or caucuses down for the Republicans, and a mere four for the Democrats, most of the original candidates, in both parties, are already gone. Before even the end of January, the Republican field had been whittled down to just four candidates and the Democrats down to just two.

So in the end, tens of millions of voters, in both parties, in more than 40 states, will simply not have the opportunity to cast a vote for their first choice for president.

This disenfranchisement was particularly excruciating, after last Wednesday's withdrawal of John Edwards, for what the late Paul Wellstone called "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party." That wing is hardly insubstantial. Progressive Democrats of America claims to be the fastest-growing political advocacy group in the country. The new Air America radio network is thriving. Millions of "netroots" citizens, every day, not only visit websites like AlterNet, Common Dreams, DailyKos, and MoveOn -- but also use them to generate collective political action.

But not one of us will have the opportunity next Tuesday to express our political sentiments by voting for an unambiguously progressive presidential candidate.

This profoundly undemocratic dynamic hardly applies only to those who share my politics. The same frustrations will be severe next Tuesday for conservative voters who might have wanted to vote for candidates like, oh, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter. I have little more than contempt for voters whose primary political agenda is to bash immigrants. Nevertheless, our democracy is hardly well served when most of those voters, nationwide, never get the opportunity to express those sentiments by casting a vote for Tom Tancredo.

Votes cast for longshot candidates in both parties could have had an enormous impact on the health of our democracy ... if only those candidates had not been forced out so early. If all voters nationwide had the chance to cast votes for all candidates, they could send powerful messages to the eventual nominees about what they hope to see incorporated into both party platforms and the next presidency. If certain candidates failed but still did well nationwide, or even "better than expected" -- in money, in volunteers and in votes -- then the nominee might have concluded that there was a critical mass of support for the things that candidate was about.

But not if virtually all the candidates are gone before the end of January.

In addition, if the primaries and caucuses in this volatile political season do not decisively settle on party candidates, the results will be hammered out at the conventions -- in Denver in August for the Democrats, in St. Paul in September for the Republicans. If 2008 sees the first brokered conventions in a generation, failed candidates, wielding small but critical contingents of delegates, could have emerged as the crucial powerbrokers in choosing the nominees. Although most had given up on him actually winning the nomination, that was certainly the scenario many Edwards supporters had begun to envision after the results came in from two state primaries and two state caucuses.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election08, super tuesday, tsunami tuesday, presidential primary, obama, clinton, edwards, kucinich, mccain, romney, tancredo, giuliani, thompson, hunter

Tad Daley (tad@daleyplanet.org) is a writing fellow with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, www.ippnw.org, winner of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A Simple Solution...
Posted by: Intraspecto on Feb 5, 2008 12:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you do not like what is going on, form a new party!

How much simpler could it be?

Or am I, as an independent conservative-leaning American whpo is really upset with Conservatives and mainstream liberals alike,
(who is now looking at Alternet, and other sites seriously) wrong?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Simple Solution... Posted by: Richard House
» RE: A Simple Solution... Posted by: Monitor523
» Well said! Posted by: brunowe
» RE: A Simple Solution... Posted by: chomsky
» I voted Green, you can too! Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: A Simple Solution... Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: VOTE EDWARDS Posted by: Andie927
Here, here
Posted by: grandmaskeet on Feb 5, 2008 1:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to have had a choice too. There isn't anyone left I want to vote for now. There is nothing fair about this at all. Look at all the candidates that started this race on both sides, and they didn't fall one by one. They fell in droves.
The only way we'll ever have a fair election is demand election reform so that every candidate spends the same amount of money, and the big corporations aren't allowed to buy candidates with their funding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You could write someone in Posted by: brunowe
» RE: You could write someone in Posted by: Cooltruth
» RE: Here, here Posted by: nochicagoboys
» and a return of the fairness doctrine Posted by: purplewarrior
John Edwards represents me
Posted by: PatriciaW on Feb 5, 2008 2:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and he still gets my vote. "Suspended" does NOT mean Ended. He keeps his delegates, can add more, and he remains eligible to become the party's nominee. The people, not the pundits, will decide this election. And we still say Edwards. "It's not an Auction. It's an Election."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: John Edwards represents me Posted by: SekhmetsatRa
» RE: John Edwards represents me Posted by: prinpronisse
» Its NOT an Election... Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: John Edwards represents me Posted by: badkitty
» RE: Thank You Posted by: NoPCZone
The nation needs a national voting system . . .
Posted by: pete ess on Feb 5, 2008 3:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . on the internet, that allows every voter to vote on all candidates. Each candidate's total support can be tracked over time (and each issue could be voted on, too). It won't be easy, it won't be perfect, but maybe it could start a new people-driven momentum, rather than the tightly-controlled party-hack driven process at present?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Partial Solution
Posted by: dustinblythe on Feb 5, 2008 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One potential solution that has the support of a number of Secretaries of State is the regional primary. Under this plan, groups of states in geographic regions of the country would vote together rather than the mishmash that we have now.

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=179557

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corrupt, not broken!
Posted by: Cathyc on Feb 5, 2008 5:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"But not if our broken presidential selection process prevents almost all of us from voting for what we want."

With respect, I would say the American presidential selection process/voting system is CORRUPT, not merely "broken".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Results Are In
Posted by: redbird30328 on Feb 5, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If an "unambiguously progressive" candidate were viable, he/she would have received enough votes and contributions by now to continue running. The people have, in fact, spoken. You can always write-in your candidate of choice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Always Posted by: boydranchitos
» You're playing the game Posted by: sliver
» RE: The Results Are In Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: The Results Posted by: Andie927
Don't you have a Green Ballot in California?
Posted by: antiapathy on Feb 5, 2008 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the Dems won't run a candidate you like, then you should not be voting for a Dem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Front-loading the big states
Posted by: brunowe on Feb 5, 2008 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although the current process winnows out most candidates before they get to big states like California and New York, a front-loading of the big states would make it harder for long-shot candidates like Kucinich.

Because of their size and the number of media markets in them, candidates who had raised money and had name recognition would have an increased edge. In smaller states, it is possible for a lesser known, less rich candidate to make enough of a mark to bring in support before the primaries in the big states.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:Better How? Posted by: Andie927
» RE: Better How? Posted by: brunowe
DISGRUNTLED VOTERS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 5, 2008 7:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I understand all the frustration. But Whoever gets elected has a monumental challenge. Candidates are not specifically designed to meet individual needs. It's about 300 million people. Wasted votes probably cost Al Gore the presidency. And wasted votes this time will put the warmonger McCain in the White House. At some point it's about damage control. Settling is better than losing. It's Clinton or Obama. Not the end of the world. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: DISGRUNTLED VOTERS Posted by: badkitty
great article i learned something
Posted by: solrev on Feb 5, 2008 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like this article. I never looked at the American idol process we call a democratic process quite this way before. I knew the process was in complete control of the masters, but I never realized how easy it was. As for change one person to think it, one person to learn it, and one person to live it, is my philosophy. Change is a slow process. It would be nice to keep the voices of the many in the game longer. I could pick a real winning candidate, but I would have to morph about five of them together.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vote for JRE!
Posted by: lpeacock on Feb 5, 2008 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We DO have a choice. Edwards suspended his campaign; he did not not drop out. He can still win delegates and we can still have a voice at the convention. I voted for JRE in the TX primary (absentee ballot), yesterday.

I urge Edwards supporters to vote for Edwards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't Be DEM./Sheepel Posted by: Andie927
John de Graaf
Posted by: timeday on Feb 5, 2008 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It will be a good thing when some of the comment posters here grow up and live in the real world. This isn't about YOU and who most represents YOU. It's about the possibilities for the country and of turning around 30 years of conservative disasters. I like John Edwards a lot but his voting record wasn't close to being as progressive as Barack Obama's (Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate in 2007, according to the National Journal, and a 96% rating from the League of Conservation Voters). If the difference between both Democrats, Clinton and Obama, and any of the Republicans isn't clear to you now, you've been living under a rock. It's not up to us to ask for perfect candidates who represent us 100% (you may be wrong, you know: I have been--who are we to think we know all the answers and only candidates pure enough to agree with us 100% are to be supported--what arrogance!) I am for Obama, but I will support Clinton whole-heartedly if she is the nominee. We need to get the conservatives OUT. 30 years of their policies have led to massive declines in every quality of life index, when you compare the US to the social democracies of western Europe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: John de Graaf Posted by: Longdream
Green Party, Green Party, Green Party
Posted by: DaBear on Feb 5, 2008 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If politics, as every undergraduate knows, is the art of the possible, then stepping into that voting booth ought to be an opportunity to expand the parameters of political possibility.

But not if our broken presidential selection process prevents almost all of us from voting for what we want.


This is what the Green Party has been saying over and over and over while the Dimikrats continue to be silent on this. Until people wake up and start a phyiscal revolt, the money-cult will continue to maintain a corrupt, unworkable system that will disenfranchise more and more people. Even the corporadoes are confessing today that upwards of 48% of voters are disenfranchised (without their choice for candidate available to them).

Vote NOTA as a write it, jam up the craptastic dimokrazy that is 'Mer'ka.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Already voted for Edwards
Posted by: 2dogarage on Feb 5, 2008 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by absentee ballot in California. No regrets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Lot of Wisdom
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Feb 5, 2008 9:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it," said Eugene Debs, who ran for president five times in the first two decades of the 20th century, "than vote for what I don't want, and get it."

There's a lot of wisdom in these appealing words, but there is also a danger in taking them too literally. In one interpretation, these words seem to tell us to just vote the way our hearts suggest. So long as you feel good about your vote, that's all that counts.

I don't buy this interpretation. While it is fine to cast a vote for a candidate you know will lose, this should only be done with some careful strategy behind it. If, by your vote, you are somehow influencing the political process and affecting some kind of change, fine. However, please don't do it just to make yourself feel good.

The electoral system in this country is quite faulty and it fails badly in the general election when there are more than two viable candidates for president. Keep in mind when you vote for a third party that you may be contributing to the win of the candidate you like the least.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:Guilt Trip! Wrong!!! Posted by: Andie927
» RE: Guilt Trip! Wrong!!! Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» But how can we change the system Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
Vote the ISSUES!
Posted by: Andie927 on Feb 5, 2008 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards Isn't OUT
He only "Suspended" his campaign, because our great Dems. wouldn't vote a third person onto the FEC (FederalElectionsComm.) so they'd have a three person quorum, to give him his matching Public Financing Funds!!

! With Edwards out, any true Progressive, has No One to vote FOR!

Hillary, Corporatist/centrist (just like Bill) who gave us Nafta, Cafta, Welfare to Work without a safty net, Media Consolidation! And he did what about, Healthcare, Enviroment, Fixing Election Laws?

Barack, Corporatist/Centrist, (only to a new extreme) He too wants Insurance NOT healthcare, worse yet he wants to give tax $ to the Overpaid Insurance Co. CEO's, have you heard him say he'll bring about FAIR Trade? How about Media Reform? Krugman, the Liberal Economic guru, says: 'Obama's Right of Hillary' on economic issues, particularly Social Security! Check out 'The Nation' article Obama and the Subprime! It'll tell you about his three TOP economic adviser's. Read closely, this is going to be what you get! One is a Critic of "Sicko", the other thinks 'high healthcare costs are good for the economy', the third wants to 'privatize social security', for Wall Street. Some of Obama's biggest doners!!

Do we really want to have a nominee, who wants to hold Repug. hands and sing Kumbia, with them? Or one that will hold Bush/Chenney and all the rest ACCOUNTABLE! Do you hear either of them talking about "THAT"? How about Restoring our Constitution? Habious? Possi Comatatus? Did either candidate go to New Orleans, 'to work'?

How is either, Barack or Hillary going to fight Lobbists, when their BOTH in Lobbist/Corporate pockets?Please, Barck has taken over 10 Million from Wall Street doners alone!

Vote for Edwards, then Go Green! As in the Green Party. Went to their web site for the first time ever, they have an Edwards Platform! 85 candidates, and monthly meetings across the Nation!

THINK ABOUT WHAT YOUR VOTING FOR!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Vote the ISSUES! Posted by: zipoka
» RE: Vote the ISSUES! Posted by: bedasso
Ron Paul is the Peace and Freedom Candidate
Posted by: CUnknown on Feb 5, 2008 11:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you want to withdraw from Iraq and end the Occupation, vote for Ron Paul.

If you want to restore habeas corpus, end domestic spying, close Guantanamo, end torture, and a candidate who is anti-death penalty, vote for Ron Paul.

If you balance the budget by cutting military spending, vote for Ron Paul. No other candidate will balance the budget because they cling to the "necessessity" of Bush's endless war.

If you want to end 'aid' to countries with horrible human rights records, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, vote for Ron Paul.

If you want the reverse of all the things mentioned here, you have plenty of choices, but for these issues there is only one: RON PAUL.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Election '08: Where the Street is putting its $
Posted by: douglashoyt on Feb 5, 2008 12:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look who are the biggest contributors: surprise, it is Wall Street.


http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/04/markets/
election_donors/index.htm?postversion=2008020511

This election is another farce.

These farces will continue until we get full public financing of elections, and full particpation of all candidates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In Massachusetts..
Posted by: Longdream on Feb 5, 2008 1:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of the Democratic candidates were on the ballot, not only Obama and Clinton--Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Gravel and Kucinich. We didn't have to write them in, but fill in an oval with pencil.

Our votes are read and counted as we leave.

I suppose if enough people voted for one of them they could win some delegates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

are we ONE country?
Posted by: wwittman on Feb 5, 2008 1:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Frankly, I've never understood the fascination, or attraction, of "state's rights"

the simple solution is ONE national primary on ONE day.

no one state gets to 'influence' the others or the race in general.

Everyone has access to a TV or a RADIO.
There's simply no reason that anyone needs to meet a candidate in a diner in Iowa to understand what he or she is for or against.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I voted for Edwards today in the Global Presidential Primary (*) for
Posted by: SbgBJ on Feb 5, 2008 1:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... the estimated 6 million expats like me, living all over the globe.

The list of candidates I was offered (& glad to see} contained EVERY Dem candidate plus "Uncommitted".

So don't voluntarily succumb to despair until you actually see the ballot....

(* The Global Presidential Primary is the full legal equivalent of a state primary election. Democrats Abroad will send 22 delegates to the Democratic National Convention. )

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Today: "Edwards"; next time: "uncommitted"?
Posted by: jeannot on Feb 5, 2008 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish we'd had time enough to think about Edwards' dropping out and to have had an organized response. Today voting for John Edwards made sense, but maybe not in the future. The party regulations are written to discourage insurgencies. Does anyone have a firm enough grasp on the arcana of the primary and caucus rules to know if a write-in campaign for "uncommitted" would work as an alternative to voting for "Edwards"? Ballots that may now be wasted in "protest" votes for Kucinich, and for Richardson, Dodd and Biden if there are such, if combined with Edwards' ballots, might be more likely to reach the minimum threshold needed to elect delegates. Anyway, here's my take going in to today: Why I'm (still) voting for John Edwards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Better Solution
Posted by: Kym525 on Feb 5, 2008 2:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay, basic civics class 101. A government OF the people, FOR the people, BY the people.

This means for all of you "disgruntled" voters to get off your whining asses and demand OUR government be responsible to OUR needs. It's easy to sit and moan and complain about what ISN'T getting done. It's a lot harder to get out there and DO it. The government will only respond when there's a concerted effort by everyone regardless of political affiliation to make them do it. We can take back our nation if we care enough to do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Better Solution Posted by: starvinmarvy
edgeofnowhere
Posted by: edgeofnowhere on Feb 5, 2008 6:26 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hello out there in Murka! Don't you realize that you Murkans could have (and still CAN) write in any candidate they want? Unfortunately, Murkans are a DUMBASS NATION and will vote for one of the MSM shills that get nominated. The fun would be in the conventions -- if Murkans would take to the streets, or if pigs would fly.................

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Give Voters Real Choice - Change The Rules Of The Game
Posted by: karenyoung521 on Feb 5, 2008 7:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article speaks for me, and I'm sure, many others. Even when there is a candidate who shares my beliefs, I can't seem to get him or her elected. Why? Because the two-party political system - Britain is the only other country that uses it - simply doesn't allow a range of political beliefs to be represented. If you want real change, you need to get behind changing the game. Support choice voting. With it, people could've voted Nader #1, Gore #2, and Gore would've won with majority support. With it, a Green legislative candidate who won 20% of the vote - significant support - could get a seat at the table, like Greens have in Germany, Australia, and many other countries. Check out fairvote.org to learn how.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Feb 5, 2008 7:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
YOU are the candidate who represents you.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

National Primary Day!
Posted by: RDavideo on Feb 6, 2008 1:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great piece! I agree completely!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

makemyvotecount
Posted by: rlasner@tampabay.rr.com on Feb 7, 2008 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am totally disgusted with the whole primary process. It seems to all come down to who has the most money. I am a registered Democrat in Florida and I've been told my vote doesn't count. No matter who I voted for it got me no representation! In prior years my states primary was held too late to make a difference and now it doesn't count at all. I think we either need a new process or we need a new party; a party that will represent all of us.

makemyvotecount@hotmail.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Concered Republican
Posted by: ConcernedRepublican on Feb 8, 2008 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush spoke to a boisterous crowd shortly after 7 a.m. EST. The ballroom erupted in cheers when someone shouted "Are there conservatives in the house?" When the president walked on stage, they clapped and chanted "Four more years! Four more years!"...sounds awfully familiar, kind of like the same rhetoric right before we elected George W. for his second term... that led us into the recession we are now facing.. OBAMA 2008!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tad Daley's article
Posted by: bnerin on Feb 10, 2008 9:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A wonderfully insightful article. The task at hand is how to threaten the 2 Party power structure and their candidates so they well change. What about a national voters boycott unless a candidate fulfills certain conditions?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]