WWTBAM Bored

In a CNN interview today, Hillary Clinton said, much to her credit, that her supporters should unite behind Barack Obama should he become the Democratic nominee:

"Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain," Clinton said on CNN's "The Situation Room."

"I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is -- obviously I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/clinton/

These are words that "some" individuals should take to heart before they make a final decision to shoot themselves and their country in the foot by voting out of sheer spite in November. (And I'd say the same to Obama supporters were the situation reversed.)

JBillyGirl wrote: These are words that "some" individuals should take to heart before they make a final decision to shoot themselves and their country in the foot by voting out of sheer spite in November. (And I'd say the same to Obama supporters were the situation reversed.)

JBG, is that last line you or Hillary?

I'm assuming you because of the "some".


Hillary is being a party shill. No way she thinks Obama is better than McCain. She wants the 2012 so she can run against the incumbant McCain.

I will just leave it at that.

She wants the 2012 so she can run against the incumbant McCain.

My guess is that McCain will be recumbant in 2012.

JBillyGirl wrote:These are words that "some" individuals should take to heart before they make a final decision to shoot themselves and their country in the foot by voting out of sheer spite in November. (And I'd say the same to Obama supporters were the situation reversed.)

I was being facetious last week when I said that I would vote for Cynthia McKinney if Hillary were the Democratic nominee. The truth is I would still hold my nose while voting for Hillary.

I will look for either Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin on the ballot. It will be a tough decision if they are both on it. It would be great to have a viable third party in this country.

Sir_Galahad wrote:I will look for either Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin on the ballot. It will be a tough decision if they are both on it. It would be great to have a viable third party in this country.

England has plenty of viable parties alternate to the Labours and Conservatives. Why not us? I'm all for a viable third party, fourth party, fifth party, sixth party, etc. Hell, the Democratic-Republican party started as a third party to the Federalists and Whigs.

The last two viable alternate parties we had in this country were the Bull Moose party (that great Republican, Teddy Roosevelt) and the Progressive party (that other great Republican, Bob LaFollette).

The Green Party could have actually been viable if Ralph Nader had built up the party over the years. Instead, Ralph Nader builds up Ralph Nader, but only in years that are divisible by 4.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:I will look for either Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin on the ballot. It will be a tough decision if they are both on it. It would be great to have a viable third party in this country.

England has plenty of viable parties alternate to the Labours and Conservatives. Why not us? I'm all for a viable third party, fourth party, fifth party, sixth party, etc. Hell, the Democratic-Republican party started as a third party to the Federalists and Whigs.

The last two viable alternate parties we had in this country were the Bull Moose party (that great Republican, Teddy Roosevelt) and the Progressive party (that other great Republican, Bob LaFollette).

The Green Party could have actually been viable if Ralph Nader had built up the party over the years. Instead, Ralph Nader builds up Ralph Nader, but only in years that are divisible by 4.

The main reason we don't have a multitude of parties is that we don't have a system like England or other countries where there are votes of no confidence, by-elections, and the like. Once a president is elected there's virtually no accountability, unlike a Prime Minister. The problem with a multi-party system is the chance of ending up like Israel, or, worse, Italy, in which government is paralyzed because of shifting coalitions among parties.

earendel wrote:The problem with a multi-party system is the chance of ending up like ... Italy, in which government is paralyzed because of shifting coalitions among parties.

How would we know the difference?

earendel wrote: Once a president is elected there's virtually no accountability, unlike a Prime Minister. The problem with a multi-party system is the chance of ending up like Israel, or, worse, Italy, in which government is paralyzed because of shifting coalitions among parties.

If McCain is elected President, and the Democrats get larger, more workable majorities, especially in the Senate (now they have to rely on Joe Lieberman as their majority), then look for some stalemates here, especially if McCain tries a far right winger with a Supreme Court pick.

There's nothing inherently wrong with third or fourth parties, but we haven't had a multiparty system in this country since the Whigs went away. There have occasionally been independent members of Congress or the Senate, but they have usually been either Republicans or Democrats in all but name, caucusing with the majority.

That's the real problem with a third party in Congress. Unless they throw in with one of the major parties, they will get frozen out of committee assignments and are very unlikely to survive long when their opponents point that out. For years, Bernie Sanders has been in Congress and the Senate as an independent, but he supports the liberal wing of the Democratic party and is given committee assignments and accrued seniority.

The only third party that really had a chance to be significant in American politics in the last century was George Wallace's 1968 party. If Humphrey had taken one or two more states like Ohio (sound familiar?), the election would have rested on the decision of Wallace's electors, and he would have had the chance to play Kingmaker.

James Michener, who was a Humphrey elector from Pennsylvania in 1968, actually wrote a short novel about the possibility in which a Wallace-like third party candidate actually manages to win the Presidency through some wild maneuvering in the House of Representatives.

gsabc wrote:

earendel wrote:The problem with a multi-party system is the chance of ending up like ... Italy, in which government is paralyzed because of shifting coalitions among parties.

How would we know the difference?

You stole my thunder.