If you're a socialist then Bill Richardson belongs at the bottom of your list. He's very conservative democrat, who throws around his pro business credentials around proudly.

Just an FYI

I just luv the hypocrisy.  Its amazing.  You are one of the most insulting of those who support Hillary - but just like many....you whine and cry about how mean those horrible Clinton supporters are....Unions representng 6 million workers support her, but you say progressives dont support her...what a crock!
its not worth even bothering with such bs coming from your type....

enjoy your new life in Venezuela.

For a guy who ran from issues like UHC and gays in the military  Bill Clinton took a lot of damage advocating for them.

Seems to me you are doing two things: being too hard on the progressive politicians who accomplish anything, like Clinton and Dodd, and being way too easy on "progressive" politicians who talk big but are completely ineffective, like Kucinich.

None of our candidates are "evils", they are all flawed but progressive politicians. Al Gore is an interesting example, I suspect that if you were deciding on a candidate in 2000 you would think Gore an "evil", but in fact Gore is promoting the same policies now he promoted in 2000. And if he were running now you would classify him with the rest of the field.

Vote for the candidate you think would be the best president, Edwards is a fine choice.

I've recommended this diary.

There are a number of areas where I sympathize with you. I find the Democratic primary field to be unimpressive (I was a "Draft Feingold" person from 2004 until he decided not to run). I've also found the conduct of some of my fellow posters here at MyDD during this campaign to be rather disgusting. If it was based solely on the behavior of their supporters here, I would NEVER vote for Senators Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. Like you, I believe that our country is in a pretty sorry, scary state. And I definitely understand the appeal of not wanting to vote for the lesser of two evils...in fact, I acted on that desire in 2000, when I voted for Ralph Nader.

And perhaps because I have the experience of voting for Mr. Nader and then watching the country and the world descend to levels of hell that I, in my 19 year-old child of the '90s naivete, never imagined possible in 2000 that has made me convinced that no matter how uninspiring,  overly ambitious, overly moderate or unelectable I find the Democrat's 2008 nominee to be I am going to work my ass off to make sure they get elected.

You say that you think our country is in the most jeopardy it has been in in a long while, and I agree. However, I strongly disagree with your response: while I'd be happy if we could have bold change, I'll be glad to settle for baby steps, as long as they are baby steps in the right direction. To use a cheesy analogy: I think of the United States as being in the bottom of a big hole  that President Bush has dug; and at least I believe that all the Democrats, no matter what else I think about them, will stop digging and will start climbing out of the hole. And that's good enough for now.

If there is one issue that, for me, rules out all   options besides voting for the Democratic nominee, its the Supreme Court. In 2000 I thought, like probably too many people think, that the Supreme Court was just a code word for abortion and other "cultural issues". I'll always be thankful for my first year Constitutional Law class for setting me straight about that (and also for giving me my highest grade in law school). To put it simply, the goal of the Federalist Society and their Scalia clones isn't to repeal Roe v. Wade...it's to repeal the 20th Century. Not just FDR's New Deal, but TR's Square Deal too.

So, for me it pretty much comes down to this: unless you can prove that John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Gisburg are immortal, there is no excuse for not voting for the Democratic nominee in 2008. (And yes, I know Justice Stevens and Justice Souter are good justices appointed by Republicans; but if you think a Republican president would appoint anyone who isn't a proven "strict constructionist" movement conservative...well ask Harriet Miers about that).

Of course, if you really decide to move to Central America, I suppose the U.S. Supreme Court won't matter to you. But what the U.S. does still will matter; unfortunately no one can escape America's mistakes just by escaping America. We are just too damn big and powerful. I am certain that whoever the Democrats nominate will use America's power and  address problems here and abroad more wisely than any of the Republicans. I won't agree with everything they do, maybe I'd even back a liberal primary challenger to our Democratic president in 2012...but that is thinking too far ahead. First, the Democratic nominee has to win in 2008...because I don't even want to imagine what will happen if they don't.  

Supreme Court.

Even the worst in our field would not appoint more Alitos to the court. The worst we would get would be corporate-friendly pro-choice moderates a la Breyer, and he's not bad.

The best in the Republican field would appoint two or three more Alitos.

John Paul Stevens probably can't serve another four years on the court.

So be a yellow dog Democrat.

Good post man. I like how u explained ow u came 2 the point 2 where u are with nthis whole thing.

I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils ever again.  At this point in my life I would rather move to a Latin American country where the Dollar is still worth something, buy some property and live my life in peace and tranquility and not worrying about who my country is fucking over today.

If you do decide to leave, if I could ask you to do one favor for us before you go, it would be this: please vote for the Democratic candidate for president. Because, no matter who is on the Dem ticket, and who is on the GOP ticket, here is the difference between them: when given the choice between taking a progressive position and taking a conservative position on some issue, the Democrat will choose the progressive position MORE OFTEN than the Republican will. That's really the basic difference between the two parties, but it's a hugely important difference.

Progress in our country never happens overnight. It happens over time. We take two steps forward, and one step back. But over the years, over the decades, the party that has been generally trying and often succeeding to push the ball forward, is the Democratic Party, and the party that has been generally trying and sometimes succeeding in pushing the ball backward, is the Republican Party.

So what's the result over time?  There are very measurable differences between what tends to happen in America when we elect presidents from the party that favors progressivism compared to when we elect presidents from the party that favors conservatism.

Consider poverty in America, for example. (See this page on my website.) On average each year under Republican presidents, the number of Americans living below the poverty line GOES UP over 400,000.  On average each year under Democratic presidents, the number of Americans living below the poverty line GOES DOWN by over 800,000.

Please consider those numbers. They represent real people.  Lots of real people.

So whether you decide to stay in America or leave, please vote Democratic.

I understand your frustration, believe me. However, maybe you should try to see things from another perspective.  Pretend for a moment that you are a Clinton supporter.  You're already at a disadvantage in Left Blogistan because your candidate isn't terribly popular among this group.  It seems that every blog you try to make home has a large number of people who love nothing better than the blame the evils of the world on Hillary Clinton. You;re constantly reading that she's Bush-Cheney lite, she's corporatist, she's corrupt, she's a neocon, etc.  Now, all of things are untrue, but it doesn't matter how many times you cite her words and actions (like her voting record) to try to make the point, it doesn't go away. If anything, the contrary voices ignore any substance you give them and carry on with their mission.

I say this because I respect your commitment to share your thoughts, but you haven't exactly been open minded about Clinton.  You have a record of exactly the kind of bashing I described above.

I understand that you want change, and so does every one here.  We disagree about how to get it.  I don't support Obama because  I really believe that his approach of bipartisan harmony is a pipe dream and he isn't experienced enough in Washington to see that. That concerns me. The Republicans aren't going to suddenly decide to work with him because he's charming.  They'll do everything in their power to destroy him, just as they did with Bill Clinton.  If he's the nominee, he'd certainly get my vote and my money, but that's why we have primaries.

I don't support Edwards because I am very suspicious of his ideological shift from center-right to lefty left. It happened on a number of issues almost overnight, and it seems quite clear to me that he is the one candidate in this race who is most willing to say whatever he needs to say to get elected. I like him more than I did 6 months ago since he's turned off his anti-Hillary tirade, but I am still quite wary.

I could easily support Biden or Dodd, since I think they both have huge piles of experience and they have progressive ideals.  They're both very smart and they know Washington, which makes it easier to get things done.

However, my choice is Hillary Clinton.  She is a progressive, and her voting record shows that. She's not a corporatist, and her voting record shows that.  She understands Washington in a way that Obama and Edwards simply can't match.  She's smart enough to know that we have exactly zero chance of getting to single payer health care in the next 4 years, so she (and Edwards) propose a plan to get there incrementally.  I don;t buy the idea that we should either go for single payer this very minute or not bother.  It's difficult to get a country as large and diverse as this to make such huge changes, no matter how good the idea is, and I'm OK with small steps.

Obama and Edwards both argue that change has to come from the outside, and I find that argument to be fundamentally flawed. An agent of change is one who wishes simply to change the status quo.  That doesn't mean you have to be from outside Washington to know there are problems that need to be fixed.  Rather, I would argue that the most successful change agent is one who knows the system well, but has the desire, knowledge, experience and drive to fix it. It's very easy to point out the flaws in something, buts it's much more difficult to actually do something about it.

Obama can't do it because he thinks the Republicans are going to help him.  Edwards can't do it because he doesn't know how, and I'm still not convinced he won't change his mind again once he gets elected. Hillary Clinton can get it done because she knows when to bulldoze over the Republicans and when she needs their help. We can drive over them on the minimum wage, but not on social security.

I have absolutely no doubt that any of our candidates are far more than the lesser of two evils.  There are enormous differences between our guys and the right wing nut jobs like Romney and Huckabee. If you can't see that, then I don;t know what to tell you. The gulf between Democrats and Republicans is wide and deep, and we must elect a Democrat president in November.

I mean those are great places... I love Buenos Aires

I think you've tied yourself in quite a few knots (if your diary is sincere).  I will respond to 2 of your points.

I don't want to vote for Clinton or Obama because I truly believe that Americans are NOT evolved enough to elect either a woman or a  Black man as our President.

Then you have just played into the hands of sexists and racists who want you to think this.  For us to overcome these prejudices, sooner or later people will have to take a chance and vote for who they perceive to be the best candidate on merit, period.

I don't want to vote for Obama or Biden because I frankly don't see either of them being strong enough to escape the "bipartisan" mantra of the campaign.

You have misunderstood the nature of Obama's style.  Please see the Mark Schmitt article, The Theory of Change:

What I find most interesting about Obama's approach to bipartisanship is how seriously he takes conservatism. As Michael Tomasky describes it in his review of The Audacity of Hope, "The chapters boil down to a pattern: here's what the right believes about subject X, and here's what the left believes; and while I basically side with the left, I think the right has a point or two that we should consider, and the left can sometimes get a little carried away." What I find fascinating about his language about unity and cross-partisanship is that it is not premised on finding Republicans who agree with him, but on taking in good faith the language and positions of actual conservatism -- people who don't agree with him. That's very different from the longed-for consensus of the Washington Post editorial page.

The reason the conservative power structure has been so dangerous, and is especially dangerous in opposition, is that it can operate almost entirely on bad faith. It thrives on protest, complaint, fear: higher taxes, you won't be able to choose your doctor, liberals coddle terrorists, etc. One way to deal with that kind of bad-faith opposition is to draw the person in, treat them as if they were operating in good faith, and draw them into a conversation about how they actually would solve the problem. If they have nothing, it shows. And that's not a tactic of bipartisan Washington idealists -- it's a hard-nosed tactic of community organizers, who are acutely aware of power and conflict.

If it doesn't work out I recommend northern Thailand as an alternative to South America.

Seriously, I think it is a stretch to reference the "Naderites" in this context.  Clinton and Obama have much more support than Nader ever did.

I also think there is too much blame directed toward Nader supporters.  I think Gore lost his chance by running a poor campaign.  

Also in terms of the racism thing, I think it is true that most racists are in the Repub camp and wouldn't vote Dem in the GE anyway.  As you see Obama is pulling interesting numbers from Repubs and independents and that arguable eliminates that as an issue.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays