Some thing we can agreed to disagree because we are mostly unity. Let's see if are unified behind who we would toss of the Island and out of The Village. (I saw this as a most excellent question w/o poll on Sadly, No and had to bring it here. )

If you could kick one villager off the island who would it be? Now I am assuming that Judith Miller is, for all intents and purposes, off the island. So she is not here. And because alot of people did get furious at Olbermann I am including him, but I expect him to get few votes.

Ideally include a pointer with a comment on why your person deserves to be booted off the island. If you add a comment I will (assuming I can as I have never done so) edit the poll to include the Islander you most love to hate.

My heart and head both thank the Hillary Democrats who spent the last few months telling pollsters that they wouldn't vote for Obama -- only to switch directly after the primary!

HA ha, John McCain, jokes on you.

Yes, feel free to spend your money trying to woo pro-choice women. Won't work.

Maybe some other Obama supporter wants to care about people lying to the pollsters, but not me!  All's fair in the primary, and it sure made the GOP sweat!

Happily yours,

RisingTide

For many years I lived in Illinois, I never voted for a major party until 2004.  Illinois was never a swing state, and I was deeply committed to the necessity of introducing a third-party into our political system.  I voted for Kerry in 2004 simply to add to his popular vote margin, I knew my vote would not add anything to the electoral math, but if he lost, I at least wanted to potentially help open debate into the flaws of the electoral college system.

In 2005, I moved to Wisconsin, a major swing state.  I developed an emotional choice for a candidate very early on in the process (after Iowa and New Hampshire, when everything was wide open), and even toyed with the idea of not voting for any other candidate should they get nominated.*  I would simply go third party again.

But then I began to think a little more about why I actually cared enough to vote Democrat, in a non-swing state, in the 2004 election.  The ability of the executive branch to "guide" policy had twice affected me directly, and affected my family in even greater regard.  The Bush energy policy completely destroyed some major progress an Environmental Law firm I briefly worked for had made in combating energy pollution and encouraging green power production.  Later, as a high school teacher of 16-21 year old drop-outs, we saw our enrollment explode as "push-outs," kids with weak test scores and low reading and math levels, were bumped from the major public schools through No Child Left Behind.  In my family, I have one brother and a brother-in-law who both served two tours, one of which was through stop-loss.  Both thankfully came home to their very concerned, exhausted and rightfully anxious families.

These anecdotal experiences reminded me of how many spheres of daily life are influenced by the ability of the executive branch to "guide" policy, both internationally and in the domestically.  Here's a quick rundown of the cabinet for those needing a refresher (I sure did):

Secretary of Homeland Security
Secretary of Veteran Affairs
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Interior
Secretary of Defense
Secretary of Treasury
Secretary of State
Attorney General

These are all the spheres of daily life in which the executive branch has direct ability to re-formulate, re-interpret, and guide the path of the United States and its citizens.  This does not even include the 6,000 federal appointments a president is allowed to make before taking office and the potential 8,000 more positions which may be filled during his tenure, these include such positions as the heads of agencies, such as the FBI, CDC, and EPA.  Each of these positions have their own, distinct, powers and abilities to alter the course of policy, enforcement, standards, and daily life/existence, sometimes WITHOUT any major changes to legislation or the rules of the land.  Everything from Caribou migration maps to information on condoms has been affected by the "guidance" of the executive branch, and it is important to remember the subtle ways power is exercised even outside of the major and visible ideological battlegrounds such as the war, reproductive rights, or environment.

I have not even mentioned the more obvious powers.  The ability to choose ambassadors, judges in federal court system.  Nor have I mentioned the major role of the president in creating Foreign Policy and his sole ability to engage in ANY kind of treaty negotiation, including global commitments to energy, food, poverty, AIDS, etc.  This reflection of mine didn't even, at the time, include what I consider my larger responsibilities to my community, society, and planet.

My realization, in effect, was that my decision to vote or not vote for a particular democrat would have a ripple effect, again, throughout different and potentially unanticipated aspects of my and my family's life.  I don't necessarily like the all the platforms of any democrat, and I certainly think they are just as vulnerable to idiocy, corruption and false populism as the republicans, but I have also learned that I will likely be affected by the decisions of any president.  As much as I am loathe to be caught in the lesser-evil dichotomy which this political system has produced, it is nonetheless where I find myself.  The US system is truly a "with-us-or-against-us" system, a non-vote or third party vote is just as useful to the enemies of my principles as my voting directly for them.

Effectively, in a system I find heavily flawed, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  This is as close to partisanship as I think I will even come.  I certainly don't like this circumstance, and I constantly wish our system provide for more political voice, but I also won't ignore this reality of governmentality or play into its calculations.

*Just to get speculation out of the way, I decided to support Obama, who I and my high school students had met during his 2004 Senate run against Alan Keyes, and who I have grown to respect for my own reasons over these last 5 years.  This debate which I had, mostly with my wife and in my own head, occurred in February before Super Tuesday, I simply found some parallels with much of the current rhetoric about "what I will do if..." and thought I'd rely my own experience with the same question.  Post is cross-listed on Kos.

...starts here:

I will not, under any circumstances, vote for CANDIDATE X in the general election. I don't care if CANDIDATE X is nominated as the democrat. I'll sit on my hands. I'll vote green party. I'll stick my fingers in my ears and sing Ride of the Valkyries. CANDIDATE X will never be an option for me.

You can leave now, can quit arguing and commenting and writing diaries and handing out recommends because you have become as useful to this webiste as the rotary phone.

Now...

In a long campaign season it makes sense that many voters would change their minds after they had a chance to cast their votes. New information arises that causes voters who cat their ballots months ago to reappraise their decision and think through how they'd do it this time if they could vote all over again. And while voters don't get a second chance in a primary, the superdelegates were designed to capture that buyer's remorse and correct a ship set on a wrong course.

Recently, the Supreme Court approved the Indiana law which required a valid and current government-issued identification in order to vote.  Today, we're seeing the results of that decision, as 12 nuns were denied the right to vote.  

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gRN59 j2QQCVZYwfdLSokUeN1K9hQD90GBCNO0

As the article notes, the nuns were all old, none of them drove, and although some of them brought passports none of the passports were current.  

Last week, 21st Century Democrats held its 13th annual Signature Gala in Washington, DC. At the event, we launched our new 21st Century Leaders In Action program, which provides support and recognition to a network of leaders who share ideas and collaborate to implement bold progressive policies.  Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin and Arizona State Representative Kyrsten Sinema were the first progressive standouts to be included in what will be a constantly expanding network of leaders from around the country.

The awardees in attendance spoke about a number of important issues facing our county, but I was struck by their focus and passion regarding voter participation and electoral reform. Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin (District 20) started the ball rolling with a discussion about the importance of protecting voter's rights and encouraging civic participation - video here. He described two laws he has passed since being elected to the State Senate in 2006. The first was an interstate compact that would create a direct popular election for President and the second gave 17 year olds the right to vote in primary elections if they turn 18 by the general election. These kinds of electoral reforms strengthen our democracy by making every vote count and brining new voters into the political process.

Next up was Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, who has done a great job cleaning up the mess left by her Republican predecessor, Ken Blackwell. At the gala, she reiterated her commitment to ensuring that every vote is counted through the use of back-up paper ballots and post-election audits. Secretary Brunner also discussed the State's new Voting Rights Institute that does outreach to voters and operates important programs aimed at engaging more Ohioans in electoral politics. Watch the video here.

Finally, Congressman Ellison (MN-5) took the stage and forcefully articulated the injustice of the recent Supreme Court decision allowing Indiana to infringe upon Americans' constitutionally guaranteed right to vote by requiring photo IDs. He called out this back-door poll tax for what it is: a Republican scheme to disenfranchise students, minorities, the elderly and the poor. Thankfully, dedicated progressives like Keith Ellison are standing up against these Jim Crow era laws. He recently proposed legislation that would ban photo ID requirements to vote and last week introduced a bill to allow same-day registration in all federal elections. Check out video of his speech.

The struggle to protect the right to vote demonstrates why we must elect more progressives like Secretary of State Brunner, Congressman Ellison, and State Senator Raskin to office. We are searching for new 21st Century Leaders In Action across the country to include in our network.  If you know someone who is making big strides towards achieving a progressive vision for America, please tell us about them either in the comments or by contacting us directly.

I implore all of you who have made up their minds to rethink their position and look at the reality of what is really happening to our country.  Let's look at the situation with a little clarity and bit more logic then we have been doing, let's take the emotion out of the equation and move toward rational thought and action.

Of the three candidates, not one is without serious issues.  Not one has a clear mandate to lead our country.  Beyond the simple Democrat or Republican issue, which of the three is really situated to be a true leader?  Is McCain the man of the hour, the person ready to take the reigns and guide us in a new direction?  Is Hillary the woman that we should be clamoring to support?  Or is Obama the great hope for America?  The answer is NO.  Not one of these self proclaimed saviors fits the bill of even a lack luster leader.  Why are we so anxious to elect the most mediocre and the least prepared?

A true leader brings the people together and creates common ground while caressing the differences toward his or hers ideals and goals.  The three we have to choose from are all reactionary in their approaches and offer nothing in the way of leadership.  There is no vision, there is no honesty and there is no integrity.  The blame for this falls directly on our shoulders and our inability to stand up for what is best for us.  We would rather associate with the average perhaps it makes us feel superior.  But with the average comes the mediocre and with the mediocre comes the inability to move beyond with creative and effective solutions.  

We need to be searching and promoting a LEADER not just someone who wants the Job.  Hell I want the Job, but that does not qualify me to lead.  I'm so tired of the excuses of so many that promote Hillary or Obama or McCain with the empty platitudes of change.  Nothing will change with these three; nothing will be accomplished but a continuation of the same.  Perhaps it is time for a third party option but then again only if that option contains a "real" leader, someone who most Americans can support.