Sarah at Corrente lays it out for us, "So Who DO We, The Democrats, Stand For? ":
Do we stand for working Americans? I do. I think Hillary Clinton does. I know John Edwards does.Well, good question: What do you stand for?
Do we stand for universal health care — including for adults? I do. I know John Edwards does.
Do we stand for Social Security? I do. I know John Edwards does and Hillary does. I don’t know about Obama.
Do we stand for ending the US’ invasions/occupations in the Middle East? Yes.
Do we stand for shutting down Gitmo? I do.
Do we stand for stopping torture? I do.
Do we stand for a sane policy on drugs, and an end to imprisonment of 6 out of every 10 young non-Anglo men? Yes.
Do we stand for equal rights for women? I do. I think women ought to make the same money for the same work as men; I think they ought to be able to work, vote, own property, run for President, wear comfortable clothes, and pursue happiness — whether or not that means carrying any particular pregnancy to term — the same as any man.
Do we stand for equal treatment under the law for every person? I do.
Do we stand for a sane immigration policy? Yes.
Do we stand for enforcing the laws protecting laborers and the environment? Yes.
Do we stand for humane treatment for POWs (recognition of their status as POWs regardless of their ’uniform’, too!)?
Do we stand for alternative energy, so the whims of ExxonMobil need not rule our worlds? I do.
What do YOU stand for?
Now, which Presidential candidate do you think stands for the same ideals? Why?
Personally, I'm standing for whatever'll keep these nuts - represented especially by the Carter-esque appeasing, political identity-touting, tree-hugging, Exxon-bashing Democrat who's about to win the nomination - as far from the Oval Office as possible.
There are some contradictions in this wish list, you might have noticed.
For example, why would one be worried about the "sane" treatment of (non-uniformed POW!) enemy combatants when we're going to end "the US’ invasions/occupations in the Middle East"?
I'd bet that should an administration come to power that yanks American forces from our deployments in the Midde East, it'll also release prisoners held at Guantanamo, either sending them back to Afghanistan and Iraq (to prepare new attacks against the United States) or it'll grant them full domestic due process rights, with judical trials in the American courts, affording them publically-financed legal representation.
Nothing to worry about, right? Nope, not at all. We'll just grant these folks domestic trials, release them on their own "personal recognizance," and they'll be back on the next flight to Damacus in no time, care of the kindest "immigrants' rights" group of the day!
But you've got to love the "whims of ExxonMobil"slur!
I'd be happy to give far-left advocates some respect, but the thinking of these folks makes so little sense in the context of real word political and market realities that it's practially futile.
I spoke previously of Barack Obama's proposal to levy a $15 windfall profits tax on big oil, but make sure you see the Wall Street Journal's editorial, which came out subsequently: "Windfall Profits for Dummies."