Article beautifully sums up future of Dem Party debate

[katinmn]

by
Don Hazen, executive editor of AlterNet

exerpt:
If you are a progressive, a populist Democrat, someone who thinks moving the party to the center is a dead end in this political debate, then it may be time to step up and make yourself heard. Not doing so may very well leave the fate of the party in the hands of the “Democratic Establishment” – the consultants, lobbyists, and corporate-funded talking heads and spinners. As the debate for the “soul of the party” heats up, we may yet see a very different Democratic Party emerging from the ashes of 2004.

http://www.alternet.org/story/20922/

[Postmanx]

1. I think we would be much better off

drawing attention ot eh stolen election and the BFEE. That's where the votes are.

[madfloridian]

2. Here is a good description of the terminology at play by the DNC.

Kerrey is smart enough to know that Dean is not saying "go left". and the party is playing word games with our future.

SNIP.."''Which Howard Dean are we talking about?'' Kerrey asked. ''If we're talking about the Howard Dean who was governor of Vermont, I would say ‘Fine.’ But if it's presidential candidate Dean, I would say probably ‘No.’ The committee has got to figure out how to keep people like me in it. If he's firing people up and he's saying we've got to swing to the left – it's harder to swing along with him. And hell, I live in New York City. I don't live in Nebraska anymore.''

Bob Kerrey totally misuses the term.


SNIP..."What Kerrey sees as left-liberal, Dean sees as a wake-up call for the party not to go rightward. ''Here in Washington, it seems that after every losing election, there's a consensus reached among decision-makers in the Democratic Party that the way to win is to be more like Republicans,'' Dean said in his first major post-election address. “If we accept that philosophy this time around, another Democrat will be standing here in four years giving this same speech. We cannot win by being Republican-lite.''

[cosmicdot]

3. with stolen elections in 2000, 2002, 2004 ...

I just can't see how we/us/they/anyone can properly assess/analyze/diagnose, etc., 'the state of the party' based on the premise of "...after every losing election", when we didn't?

Everything is based on illegitimacy.

What is real? what is true? when it's all based on a lie?

To me the one thing we have to come to terms with is 'corporatism'.