Why we're urging that people support Dennis or Al.

[Mairead]

It's not because we think the others are monsters. Of course they're not monsters, they're just people who think the status quo is basically fine. They're people like Clinton. Clinton's policies were wonderful on the surface--lots of jobs! But the net effect was to give the wealthy elites time to plan how to move the jobs offshore. Which is what they did. So Clinton's 'boom' was a smokescreen--it gave us temporary prosperity, but now we're worse off than during Reagan's time.

Dennis and Al are the only ones offering anything resembling real change. The other guys truly aren't. You might think they are, but look more closely at what they've said and done and are saying now. If you see something that makes you feel uncomfortable about your favored candidate, don't let your 'I need to believe in this guy' denial circuits click in, because if you do then you're not really supporting him, you're supporting an illusion. Do your best to see what's really there. Make your choice based on what's really there, not on some idealised image, not on glitz, image, excitement, spin, or propaganda.

Here's one example. Dean and Dennis both favor universal healthcare (Dean's plan really doesn't, but let that go for the moment) and moving from a criminal model to a public-health model in dealing with drug abuse. So they're equivalent, right? Well, not really.

If the drug-abuse model is changed, the money that formerly went into the pockets of the wealthy via the prison-industrial complex will now go into healthcare instead, right?

But Dean's healthcare plan is for-profit, which means, since 85% of all profit goes into the pockets of the wealthiest 10%, that he's simply planning to use a different funnel--the healthcare funnel instead of the prison funnel. There will be some temporary benefit (people will certainly enjoy not being imprisoned!), but wealth will continue to concentrate. Different funnel, same pockets. Which means our situation will continue to deteriorate and we will all move closer to the cardboard box in the vacant lot. Except that poverty is being criminalised, too, so instead of some people being imprisoned for drug use, more of us will be imprisoned for being poor.

Dennis's healthcare plan, in contrast, is non-profit. So instead of 'different funnel, same pockets', the money will stay in our pockets. The rate of wealth concentration will be reduced, and our situation will improve. People will not be imprisoned for drug use, and more and more people will avoid the cardboard box.

When we back the demonstrably best candidate, more of the control over the eventual outcome lies in our hands rather than in the hands of chance. When we don't, we are voluntarily surrendering our power for the sake of keeping our illusions.

This post was prompted by Ductape Fatwa's superb series of essays, the first several of which can be read here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=582245&mesg_id=582245

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=582475

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=582720

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=583418

These are the best essays I've read at DU, and that's not to take away anything from other outstanding essays I've seen. But these top those, imo. I found these to have the same mordant bite that Nickel and Dimed delivered. But the impact of these is more concentrated. They gave me flashbacks.

For your best and arguably only chance of avoiding the world Ductape describes so well, vote for Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton.

[maha]

1. This is why I have no respect for Kucinich supporters.

"Of course they're not monsters, they're just people who think the status quo is basically fine."

Gag.

And by Al, you mean Al SHARPTON? Do you know ANYTHING about AL SHARPTON?

What planet do you people live on?

[Mairead]

9. "This is why"

Believe me, Barbara, based on your posts to DU so far, if you ever find yourself in agreement with me, my first reaction will be to re-read what I wrote to see what I've bungled. I'm really not worried about respect from people with your frame of reference.

[maha]

13. The feeling is mutual.

My frame of reference, as in "informed"? As in, "not oversimplified"?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. check out the arrogance of your posts maha

This wasn't even a candidate bashing thread, it was a pro-Kucinich and pro-Sharpton thread, and you took the opportunity to repeat every right-wing talking point about liberals imaginable:

1. "What planet are you from?"
2. "Not realistic"
3. "Oversimplified"

[Hep]

17. Wasn't a candidate bashing thread?

Dean's not really for universal healthcare?

What post did you read?

[Mairead]

56. Has Dean changed his stance again?

The last time I checked, his plan would leave 10M people out in the cold. Has that changed?

[Hep]

249. I'll just take your word for it

since apparently showing evidence and citing sources is out of style.

And of course in saying what you just said, you're asserting that under NO circumstance would ANYONE EVER be denied health care under Kucinich's plan, which will definitely pass AS IS with NO COMPROMISE if he becomes president?

Surely you can participate in a debate and bring more to the table than that post.

[Mairead]

294. Yes, why don't you do that

Or you could do what I did: look at his issues page.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

32. You can't teach without being willing to learn, maha

"But the truth is, I don't have the time or strength to deal with a colossal level of ignorance such as yours."

Really maha? Tell me how colossal my ignorance is. What claims have I made that demonstrate a colossal level of ignorance?

"I don't have time to present the background in history and economics that might give you a clue why I have no respect for your opinions."

And those opinions would be?

"If you are SO clueless that you take Al Sharpton seriously as a candidate, frankly, there is no hope for you."

I don't believe for one second that Al Sharpton can win the nomination nor the general election. Yet he could get my vote. That's a different voting strategy than "find the one that can beat Bush" or "find the mainstream candidate that most closely supports my views" or the ever popular "vote for the one that looks best on TV".

"If you have any interest in LEARNING about why that is true, let me know."

I'm interested in learning about you and why you seem to hate progressives so much ... let me know, okay?

[maha]

91. I AM a progressive.

So, I can't very well hate progressives.

Going back many, many years, I have (in no particular order):

1. Wanted single-payer, universal health care
2. Supported progressive income tax
3. Opposed stupid military adventures such as Vietnam, Lebanon, and Iraq. I am old enough to be an old anti-Vietnam protester.
4. I supported reproductive choice for women since before Roe v. Wade was decided.
5. I have support affirmative action and the protection of civil rights for all people since the bleeping KENNEDY administration.
6. Support oversight of big corporations to reduce their political power and stop them from stripping the wealth of America and putting it into the hands of a wealthy oligarchy.

That's just for starters.

So tell me again why I HATE progressives? If I'm not a progressive, I will eat my pantyhose.

In fact, I am not only a progressive, I am a LIBERAL!!!!! Love that "L" word.

[Mairead]

236. And I am Marie of Roumania

[Hep]

242. I'm a bit disappointed

Are you saying that she doesn't believe what she says she believes, or are you saying that's not good enough to be called progressive?

[ThirdWheelLegend]

250. Hmmm, the former?

And after this huge thread and reading through the responses...

I am Third of ThirdEyeBlind. (sorry thats as good as I could come up with on short notice :P)

TWL

[maha]

290. Peace

I found some articles about Dennis Kucinich from his days as mayor of Cleveland, from Cleveland magazine. You might enjoy them. Here's the archive:

http://www.clevelandmagazine.com/editorial/thismonth_features.asp?docid=361

[RichM]

33. Slight correction to your text - You write, "I don't have the time to

present the background in history and economics to...."

Clearly, you meant to say, "I don't have the background in history and economics to...."

[maha]

38. Yeah, I love those gratuitous insults.

Bring 'em on.

[JVS]

205. You reap what you sow

[maha]

228. But I don't mind.

For ONCE I'd like to see the Kucinich supporters promote their guy without smearing the other candidates. THEN I might be impressed.

[juajen]

263. I resent that remark

I believe the Kucinich supporters have been the nicest on this forum when it comes to gutting candidates. It is only reasonable to point out the differences in the candidates. You just don't like it when it's your candidate? I'm assuming that Dean is your candidate because your reaction is typical of a Dean supporter. I will work for Dean if he is nominated, but until then, it's Clark and Kucinich, and I'm still not sure of that order.

[Ardee]

284. but your first post on this thread:

1. This is why I have no respect for Kucinich supporters.


"Of course they're not monsters, they're just people who think the status quo is basically fine."

Gag.

And by Al, you mean Al SHARPTON? Do you know ANYTHING about AL SHARPTON?

What planet do you people live on?



...was insulting and gratuitous while subsequent posts claimed the high road for yourself and accused others of taking a low road that you first trod.....was gibt? I see this repeatedly here at DU and elsewhere, ones own insults to others doesnt register with oneself while the slightest provocation from one who disagrees becomes fodder for the usual mantra, "you folks are always insulting, why cant everyone be like me?"...........I know because Im as acerbic as they come.

[RichM]

30. Do you seriously not understand what Mairead is saying here?

What you single out for your "gag" is simply the statement that of all 9 Dem candidates, DK & AS are the only ones interested in fundamental change. Every sentient observer agrees that these 2 stand furthest to the left of all 9; by definition of "furthest left," this amounts to pretty much the same observation.

The statement could be reworded without changing its meaning, to this: "The other 7 candidates are more centrist & moderate." What is it about such a modest claim that would make you imagine you'd located something particularly egregious?

Not only does the statement not deserve a "gag;" it's not even controversial.

[Padraig18]

35. Its' evident that DK and AS are the furthest left, RichM.

What grates on so many people who are not that far left is the underlying assumption among many of their supporters that those two are (somehow) the only 'truly' Democratic candidates. I won't go negative, or call anyone out, but it's there and it's said or implied here repeatedly, and on a daily basis.

What some of the rest of us want to know is what makes it *their* party, and not *ours*?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

44. "Democratic wing of the Democratic party"

Would it be better if we said that Kucinich and Sharpton were from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, and everyone else presumable was from the non-Democratic wing?

[Padraig18]

47. Thank you.

You have illustrated my point better than I ever could have. You get today's "A for Arrogance" award. Sunday will be the "C for Condescending" award; will you also be competing for it? :eyes:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

65. is anyone reading the posts on this thread?

There was a mild criticism of Dean's health care plan in the parent post, and then a flood of anti-Kucinich people telling us we are arrogant, stupid, ignorant, and everything else. As far as I can tell, there haven't been *any* insults directed at the anti-Kucinich people here.

I point out that it was Dean, personally, who started attacking everyone else as "Bush Lite" but *I'm* the one who's arrogant and condescending for point this out?

It's like the Freepers who hate half of America then call liberals "anti-American" - is every mirror in your house broken?

[Padraig18]

68. I didn't post those things

I do, however, stand by my assertion. Can you understand at all how incredibly insulting it is to tell many lifelong Democrats that they aren't 'real' Democrats? Both the subtle AND unsubtle condescension on the part of *many* DK supporters is extremely galling.

[Mairead]

79. Padraig, you posted a pointer to some voter-survey results.

Did you ever actually look at any of the data? Specifically, did you look at the 'conservatism index'? If you didn't, please do so. Note specifically the values for the two years at each end of the period surveyed. Do you remember asserting to me that the Party has 'changed' as a justification for the difference between your attitudes and, say, mine? What do those 'conservatism index' numbers tell you about that?

[Padraig18]

98. Actually...

... I took more note of the steadily decreasing numbers of self-identified 'liberals'.

[Mairead]

153. No doubt. It's the only one that tells you what you want to believe.

Try the 'conservatism index'.

[Padraig18]

275. Your point?

Mine is the shrinking liberal base.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

117. Ask Dean if he understands that!

It wasn't Kucinich, nor his fans, who started the GOP-Lite mantra. But hey, I'll do it for him - the Democratic party is filled with GOP-Lite, near Republican, "socially liberal, economically conservative" Democrats in Name Only who have whored themselves our for corporate money for a long time.

Extremely galling? You bet it is. Keep it up Democrats, and Nader will run again and get 3%, enough to do some damage.

Actually, forget Nader. Democrats can't win trying to out-whore the Republicans when it comes to sucking up to the rich and powerful. Keep telling the working class that our problems are the lack of gay marriage and wars started by Republicans (Democratic wars are fine) and all we need is more "free market" solutions like outsourcing and corporate tax breaks. You will inspire yet ANOTHER generation of working middle class people to stay home and watch TV on election day.

Nothing I could ever do or say would damage the Democratic party more than "realistic" educated upper class liberals who will lecture us about economics.

When you start reading reports about how people are voting for Bush because he "wants to save jobs from outsourcing" and that the Democrats are big NAFTA supporters, I'd laugh at the idiocy of Democrats for losing yet another issue they could beat Republicans on, if it wasn't so sad.

[Padraig18]

121. And that is responsive to a post I made here how, exactly? n/t

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

131. I'm sorry, did you not read your own post?

This is what it said:

"I do, however, stand by my assertion. Can you understand at all how incredibly insulting it is to tell many lifelong Democrats that they aren't 'real' Democrats? Both the subtle AND unsubtle condescension on the part of *many* DK supporters is extremely galling."

I understand how insulting it is to tell lifelong Democrats that they aren't "real" Democrats, and suggested that that question should be asked of Dean, who has been doing that, as opposed to me, some random stranger on the internet.

Then, I decided to go ahead and show some unsubtle condescension for the views of typical anti-Kucinich Democrats, to compliment your imagined "sublte" condescension.

Do you understand now?

[Padraig18]

133. It wasn't clear.

you started off about "Dean', and *I* am not Dean; it would have helped if you had indicated that we were turning the page.

Understand *me* now?

[DrGonzoLives]

137. Ahhh yes

The "Only my candidate is the real Democrat!" argument. Aren't people getting tired of this yet?

[Hep]

45. Dean on Leno

He was talking about being at the republican national convention when he was 14. It was the year that the right wing took over the republican party. Since before 2000 the left wing has been trying to either destroy or take over the D party. We have to be aware of it in order to fight it.

[no name no slogan]

64. You must be kidding?

How could you even say something like this with a straight face?
Since before 2000 the left wing has been trying to either destroy or take over the D party.

FYI, for 3/4 of the 20th century, the Democratic Party was the LIBERAL, left-wing party of FDR, JFK and LBJ. The Repubs were the CONSERVATIVE, right-wing party of Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

Starting with Dukakis in 1988, the "moderate" Dems, led by the DLC and their big-money corporate backers, have steadily moved this once liberal party to the RIGHT. So far right, in fact, that many of Nixon's positions in 1972 are downright "liberal" compared to those of the five so-called "front runners".

Ever since the DLC has effectively taken over the party, we've faced defeat after defeat. Yes, Clinton was elected president TWICE, yet never won a majority of the 51% of the population who even bothered to vote.

We've seen further declines in the number of Democratic House members, senators, governors and even state legislators. This party has repeatedly sold out its base supporters with "welfare reform", "free trade" and the like.

This party is not being "destroyed" by a bunch of broke-ass tree-hugging ex-hippies-- it's being destroyed by its "leaders" who don't seem to think that the Democratic Party's core constituency is worth a damn anymore.

:nuke: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :nuke:

[Hep]

106. You were here in 2000

Did you not know that Nader's goal was to destroy the D party?

[JVS]

208. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of Repub-lite!

Great! :eyes:

[Hep]

Yes

The issue is just that simple. Nothing more to it than that. There's either the far left or republican lite. No grey area at all.

And the world is flat, too!

[maha]

46. There's "left," and there's "stupid"

I respect "left." I have no problems at all with "left." It's "stupid" that bothers me.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

50. what were you saying about "gratuitous insults" maha?

:)

[maha]

54. Bring 'em on, I said.

And be grateful I'm not saying what I REALLY think of you.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

57. feel free, maha

seriously. I certainly don't respect your views, and from what I remember about your posts over the last few months, I consider your views to be GOP-Lite at best, and your personality to be grating.

Your ONE AND ONLY point is that Kucinich won't win the primary, and I agree with you. But over and over you are calling people stupid, ignorant, and other insults. What is your point?

Some of us plan to vote for Kucinich in the primary, and for whoever wins the primary in the general election. Why is this stupid or bad?

Do you have any legitimate criticism, or would you rather just tell us how smart you are, but you just don't have the time or energy to school us on the economics that we are woefully ignorant of.

Anything?

[maha]

83. HEY PEOPLE! This clown called ME GOP-lite!

Is this a hoot, or what?

OK, here are some random thoughts about Dennis Kucnish and why he doesn't impress me:

IMO, in the event that pigs fly and Dennis Kucnich becomes President, he would be a dreadfully bad Presdident. And I say this because his "ideas," such as they are, are more utopian than practical. People who are hung up on absolutes and purity do not effective politicians make.

Real governing and real politics are messy things that require compromise and lots of process. Dennis seems to be real good at expressing a broad goal (e.g., get out of Iraq) but he seems to have no clue about the process part. The devil IS in the details, and it's perilous to pretend there are no details. (Handing it over to the UN is not a "detail." It's a goal.)

A great deal of the criticism of Kucinich supporters toward other Democrats (assuming Kucinich IS a Dem) is that they aren't pure enough. Sometimes those other people made compromises. Not everything they promised was accomplished. But pure and noble Dennis will accomplish everything he talks about. Yeah, right.

I'd be the first one to say I'd like to see fewer compromises and and more accomplishments, but if sweet little Dennis were to find himself in the Oval Office, the Repugs would eat him alive. He'd be a lamb to the slaughter. For all his flaws, Clinton is a masterful politician who was remarkably effective as President given what he had to deal with -- the VRWC. Dennis isn't even close to being in the same league.

We don't need candidates who are ideologically pure. We need candidates who are damn tough hombres who know how to take the fight to the Repugs and shove it down their throats. But at the same time, a Dem president with a GOP congress who isn't willing to work WITH Congress will find himself marginalized faster than you can say "override." The Constitution gives very little real power to the President, and a majority in Congress can ignore a weak President and do whatever they like -- it's happened before.

Regarding economics -- I tend to defer to Paul Krugman on all things economic. If you are a REAL progressive, and not a Marxist in sheep's clothing, you are of course very familiar with Krugman, yes? Do I need to say more?

If you have a particular, well-defined issue you want to discuss, I'm happy to discuss it. "What was right or wrong with Clinton's economic policies" is too broad, and I don't have time.

Seriously, if you want to know what I think, I have tons of stuff on the web you can access freely.

My blog:

http://www.mahablog.com

A timeline that reveals much:

http://mahabarbara.tripod.com/mahachronicles/index.html

Portfolio of articles:

http://www.mediabistro.com/homepages/default.asp?user_id=129881

[Desertrose]

94. Gosh maha.........

are you self appointed as the "great" one or did I miss that bright light coming down from the sky declaring your word as the ultimate truth in how to be a Dem??

You seem full of words and arrogance...can't say I see anything in all your posting that makes me want to get past all that.....but you'll flick me out of your "great" mind because I don't agree to bow to your magnificent wisdom and...oh yeah, I support Dennis Kucinich- so right there I am rendered stupid uninformed and therefore not worth even having an opinion...

well..OK...whatever works for ya...... lots of folks have lots of words of wisdom and their own blog and even lots of other folks agreeing with them...doesn't make any of us right or wrong...just human...what makes us more than that is having heart & compassion for those around us....

Peace
DR

[maha]

95. Can you express ONE thing about Kucnich

... that makes him superior to the other candiates? Just ONE thing, and we'll discuss it. Not a bunch of sweeping, generalized stuff, but ONE specific thing.

[Desertrose]

103. OK, I see this as a big one....

He is not taking corporate donations-now I know this limits his political effectiveness in the way the game is played unfortunately. But it also leaves him way less vulnerable when the time comes that he takes office.

His healthcare plan is by far IMHO- the best...to remove the excessive profit motive from so many companies & corps is another.

He follows his conscience that well, believe it or not.....echoes many of the things I find vital to change this world...but even more than that...they are things necessary to live well & true in this world.

Do we need to discuss this? This is not the first time I have looked into these things....you can add what you like (and I'm sure you will) but I absolutely have to get something finished in my studio before people come to pick up their art.:)

Peace
DR

[maha]

128. Those are three things.

"He is not taking corporate donations-now I know this limits his political effectiveness in the way the game is played unfortunately. But it also leaves him way less vulnerable when the time comes that he takes office."

We REALLY need BIG-TIME, REAL campaign finance reform. Until then, as a practical matter, a candidate who doesn't take corporate donations is called a "loser," as I'm sure you know. So however well-intentioned your guy is, this is not a reason to vote for him.

"His healthcare plan is by far IMHO- the best...to remove the excessive profit motive from so many companies & corps is another."

I have been in favor of single payer, national health care for at least 25 years. I still hold out hope that I will see it before I die of old age. I don't know the details of DK's plan, but as far as I know, it's fine.

But Congress has to approve these things. And there is no way Congress is going to vote in favor of a single payer national health care plan at this time. Not even if pigs fly. Not even if we pick up a few more Dems in the Senate and House next year, which is iffy. That's why the other candidates trot out less-than-wonderful plans. They are less than wonderful, but it's in the realm of possibility that some version of a less-than-wonderful plan might get past Congress.

If you hold out for all or nothing on this issue, you're going to get nothing. And you can take that to the bank.

"He follows his conscience that well, believe it or not.....echoes many of the things I find vital to change this world...but even more than that...they are things necessary to live well & true in this world."

As a very old and very jaded lady, I say, whoopee. Politics are not for the pure of heart, but for the tough of head. Our best presidents throughout American history have been tough politicians first and dreamers second. And that includes Abraham Lincoln of blessed memory, who was a tough as they come.

As far as ideals are concerned, the one candidate I support most on an idealistic level is Wesley Clark. Yet this is the guy the Kucinish supporters most want to shred. So we're not on the same idealism page, I suspect.

[redqueen]

149. I'll crowd in too...

"But Congress has to approve these things. And there is no way Congress is going to vote in favor of a single payer national health care plan at this time. Not even if pigs fly. Not even if we pick up a few more Dems in the Senate and House next year, which is iffy. That's why the other candidates trot out less-than-wonderful plans. They are less than wonderful, but it's in the realm of possibility that some version of a less-than-wonderful plan might get past Congress."

So when Clinton trotted out his less-than-wonderful plan, a compromise like other candidates are proposing, it was welcomed with open arms? Or are we just supposed to hope that *this time* it will be different, and some horribly complex and expensive plan will pass?

[cosmicdot]

164. agree ... indeed - let's put it off until next century

hell, I'll be dead and gone and won't have to wait another 30 years or whenever "at this time" finally rolls around ... kinda like civil rights ... took an assassination or 2 to encode that; and, way things are going, things in that area seemingly are coming unglued ...

oh, wait, another 30 years, I will be dead ... oh, well ... hopefully some day other generations of Americans will have the human right of universal healthcare ...

with all the advances in cloning and GM ... maybe pigs will fly then, too ...

<sarcasm>
Here's to mediocrity! Long live Korporate AmeriKKKa's rule over us!!
</sarcasm>

[maha]

167. Keep dreaming

"So when Clinton trotted out his less-than-wonderful plan,"

Clinton's plan was a flat-out mess that didn't get support from anybody, conservative or progressive. I hated it, too.

"a compromise like other candidates are proposing, it was welcomed with open arms? Or are we just supposed to hope that *this time* it will be different, and some horribly complex and expensive plan will pass?"

We don't need a "horribly complex and expensive" plan. We need something simple that's an incremental step toward a national, single payer plan. The smart politician won't SAY his plan is an incremental step, but as a practical matter, that's the best we can hope for.

I've been watching this issue for MANY years. Mike Dukakis tried to run on reforming health care, but he got shot down, as at that time the overwhelming majority of working Americans had good insurance from their jobs and didn't see a need for a change. (That was before everybody got forced into HMOs.)

Clinton tried his plan in 1993, but it was a bad plan that tried to please everybody, and it was too soon. In 1993 the electorate had a general sense that there was something wrong with health care, but they weren't ready for a radical change.

Even though more and more Americans are uninsured every day, my sense of the thing is that we still don't have enough people waking up to reality to get a universal health care plan passed. People have been brainwashed into thinking a GOVERNMENT plan would be bad, and it's going to take a lot more people getting a lot angrier before that can be overcome. However, I think there is more sympathy for incremental reform now than ever before, so some steps in the right direction are POSSIBLE, if we get a Dem in the White House and more Dems in Congress.

[redqueen]

191. Marginalize me as a dreamer, but there are many more like me.

"We don't need a "horribly complex and expensive" plan. We need something simple that's an incremental step toward a national, single payer plan. The smart politician won't SAY his plan is an incremental step, but as a practical matter, that's the best we can hope for."

Can you tell me how the incremental step (or compromise) plans currently put forward by some candidates differ substantially from the one Clinton proposed?

"Even though more and more Americans are uninsured every day, my sense of the thing is that we still don't have enough people waking up to reality to get a universal health care plan passed."

On this we'll have to agree to disagree. Even people WITH insurance are sick of paying $1000's of dollars out of pocket JUST for coverage, not even including co-pays, deductibles, etc. And that's for those lucky enough to still be able to get coverage -- discounting all the underemployed people who don't even have THAT option. Every other plan put forward leaves a bunch of Americans out in the cold.

Recently Eli Lilly moved to block excess pharmaceutical exports to Canada, in order to stop Canada from exporting discounted medicine to Americans. They did this, joining with other big pharma corporations, in blackmailing Americans with the help of Republican enablers (and some Democrats I guess). If you don't think this issue has MAJOR legs then I think the Kucinich Tsunami will shock you, as well as many other Americans, as the campaign progresses.

Now is the time to go for the most profound change we can, because we will surely have to compromise, and compromising from center left positions gets us centrist policies (again).

Remember Jimmy Carter's grassroots rise? :)

[maha]

209. The Real World

"Can you tell me how the incremental step (or compromise) plans currently put forward by some candidates differ substantially from the one Clinton proposed?"

I don't have the time to go into the kind of detail that would do the subject justice. This is not a cop out. It's a huge subject. If it interests you, you can research it and write about it, but to do a good job expect to spend a couple of days researching.

"On this we'll have to agree to disagree. Even people WITH insurance are sick of paying $1000's of dollars out of pocket JUST for coverage, not even including co-pays, deductibles, etc. And that's for those lucky enough to still be able to get coverage -- discounting all the underemployed people who don't even have THAT option. Every other plan put forward leaves a bunch of Americans out in the cold."

I agree, except that some of those same people who are being hurt by the present system will fight you tooth and nail over single payer. That makes no sense, but it's a fact. They've been brainwashed.

"Kucinich Tsunami"

You are delusional. It ain't happenin'.

"Remember Jimmy Carter's grassroots rise?"

Very well. It ain't happenin' to Kucinich.

[redqueen]

216. Go for half a loaf, get some crumbs.

"I don't have the time to go into the kind of detail that would do the subject justice. This is not a cop out. It's a huge subject. If it interests you, you can research it and write about it, but to do a good job expect to spend a couple of days researching."

Nice try. If you really understood at this point what the differences were, you should be able to summarize it briefly. No worries. I do have a bit of free time on the weekends. Will be happy to fill in interested parties next week. :)

[maha]

227. Go right ahead!

"Nice try. If you really understood at this point what the differences were, you should be able to summarize it briefly."

Please. Go for it. I'll read it.

[Mairead]

109. I hope DR won't mind me crowding in here

Try this one on for size: Dennis stood up and said No to the wealthy elites of Cleveland who wanted him to knuckle under and go along with their get-rich-quick monopoly scheme. By having the foresight to see it was the right thing to do, and the courage to take that huge personal/professional risk, he saved Clevelanders what is now more than $200M and counting.

None of the other candidates have ever put not merely their job but their career and livelihood on the line to say No to the wealthy elites, nor saved people so much real, documented money by so doing. None. Not one.

In fact, I can think of no other politician in the US who has done that. I know of plenty who've caved in and sold us out, but none who've done what he did. Perhaps there are hundreds, but someone else will have to name them if so, because I don't know of a one. What he did was as out-of-character for a politician as Mr Aaron Feuerstein's immediate decision to be a sheyner yid when Malden Mills burnt down was out of character for a capitalist.

[maha]

130. Politicians as objects of worship.

"Try this one on for size: Dennis stood up and said No to the wealthy elites of Cleveland who wanted him to knuckle under and go along with their get-rich-quick monopoly scheme."

That's nice, dear, but the other guys have done nice things, too. This is not a compelling reason to send DK to the Major Leagues. I think the White House would be over his head.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

135. Wow, maha, you're clueless

maybe you're not as anatagonistic as I thought. Condescending, sure.

"That's nice, dear, but the other guys have done nice things, too. This is not a compelling reason to send DK to the Major Leagues. I think the White House would be over his head."

Your attacks would be reasonable is Kucinich people were threatening en mass to defect to the Greens when Kucinich doesn't win, but they aren't - certainly no more than Dean supporters who threaten to not vote Dem if Clark wins.

Oh, and that sure as hell is a VERY good reason to send DK to the Big Leagues - he's exactly the kind of person I want in the big leagues.

I guess you and I are just on different sides maha. I *want* politicians who stand up and say no to wealthy elites, as opposed to the side that wants the wealthy elite and their fellators.

[maha]

141. So far

... you haven't shown me anything worthy of discussion. Other people on this thread have done so; why can't you?

ALL of the candidates have marvelous glowing things in their bios about how they accomplished this and cleaned up that. It's beyond belief how you can trot out one thing that one candidate accomplished in the past and say, see? That's why my guy should win.

How about discussing a policy that DK advocates (just ONE SPECIFIC policy) and we can discuss why this policy stance makes DK a compelling presidential candididate.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

162. here's why Clark isn't getting my vote, and Kucinich is

Even though I was a long time early member of the Draft Clark movement, and still have fantasies of him debating Bush, DK showed political COURAGE is standing up against NAFTA, while Clark has given us mealy-mouthed platitudes that in no way threaten the wealty elite. Clark spent his post-military career shilling for corporate America and defense contractors, taking cash to lobby for contracts for his paymasters - just like Cheney and Halliburton.

It's too bad - if Clark could come out and say "Yes, I voted for Nixon and Reagan - and here's why" I'd take another look at him. I know lots of Dems who voted for Nixon and Reagan - compared to Dean and Clinton, Nixon was economically liberal. Carter was nearly as pro-corporate as Reagan (although he was at least pro-union and Reagan was most certainly not).

So, which candidate should I vote for, if I want a candidate that reflects my views? Kucinich, who has fought against the corporate scam artists for his whole life, got destroyed for it, and came back stronger than ever - or Clark, who is too much of a chickenshit to even say NAFTA in public, much less give us ammunition to fight it and the rest of the corporate trade agreements?

I've been saying it for a year - Clark is my dream candidate, if only he was an economic populist, and so far, I've seen NOTHING substantial to indicate that he is, or that his presidency would be anything more than DLC Democratic business as usual.

If the Clark campaign was smarter, they would be trying to get Kucinich and Sharpton supporters on their side, instead of having their fans come to DU and insult our intelligence.

Now, weren't you going to give me a lecture about the economics I don't understand? Something about free trade increasing living standards and creating jobs?

[Mairead]

159. You know, for a moment I was silly enough to think that you'd try

to play it straight for a change. What a dope!

I'm alerting on you. I've not seen everything you've written, but nothing about what I have seen says you're legitimate. It's all been gratuitous insults, rightwing talking points, and content-free responses.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

166. trolling for hits on the blog - remember Bill O'Reilly's advice

Bill O'Reilly is a great media personality - a second rate intellect who's hardly entertaining. But O'Reilly has one thing right - the way to get attention is to get people ANGRY.

If I ran a blog, and was trolling for hits, I'd be as abrasive as possible, to get my hit count up.

[Mairead]

200. Good point well taken!

Thanks!

[Hep]

240. So

You're going to alert on her instead of naming one specific policy that makes you support him?

She's right. I don't say vote for Dean because he pased the civil unions law. Every candidate has a glowing success story. Kucinich is a great man. He's stood up to a whole lot more than just the monopoly mongers in Ohio. It's a feat that earns much respect from me, but I wouldn't use it as a reason to vote for him.

[Mairead]

251. No,

you've got the tense wrong: I did alert on her.

You also got my response wrong: I did offer 'one thing'. Which she then promptly blew off as her past behavior should have led me to predict, whence my forehead-slapping.

[juajen]

278. How about his leading the house

to vote no on the Iraq War Resolution? I believe that it's due to Dennis Kucinich that we had (I believe) 132 representatives who voted against that war in the house. This anti-war vote also carried over to the Senate, where we had a lot more votes against because of that strong opposition from the House? Then there's the Patriot Act, which he also voted against. We make fun of Daschle for being a wimp and then discount the one politician who stands tall and taller. Dennis Kucinich is the Paul Wellstone of the House of Representatives and it's long past time to give him the credit he deserves.

[Ardee]

286. Thanks to Mairead and redqueen for inciteful synopses of Kucinich platform

The gist of Maha's opposition to them seems to be the opinion that they cannot be gotten through congress......so why try? My question is how can one who claims to be a progressive, by her own words a liberal, have such a fatalistic and reactionary attitude? How is progress to be made if we sit gazing up at the mountain and refuse the climb as it is foredoomed to failure?

I always thought that the definition of liberal was one who strove for the perfect society not one who wallowed in an opinion of society as unchangeable and depressive, I guess I have been wrong all these years.

[redqueen]

144. OH MY GOD

You know, I've read mahablog and agreed here and there, and was having trouble understanding the rancor between you and other posters here.

Then I read this post, and the light of day shone in.

"Dennis seems to be real good at expressing a broad goal (e.g., get out of Iraq) but he seems to have no clue about the process part. The devil IS in the details, and it's perilous to pretend there are no details. (Handing it over to the UN is not a "detail." It's a goal.)"

That's when I stopped reading, because really, what's the point?

Here's a link, maha. If you'd like to seem like you're actually well-informed about the stances you're denigrating, you might want to check it out.

Kucinich's Plan to Bring Our Troops Home

The really sad thing is that I know this has been posted before. :)

(edited to fix link)

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

198. Can't you be content just to post this once? n/t :P

[demrebel]

207. Want you to see facts

Only a few people in this party want this guy. He was such a poor leader as a mayor, how could he run this country.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

218. Yes but it does not change the FACT...

that Dennis Kucinich is the BEST candidate on almost every issue.

cheers :)

TWL

[redqueen]

221. Just for kicks... what exactly makes you think he was a bad mayor?

Be specific, please. :)

[maha]

234. Seen it. Not impressed. n/t

[redqueen]

239. So, because you're 'not impressed',

that, to you, translates to 'it contains no detailed plan'?

:wtf:

I'm really starting to wonder about some people here.

[Mairead]

252. There's always the alert button, RQ

We're not allowed to actually label people who behave as Barbara is behaving. We're meant to alert on them instead, and let the mods/admins take the decision.

[maha]

253. It really doesn't.

It's sort of a plan, but not one that will actually happen in the real world. A President of the U.S. cannot make demands of the UN, and given recent events in Iraq it is doubtful the UN would agree to any part of the DK "plan," anyway.

An honest plan cannot rely on a deus ex machina -- that the gods are gonna come down a rescue us. Assuming the UN says no, or gives only limited consent, what then? Where is the Kucinich plan?

DK has got to come up with a plan that explains what the United States will do, assuming little help from anybody, because that's how things are. It may be that eventually we can get a multinational force into Iraq to relieve the troops, but that's not gonna happen NOW or even next year. Two or three years, at best.

[redqueen]

262. Have you actually listened to anything out of the UN?

Or Europe? All they insist on is that the US relinquish control of Iraq (oil contracts, reconstruction contracts, etc. -- the 'PORK').

If we were to go there, honestly with hat in hand this time, you really think they'd turn their nose up?

Kofi Annan pleaded with other nations to belly up despite our arrogant behavior, and they thumbed their noses at him.

For you to put the word 'plan' in quotes implies you don't really consider it a plan. Specifically, why do you think this way?

Did you actually read the plan? I would think if so, that you'd know that it does explain what the US will do. Here it is boiled down:

- US gives up Coalition Provisional Authority, replaced by Iraqi Governing Council supported by UN, to direct repair of infrastructure.
- US troops to be supplemented with UN peacekeepers (two peacekeepers for every three US troops).
- Memorandum of Understanding to be developed to hash out command issues over troops.
- US to provide financial assistance to Iraq for damage caused by invasion, as well as to the UN for their contribution to the transition to Iraqi self-rule. All US contributions will be transparent and fully accountable. (This is not the case now.)
- Rebuilding should be done if at all possible by Iraqis, relieving the unemployment there and the resultant hostility.

Of course, all this is on top of Dennis's assertion that our continued dominating presence there will do nothing but continue to act as a destabilizing foce in the region.

Considering the impolications of continuing this situation, you assert that it just has to continue for two or three years, at best?! Do you realize that during this time, our security will continue to be threatened -- not just our physical security but our economic security as well. And have you considered the message you send to the families of the troops?

Your assumptions (that the U.N. will turn down the plan, that we'll still get no help) don't wash with me. I prefer instead to consider the things that the UN, Germany, France, India, Japan, etc. are actually saying themselves. Based on that, I think they'll actually be inclined to agree with DK's plan, or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

[Selwynn]

69. I don't mind your disagreement - but wish you would contribute

something to the discussion other that a dismissive tone.

I am a person who has felt like the politics of the last twelve to fifteen years have more or less been the politics of the status quo. And clearly you don't think that's true.

Can you help me understand why, and what you would say in alternative?

[maha]

90. Please narrow the question.

"I am a person who has felt like the politics of the last twelve to fifteen years have more or less been the politics of the status quo. And clearly you don't think that's true."

So how mamy hundred thousand words do you want me to write?

Can you pick out ONE little aspect of the "politics of the last twelve to fifteen years" that you think exemplifies your status quo argument, so we can discuss something with reasonable depth?

Believe it or not, I would have been very, very happy had we been able to get away from dat ol' status quo in recent years. There's a LOT about the prevailing status quo going back a whole lot longer than fifteen years that I do not like. But for a lot of reasons I think it hasn't been humanly possible.

We were fortunate to have Clinton in the White House when we did, not because he was perfect -- he was not. Not because I agreed with all of his policies -- I do not. But because he is smart and a masterful politician, and he finessed the VRWC as well as anyone could have and a damn sight better than most.

Now we are locked in a mighty struggle for America. And I say "America" and not "what course America will take," because I sincerely believe that if the Repugs keep the White House and Congress in 2004 -- it's all over. No more America. We cannot afford to argue about ideological purity or utopian dreams or the "status quo" right now. We are dangerously close to losing everything.

[Selwynn]

100. Well, I can try my best...

To me politics have moved to the center, and are designed to keep politics at the center or the right...

That's still abstract, let me try to say something concrete (as you can tell I'm still mulling this over in my mind.)

Well, I know the term is really upsetting to some folks, but I don't know what else to call it: part of the status quo I feel is consistently maintained is the status quo of corporate wellfare. To me the status quo is government that continues to never stray too far away from the over-riding interests of big business. Clinton didn't, Bush didn't. I believe that politics that harken back to the days of FDR is what is really needed, a true "New Deal" with Americans, a radical public works program and regulartor effort, bringing back ethics and intregrity to wall street, etc.

To me - and be gentle if you think I'm wrong - to me, all the politics for as long as I can remember (remember caring about them anyway) just kind of reinforce the status quo of the John Dewy phrase that "
Government is the shadow cast by big business over the nation." I see the politics of many years and different presidents basically reinforcing that staus quo rather than working put the interest of the majority population above the interests corporate mega conglomerates..

?

What are your thoughts?

[maha]

243. I agree with your premise

In both parties there is widespread corruption. Corporations have way too much power. Exactly right.

The question is, what are we gonna do about it?

And the answer is, there's little that can be done until we have the hearts and minds of most voters. And before that happens, we have to get their attention. I think things have to get even worse before that can happen. Fortunately, they ARE getting worse, and quickly.

If The People decide they want reform, and voters back up a desire for reform in the polling booth, then we can have all kinds of reform. A Dem president will be able to do lots of good progressive things. But until that happens, NO Dem president will be able to do good progressive things.

[tinanator]

289. "you people" lol

knock me over with a feather.

[ShaneGR]

2. Ummm, perhaps bashing Clinton isn't a good start

If you're trying to win over people I wouldn't start by downing the greatest Democratic President of the last 30 years. It's a good way to shore up your own base of super lefties (no offense, but you are), but you aren't going to win enough votes by tearing people down.


BTW: THere is no more status quo. The place where Clinton had this nation (Center-Left) has now been pused WAY over to the right (Radical Right). So, by electing ABB but Bush we are guaranteed a swing back to the left.

[Mairead]

8. Is all criticism 'bashing'? Why should Clinton be immune from

criticism? If you feel he doesn't deserve it, tell us why, would you?

[maha]

25. How about the truth?

Clinton did some things right and some things wrong, but if you want to LEARN why Clinton's economic policies were generally more right than wrong, and why much of it was genuine growth and not "bubble," please spend some time learning from actual economists. Start with Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong.

The reason many of us here have no respect for what you say is that you have a palpable lack of background knowledge on most subjects you take up. Instead, you seem to be picking up simplistic talking points from somewhere (Karl Rove or Dennis Kucinich? Hard to tell.) and repeating them over and over. It's tiresome, dear.

A great deal of what you say is nothing but Big Lie with a couple of factoids painted on it so you can get it through the door. Most of us are not fooled.

Kucinich -- the stealth Green candidate

[ProfessorGAC]

36. Good Call Maha! There Is No Such Thing. . .

. . .as an economic bubble. The conservatives are intentionally trying to confuse the market bubble with the actual and valid growth of the real GDP under Clinton. That way they can make the economy positives of the 90's look like the illusion that the 80's actually were. Anyone who attempts to leverage this conservative talking point into their argument is already on thin ice.

And i also agree that a thread intended to support one or two candidate that relies on criticisms of someone not even running is duplicitous and intellectually dishonest. (More simply put, what in the hell does Clinton have to do with the Democratic candidates for 2004? He isn't running!)

The entire argument that initiated this thread is rife with insults to any and all who do not adhere in lockstep to the philosophy inherent in the post.

Couple that with the logic problems and intellectual dishonesty and it's quite hard to take it seriously.
The Professor

[maha]

41. "Intellectually dishonest."

You're being kind. :toast:

I don't think these children understand they are being dishonest, though. I don't believe they have enough depth of understanding of issues plus critical thinking skills to pick up on what "honest" might be. Essentially, they are dupes for somebody else, although it's not clear to me who that is.

[MuseRider]

59. I will not say

what I would clearly like to say to you. That is singularly the most divisive and unkind statement I have ever seen here on this board. You have been doing this countless times and I would like to point out to you that your tactics "self censored". Please try to refrain from teaching us with your mighty wisdom. There is not a reason for you to continually join these discussions with the purpose of bashing us. This post will be deleted I am sure. I hope you get the chance to read it before it does. I would be more than happy to talk with you or anyone else who does not enter the conversation with the certainty of their intellectual and moral superiority.

[ProfessorGAC]

61. My Apologies

I did not mean to appear to be taking sides in any name calling. The use of the term "children" does seem highly inappropriate and unproductive.

I stand by my critique of the original post, however. There is unmistakable intellectually dishonesty in it.

And this from someone who has no dog in the fight, yet. I have yet to even come close to choosing my favorite for Dem nomination, but the "out of context" information parsing and the leaps in logic in these threads have gotten to the point where they cannot be ignored.

However, i certainly do not want to appear to be forging an alliance with one who has aggrieved many DU'ers.
The Professor

[MuseRider]

66. NOT YOU!

I am sorry, I had not even read your post I was talking to maha. I can talk with anyone who is honest and will listen and debate in good faith. Peace.

[WEagle]

88. congrats

I have now LEARNED how the ignore feature works. Maybe someday you'll learn how to have a conversation with people who don't agree with you without talking down to and insulting them. bye bye..

:hi: :hi:

[juajen]

280. "these children?"

OK, lady, you are going on my ignore list. This thread happens to have been started by "these children". For what purpose are you trying to hijack it? Your insults are just tiring; not even thought-provoking.

[Mairead]

87. Perhaps you could list my many errors, and offer evidence for so

considering them? As far as I can tell, I made no errors at all, and certainly no errors in logic.

[maha]

92. It isn't possible

You tend to post such vast, sweeping, generalized stuff it's too much to refute in a thousand words or less. Pick one small, easily defined topic and I'll discuss it.

[ProfessorGAC]

93. I'm Not Interested In A Fight. So, . . .

. . .here are few errors.

The use of the quotation marks in "boom". There is no reason to set that off. It was only temporary as changes in the economics of the time were sustainable only until someone did something stupid, like lower marginal tax rates for no good reason. Assigning that to anything Clinton did, is indeed, illogical and disingenuous.

Everyone other than Al or Dennis are people like Clinton. You see no error there?

We're worse off now than under Reagan. Once again, there is no valid logical construct that connects that to Clinton's policies. Rather, econometric modeling indicates that the major economic indicators would all have been in better stead had the Bushites left all fiscal policy points alone. The state of growth and the peak employment values would be lower, but better off than without the tax cuts and borrowing. So, once again, it is an error of logic to assign any current economic condition to Clintonian fiscal policy. If you want to believe that things are worse than under Reagan, fine, but assign blame to Bush and Bush alone. That's where the blame lies.

Bringing up your concerns about Clinton's failing apropos a progressive agenda is also disingenuous. It only is logical to assert these points if your prior statement that the rest of the field is just like Clinton is absolutely true. That's intellectual dishonesty. The statement you've made needs to be 100% true for the argument to have logical basis. That's the debate form equivalent of "it's true because i say it's true". You have provided no basis to substantiate the claim that the rest of the field is like Clinton. You have provided no basis to support that Clinton was not a agent of change in Washington. So, your thesis collapses under its own weight.

That's enough for now. I've got a doctor's appointment. But, i think you see why i posited my earlier opinion. There's plenty of other errors, and indeed, your logic does have some significant gaps.

It's not that i don't respect your opinion, but really now! Only 2 candidates have any merit because they're the only ones who want change? Because you say so?

A bit of hubris to go with the illogic and factual errors?
The Professor

[Mairead]

142. Possibly there are fewer than you think

The use of the quotation marks in "boom"

Using quotes around 'boom' was a stylistic choice, not an error. The profits from Clinton's economic policies went disproportionately (to put it mildly!) to the most-wealthy, and the poorest people took a serious hit from welfare 'reform'; I'm sure their experience of that time was very different to those who got all the benefits.

Everyone other than Al or Dennis are people like Clinton

All the other candidates favor policies that are significantly closer to Clinton's than Dennis's or Al's are. See http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/usprimaries.html If you thought I was saying that they were identical to Clinton's then I apologise for the confusion.

your prior statement that the rest of the field is just like Clinton

Perhaps you should read it again? I said 'the others are people like Clinton'. 'Like' and 'just like' are very different in degree, the difference between similar and nearly identical. I'm a human like you, but I'm not just like you.

Clinton's failing apropos a progressive agenda

Clinton did nothing to thwart the vast expansion of high-tech visas, nor did his policies do anything to stop jobs being shipped abroad. He also championed the WTO and NAFTA, two major instruments of job exportation. That's his connection to our current situation: he did nothing to stop it, but several things that set the stage. He was 'business-friendly'.

[Name removed]

279. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MuseRider]

11. True, but where

do you want to start the compromising? How about a little farther to the left than center?

[DerekG]

40. Come again?

"The greatest Democratic President of the last 30 years."

Well, there were only two. What, did you decide by a coin toss?

[Selwynn]

73. Umm, perhaps we shouldn't treat anyone as scared cows

Greatest Democratic President of the last thirty years? Well seeing as how the ONLY other Democratic president in the last thirty years was Carter, who lasted one time (and no disrespect meant to carter) that's really not saying much.

Is Clinton an infallible saint? If not, would you agree that reflecting on both his successes and his mistakes makes us stronger, not weaker?

[jsw_81]

3. LOL

You've got to be kidding me. Kucinich is a joke and would lose all fifty states. Ditto for Sharpton.

[La_Serpiente]

4. Hey, that's not nice

[Mairead]

7. Why should we believe you?

What evidence can you offer that you are correct and we are not? So far you've done nothing but make an unsupported statement of the kind many unthoughtful teenagers make. So why should we give it any credence?

[Hep]

10. He's tied for THIRD in his home state

But you'll figure out a way to ignore that.

[DealsGapRider]

21. Hahaha.

That made me laugh.

You're right. Pigs will fly out of the Pope's ass before Kucinich gets the Dem nomination, much less gets elected President. A Kucinich nomination is a guaranteed recipe for a landslide electoral defeat.

[redqueen]

210. We don't need to ingore it, we need to address it with action.

Someone in my meetup attended a peace rally where they met someone from Ohio. They asked if the Ohioan was supporting DK. The Ohioan did not even know Dennis was running.

This just might have something to do with the fact that at this point, this early in the race, not many people are paying any attention at all. It also may be partly due to the fact that major media outlets spend most of their time discussing the more corporate-friendly candidates. Then again, when three separate commentators on NPR managed somehow not to mention Dennis at all, even when they were simply listing the names of the participants in the debate, one wonders...

The Ohioan, after finding out, though, did say she'd support Dennis, and said to my Texan friend, "you picked a great candidate, we love him."

Yeah, tell us something we don't know! :D

[Hep]

223. the blame game

This just might have something to do with the fact that at this point, this early in the race, not many people are paying any attention at all. It also may be partly due to the fact that major media outlets spend most of their time discussing the more corporate-friendly candidates.

You mean major media outlets that he doesn't refuse to talk to, of course.

But why are you splaying blame outward? And I don't mean to make that sound rude, but it's like the guy who called Dean a nimrod. He complained that Dean didn't go into enough black churches and union halls. My question to him was, "Hoe many union halls and black churches did YOU go to?"

And I ask the same question. I didn't find out about Dean through major media or NPR. I found out about Dean through word of mouth. Oddly enough, do you know how I found out about Kucinich? I was in the audience of CROSSFIRE when he came on and said he was running. He got a whole segment. Of course, CNN does count as a major media outlet that he will talk to.

[DealsGapRider]

224. Your post is telling.

You're right, no one is paying attention to the race. Except hard-core party loyalists. And they reject Dennis Kucinich hands down.

If you can't even get the liberal base excited about this nutjob, how do you expect to convince the far more centrist general election-voting Dems and swing voters?

[Ardee]

297. mythos much?

1. Hard core party loyalists are not any longer considered liberals, the real liberals have been cast out.The base of which you speak wants Lieberman or Gephardt.

2. calling a legitimate elected democrat, one running for the nomination of YOUR party, a nut job says volumes about you and nothing at all about Dennis.

3. As to your buddies note that Kucinich failed to win his own state,might I refresh you memory about a certain democratic candidate for th epresidency who lost his home state but garnered more votes than the other guy? That ,by the by, was during the actual campaign and not months and months and months before the race.

[Hep]

5. How about this

How about I support the guy who I think best represents my views?

BTW, Dean PROVIDED affordable health care most people in his state. How many universal health care bills has Kucinich introduced?

[loyalsister]

42. One

The very same plan he's touting on the campaign trail. Guess what? They won't touch it.
YET, his believers for some inexplicable reason believe that all of congress will be miraculously converted if he is elected.
If he had the sense to not come off as a left wing nut, he might have a chance, but he makes himself sound far too radical to be palatable to moderate voters. ie "Department of Peace." The concept is good that label has a ridiculous tone. The baby boomers have wanted to leave the hippie days and everything related behind for a very long time. The media has demeaned the culture so much that they are embarrassed by it. They are a huge proportion of the voting population, and it won't fly with them. He should know better. It's the language\propaganda stupid!
I'm turned off by his evangelical demeanor and frequent religious references. We have a fundie nut in office. I don't want anything resembling that to be our candidate.
I like the guy who -like me- "doesn't want listen to fundamentalist preachers, anymore."

[birdman]

6. Kucinich might win MA; Sharpton would lose all 50 states

I respect the DK supporters because they're dedicated
and idealistic albeit a little out of touch with reality
(I can't help but laugh when I read about who he
might pick for a running mate).

On the other hand how anyone who knows anything about Al Sharpton's
history and could still support him is beyond me.

[Minstrel Boy]

15. "How anyone who knows...

anything about Al Sharpton's history and could still support him is beyond me."

I hear ya, birdman. I feel exactly the same about Wesley Clark.

[Az]

19. Lets see here

The conservatives control the media. The media blasts a message that everything is moving to the right and that liberals are evil. Demcrats want to vote for liberal candidates but believe they can't win because the bulk of voters are moving to the right. So the Democrats continue to march to the center (read as right) in order to try to court the undecided center votes while alienating the hard left votes and depopulating its base. The Dem further ignore the millions of disenfranchised voters that have dropped out because they have bought into this notion that they have to play to the undecided center voters who will never be decided and will never be loyal to the Dems thus drawing the Dems into an ever progressing march to the right in order to escalate the aquisition of the fickle center. What started out initially as liberal Dems running on more moderate platforms has become real center or right DINOs taking more and more offices and becoming more and more the bulk of the Dem pary. Thus giving lie to the notion that once we take the elections we can work towards bringing the country back to the left because we now have real conservatives instead of liberals touting conservative ideas in office. Meanwhile the right continues to beat its hard core right wing ideologies and actually has ideas (bad ones) that people can form up around while the Dems spend time trying to figure out which way the wind blows only to discover that its the right making the wind in the first place. Because the public is looking for a party with ideas the repugs hold the high ground because the Dems are always stuck playing catchup thus speeding the slide into the right all the more.

Does that about sum up the plan?

[birdman]

23. I see. Kucinich polls 1% among Dems

but that's only because the polls aren't counting the
millions of people who don't vote because they are disenchanted that
none of the mainstream candidates are proposing a Department
of Peace and protection from space-based mind control weapons.

And if we just nominate Kucinich all these politically aware but
inactive voters will storm the polling places and drive
Bush out of the White House.

Did I get that right ?

[Az]

29. The idea is to champion ideas

Yes, DK may not win. But if we do not nominate someone with ideas and a difference then no one wins. Yes a moderate Dem may be able to win. But its a win in name only. Clinton was a strong charismatic president. But look where we are now. Because he could not champion strong ideas the public was caught by the blare of the rights assault. Thus even after 8 years of prosperity and peace Clintons name is a tainted. He did not change the way people are thinking.

None of the top Dem candidates are going to change the way people are thinking. They are not indtroducing new ideas. They are following the polls and trying to court the populist vote. Thus the process that is in place continues. And in case you hadn't noticed the process in place right now is the wholesale disenfranchisement of the citizens of the US on behalf of the Corporations and the Religious Right.

You do not stop this kind of process by nudging. This is what the moderate approach offers. The corporations are completely out of control and must reigned in hard. It is going to hurt economically and there will be repurcussions. These are hard descisions and require a spine and a clear vision of exactly why such measures are necissary.

If we do not vote to fix the problem the problem will simply continue to grow. A win in name only is a loss for the people. We cannot afford a DINO as they will have little to no effect on the Corporations.

[birdman]

43. Where are these "ideas" you're talking about

We can probably get four or five things from next years election if we win :

An end to aggressive and colonialist wars under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Some kind of national heath care.

Federal judges who aren't Neanderthals.

Protection of reproductive rights, social security and Medicare.



Doesn't that represent an improvement over the current situation?
Doesn't it make sense to try to get those things rather than pine
for somebody who's going to scream about corporations and the
military-industrial complex and who can never get elected ?

Keep your ideals but recognize what's possible. Corporations and the military aren't going anywhere.

[maha]

48. Well said n/t

[Terwilliger]

55. You actually believe Dems will make UHC happen?

in a Repuke congress? At all? What do you base that idea on?

Talking about what's possible is a strange thing coming from a Dem who doesn't talk about the fact that any Dem pres. has to face a completely hostile Congress. A Dem president will barely be able to do the simple, presidential related things.

[birdman]

58. I think it can happen in some form

You've got the huge baby-boomer generation now in
their 40's and 50's worried about layoffs and medical
issues more than they had to before. The PR has to be handled
better than the Clintons handled it but, yes, I think it can
be done.

Should we not try to elect a Dem because there is not likely
to be a Dem Congress ?

[Terwilliger]

60. it wont be done in this session of the presidency

so who gets the Dem nom won't matter in that regard

Should you not face the political realities that a Dem president faces because you're too busy trying to do anything to displace Bush?

[birdman]

70. Nobody said it would be easy

But it would be a reality today if the Clintons had
not bungled it so badly. Go on national TV with some
sick people who have no health insurance and challenge the
Congress to do something for them.

It can be done but getting rid of Bush is job one and overrides
everything else. There is not going to be a fundamental change
in American thought or the structure of the society in the near
future no matter who we nominate.

[Terwilliger]

292. there would be a fundamental change if everybody got behind Kucinich

I don't think there will be much change at all with the standard Dem. I may be wrong! I just think that if you want real change...you have to really change!

[lostnfound]

168. Tell that to the Bolivians and the populations of Syria, Iran, Columbia

I liked Clinton, and he did do very well for us in spite of the corporate-imperial power structure.

But when I hear Bolivians on Pacifica speaking their truth about their lives, I hear:
*Bolivia used to get $400 MM a year in oil/gas revenues, then it was forced to privatize most of its industries; it was bought out by mostly American companies and they now get $120 MM a year even though there's more wells than ever
*60% of Bolivians now live on less than $1 a day
*Forced to privatize their water infrastructure, Bolivians couldn't afford water to drink because Bechtel raised the rates so high.
What is happening in Bolivia MATTERS and it's happening all over Latin America.

What happens NEXT will depend on us, the voters in the U.S. and the choices are: 1) to evolve towards a US government that accepts the sovereignty of other nations and starts to recognize that the Left in Latin America must be allowed to live and that corporate interests must give way to peaceful coexistence; or 2) to follow our historical pattern of creating a coup, installing an oppressive and torturing dictator, and supporting his regime with US military equipment, which eventually will come home to roost.

To anyone with an open mind who doesn't feel adamant that the globalization/corporate power/militarism alliance MUST be changed, I sincerely suggest an easy read book called "Power Politics" by Arundhati Roy. She writes beautifully and it is a good glimpse into how OUR corporatocracy bribes/blackmails/badgers/threatens CORRUPT politicians in foreign countries resulting in death or misery for millions.

The world is changing because Blackbeard has done squeezed the life out of the masses in much of the world.

[birdman]

188. Look I'm sympathetic to the Bolivians but

I can give you an exact count of how many votes are in the
Bolivian standard of living issue. Even bringing it up would
alienate certain portions of the electorate.

You can rest assured that nothing on this front will ever improve
with Bush in charge. Maybe if a Democrat is elected a new state
department could be lobbied on an issue like this but no candidate
who rails against corporations or the military will enter the White
House in any of our lifetimes.

[Mairead]

204. "no candidate who rails against corporations will enter the WH"

Are you going to do your best to keep them out?

[birdman]

232. No, but realistically

There are no votes in ending corporate power or going to war with
the military-industrial complex. It only plays to a small portion
of the DU audience and it would cause the candidate to be easily
branded as a dangerous radical. The public doesn't care about
any of that.

[Mairead]

248. "The public doesn't care about any of that"

I seem to recall the Nixon smoke detail saying the same thing about Watergate. Not that I'm trying to imply you're a smoke generator(!); my point is that at first they were right, at that point the public didn't care. But after people were clued up by Woodward & Bernstein, they cared, so perhaps our job is to clue people up about these issues so that they do care now too.

I mean, it's not as though these are fantasy or opinion issues. They're real problems, with serious, genuine consequences for each and every person in the USA. And they can be explained in ways that raise people's consciousness. All we have to do is commit the energy.

So, as the old coal-mine-organiser's song asks: which side are you on?

[birdman]

272. Watergate was a scandal

the public didn't care until they knew the details. The US
public has been living in corporate America all their lives and
with few exceptions they don't see anything wrong with it.

The public cares about health care, social security, Medicare,
jobs, the economy and safety from terror attacks. The election
has to be fought on those issues or we have 4 more years of
Bush.

Is that what you want ?

[lostnfound]

288. As Kissinger once said, a problem ignored is a crisis tomorrow

or something to that effect. Yes, I see the irony in quoting him.

You are right in all of your points but what I am saying is that we can expect a great 'conflagration' with the least-of-our-brothers-countries unless we force the American public to get educated through less painful methods.

We can't say we like one branch of the mob better than the others because they have better manners at the cocktail parties.

[Terwilliger]

31. so weak

you addressed nothing in Az's post

Good luck on your Howard Dean, or Wesley Clark, or John Kerry. They're gonna need it.

Oh, I have you down on the list.

[DealsGapRider]

126. Hahaha.

Hilarious. And dead on the mark.

[no name no slogan]

53. Exactly

Believe it or not, there are many self-identified conservative voters who would vote for a so-called "liberal" if s/he actually STOOD FOR SOMETHING other than being "not as bad" as her/his conservative opponent.

It happened with Wellstone here in Minnesota. He actually got a lot of conservatives to vote for him even though they disagreed with many of his ideas. Why?

He was HONEST. He STOOD BY HIS CONVICTIONS. If he changed his opinion, HE EXPLAINED WHY.

Kucinich has done the same thing in Ohio, and in his last election won 50% of the REPUBLICAN vote in his district, and won re-election by 75%. Try to even FIND another Democrat who does that well in a contested election these days.

If we run a REAL, HONEST DEMOCRAT against the lying buffoon who currently sits in the White House, we can WIN. Anything else will get us more of the same.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[DealsGapRider]

140. Are we in the Twilight Zone?

Yeah, I'm sure all the gun-toting, deer-hunting Southern Repugs are itching to vote for a f*cking Vegan who's proposed a Department of Peace. Uh huh.

They might have liked his position on abortion...up until he did the biggest flip-flop of all time. Oh wait, I forgot that he's the man with steadfast principles.

"...in his last election won 50% of the REPUBLICAN vote in his district" Have you seen his district? There's like 8 Republicans total. And he got 4 of them to vote for him. BFD.

[maha]

151. Shhh!

You're not supposed to talk about the flip flop on abortion. Pisses the True Believers off, you know.

[no name no slogan]

265. His district is VERY conservative

Dennis beat an entrenched Republican when he first got the seat in 1996. His filled with what you'd call "Reagan Democrats"-- moderate to conservative on social issues, liberal on economic issues.

Yeah, I'm sure all the gun-toting, deer-hunting Southern Repugs are itching to vote for a f*cking Vegan who's proposed a Department of Peace. Uh huh.

Those "gun-toting" southern Repubs haven't voted for a Democrat since 1964. They left the Democratic Party after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.

If you're so damned concerned about "winning" the vote of these racist inbred assholes, I suggest you vote Republican.

[VolcanoJen]

12. Clinton's Boom was a "Smokescreen"?!??!!??

Nice bumpersticker. Good luck winning over the hearts and minds of enough Democrats to send you to the convention as the nominee with slogans like that...

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

20. Yet it's true

Clinton balanced the budget, raised taxes on the rich, which helped the economy improve A LOT.

While we were fat and happy Clinton held hands with the Republicans to finish the job of gutting America's industrial base and moved on to outsourcing high paying white collar jobs. Now that the boom is over, Bad Cop Bush pulls back the curtain to reveal how bad unemployment can be, even in a "recovering" economy.

[VolcanoJen]

37. I was neither fat, nor excessively happy, during the Clinton days...

... and I do reiterate my point: Good luck winning Democratic votes with slogans like "Clinton Boom was a Smokescreen."

[Selwynn]

74. Is there anyway to speak honestly about his strengths and...

weakness without being lambasted by people?

Or should we right our first article of faith that says, "by faith we believe in the supreme inerrancy and infallability of the holy Bill Clinton?

Clinton did some great things! And Clinton did some not great things! Are we better people more wise and prepared for the future if we think critically about both strengths and weaknesses?

[Padraig18]

84. Sanity!

Bill Clinton was a GOOD president, and I believe he did many good things, but the 'Saint Bill' routine is wearing sort of thin.

[Mairead]

85. Why do you think it's a slogan?

I certainly didn't use it in the context of a slogan.

Do you dispute the basic thesis? If you do, could you say why in some detail, and offer evidence for your interpretation?

[VolcanoJen]

295. I was only attacking the slogan, even if it really wasn't intended as one.

Like it or not, Bill Clinton is an icon of the Democratic Party. He's a winner, and has advanced our causes more than folks give him credit for. You won't win my pro-Dennis vote by bashing Bill. That's all I'm saying, and I speak it from my heart. I'm just trying to help you guys out with electoral strategy here. Keep your eyes on the prize... there's nothing to be gained by picking on the relative liberal shortcomings of the last democratically elected president.

I'm not here to argue the relative merits of Bill Clinton vs. Dennis Kucinich, and I don't think any Kucinich fans should involve themselves in that argument either.

Look, I'm a fan of Dennis, and just a week ago visited his office in Washington and merrily chatted up his staff. But, selfishly, and as a proud Ohioan, I wish he'd lay off the Presidency and set his sights on Voinovich's Senate seat in '04.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

125. why?

please explain.

'Who Counts' points out some of the shortcomings of Clinton and moderate/centrist/corporate democrats and he is now a repub disruptor?

hmmmm

Sorry have to disagree.

DMCA?
Telecomm...96?
NAFTA?

GO CLINTON! :)

TWL

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

136. too bad, the polls are closed on that one

Clinton screwed us on NAFTA, and pointing if pointing that out makes you think I'm a Republican disruptor ... let's just say I'm not drinking the Bill Clinton Kool-Aid like so many fellow Democrats have done. If he was running in this primary, I wouldn't vote for him. Fool me once...

[DealsGapRider]

16. I love the smug, arrogant tone of moral superiority.

You know, it's funny that Dean has been called arrogant. The real arrogance lies with Kucinich and his supporters who seem to think they're the only authentic Democrats and everyone else is a corporate Republican in Dem clothing. Blech.

Kucinich is a nutcase. If he gets the Dem nomination, I may very well vote for myself as a write-in. The man will not get my vote.

[maha]

99. They can dish it out, but they can't take it. n/t

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

182. we can take it maha, and we'll be gloating

when you and your centrists candidates come begging at election time for our votes. Democrats can't win without us loony leftists from another planet.

[DealsGapRider]

190. Sure we can.

A lot of the loony leftists voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, but we won anyway. The only reason we didn't win the White House is the Supreme Court, not because of the absence of the loony leftist contingent. Even with a weak-ass candidate like Al Gore, we still won.

So, it you want to sit out 2004...buh-bye! We'll still win.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

195. buh-bye! We'll still win.

Man what happened to DU?

We used to be everybody, but now apparently the liberal leftist ideals this website was founded on are being pushed out the door.

TWL

[maha]

257. No free rides.

You can't open a thread smearing other Democrats and expect the rest of DU to smile and pat you on the head.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

206. most of us DID vote for Gore

and Gore would not have won without our votes.

[maha]

192. I may be more of a "leftist" than Kucinich.

That's what you don't get. In issue after issue, I'm at least as far left as DK and possibly further left. The difference is not whether I'm a "centrist" or a "leftist," but that I'm a REALIST.

I have no respect for DK because he spouts off all these dreamy leftist ideas that are not going to become real in my lifetime, then denigrates candidates who are trying to put together policies that might actually be accomplished.

Stay left if you want, but get REAL.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

214. on what economic issues are you "left" on maha?

If your wanted to make the point that it would be better for leftists to vote for Clark over Kucinich, you could have done it without the arrogance and insults.

So are you really "left" on any economic issues (sure, we're all socially liberal here...)

[maha]

225. Name an economic issue.

I favor single payer health care, I favor re-instating taxes on investment income and easing taxes on wages, I am with Joe Stiglitz on why WTO is screwing the Third World, what else? You won't get further left without becoming a Communist.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

229. are there any politicans who supports those issues that you don't hate?

and berate their followers on message boards? just curious?

I know one thing - a vote for Clark is not going to bring single payer health care, easing taxes on wages nor do anything about the WTO screwing the third world (and first world workers).

If you and Clark are leftists or support leftist ideas, you two sure have a funny way of showing it.

[maha]

245. Presidents can't do any of those things.

Presidents have little power to make the kinds of changes we are talking about. That has to come from Congress.

Presidents have the authority to conduct foreign policy (with consent of the Senate). They have no authority to make laws, and they have little authority in domestic matters. They can suggest domestic policies, but ultimately it's up to Congress to make things happen.

I've learned over the years not to pay too much attention to the promises presidential candidates make, because hardly any of the stuff they promise ever gets done. If DK were to become President, I can assure you that none of the policies he promises would ever happen unless you have a massive turnover in Congress, and that ain't gonna happen.

The Dems MUST take back the White House in 2004 save America. I will support any candidate who will do that. None of the candidates with a shot at winning is perfect, but any of them would be an improvement on Bush. Dean and Clark are my two favorites, because they are less compromised in most respects, but ain't nobody pure.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

247. If Kucinich were president, watch the GOP Congress crumble

since most Republicans are against outsourcing, against pro-corporate policies, against "free trade" agreements. A lot of Republicans would have voted for Buchanan but didn't think he could win. A populist candidate without the racism of Buchanan would get a lot of Republicans on board, and if President Kucinich fought for populist economic programs, Republicans in Congress would be terrified to vote against them, since most Republicans would support them.


"I've learned over the years not to pay too much attention to the promises presidential candidates make, because hardly any of the stuff they promise ever gets done."

That's hardly a ringing endorsement of Clark, now is it?

[ThirdWheelLegend]

215. Okay my turn...

say what?

TWL

[Mairead]

255. Fair takes your breath away, dunnit?

She must take us for fools.

[Selwynn]

101. You mean like yours?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Here's how I see it

The Busheviks are about to drive the country over a cliff at 75 miles an hour, Thelma and Louise style.

The DLC's favorite candidates are saying, "We should slow down to 15 miles an hour so we have some time to jump out before the car goes over the cliff."


Only Kucinich is saying, "We should make a U-turn to the left and avoid the cliff entirely."

[Hep]

24. Good analogy

Except that Kucinich doesn't want to slow down, he wants to make one of those stunt driver moves where they swing the back end of the car around. Kucinich doesn't understand that the law of momentum dictates that if he do that, the car is still going over the edge.

Dean's going to slam the car into reverse and gun it.

[MuseRider]

39. What on earth

makes everyone think that he does not understand these things? The man is not a political novice. He knows there will be compromise but at least he is starting from the left, not the center. We can have Dems in office all we want but if we have to compromise from the center where will we end up?

[Hep]

49. So the message is

"I can't tell you what I'm actually GOING to do. This is just what I wish I could do."

And this is attractive to you? You're voting for the guy with the most vivid imagination?

[IrateCitizen]

72. In the primary, absolutely!

I'd rather vote for someone who looks at things and isn't afraid to tell me that everything isn't quite right and that we have to really work hard to fix it, as opposed to someone who will be content to nibble around the edges while ignoring the real problems.

Give me a dreamer anyday. If it weren't for dreamers, we'd never see progress.

I don't harbor any illusions that he's going to win. I just realize that his message is one that badly needs to be heard, and hopefully some of it will be absorbed into the Democratic Platform.

[Selwynn]

105. The only thing that has every resulted in positive change:

People who "dream things that never were and ask: why not?"

[Hep]

114. Unless of course there's a clear answer to

the question "why not"

[Hep]

107. It's one or the other?

How about someone with concrete ideas that can WORK and bring about important CHANGE right NOW?

[MuseRider]

76. Is that what you think this is about?

No, I have spent enough time to research this candidate and that is not the point at all. It does seem to me that the minds here are either all the way open or all the way closed. That makes it difficult to have any kind of conversation about this man. I believe in him, you don't. What else is there to say? If we could discuss him openly it would be nice but that opportunity stopped a long time ago when the list keepers decided to make sure they did all they could to stop him.

[Hep]

108. All I ask

is that you explain. I'm open, you just closed yourself off.

[MuseRider]

120. Sorry, had to go for a bit.

I certainly did not mean to close off. Here is what you said in an earlier post
"Except that Kucinich doesn't want to slow down, he wants to make one of those stunt driver moves where they swing the back end of the car around. Kucinich doesn't understand that the law of momentum dictates that if he do that, the car is still going over the edge."

I replied that too many people state that he does not understand. Why do you say that? The man has been a politician for long enough to understand how it works. So, he does not play the game in the usual way. That appeals to me. I guess what I wanted to know is why so many think he will just barrel head long into disaster, that he does not understand the nuance of compromise. That is what I have been getting from some of these threads.

[maha]

217. It would help a lot

If Kucinich supporters didn't open every pro-Kucinich thread by flaming the other candidates.

[MuseRider]

231. The discourse

was at one time very civil but some insist that they are so far and above anyone else in intellegence and morallity that it has become a bit difficult. I too am learning today how to use my ignore button, never ever thought I would do that, but the superiority factor around here is insulting and wholly without merit.

[redqueen]

264. That's what I've noticed as well.

Just an appeal to 'conventional wisdom' with no real logic to back it up.

Before Clinton, 'conventional wisdom' told us that if unemployment dropped below 5 or 6%, then there would be a rise in inflation. We dropped to around 4%, and guess what -- conventional wisdom was proved wrong.

I have faith, but I don't waste it on believing things that naysayers want me to believe. That's no way to achieve any progress. That's the sure path to failure. Just my opinion, of course. :)

[Dude_CalmDown]

51. You really think there's a transmission out there that can survive that?

Dean's going to slam the car into reverse and gun it.

[Hep]

52. The transmission won't be in very good shape

at the bottom of the cliff. If we grind out the transmission, at least we'll break down at the top of the cliff!

OK, this analogy is getting out of hand!

[Dude_CalmDown]

63. It would never engage - you'd fly right off the cliff

Even if somehow it kept you from flying off the cliff the cops are still right behind you.

[Selwynn]

102. I couldn't agree more! And...

If end the end, after the national conventions are over, and the Nominees are chosen, if your only choices are between someone headed toward the cliff at 75MPH and someone heading towards the cliff at 15MPF, I'll vote for the one heading towards the cliff at 15MPH....

...but I'll mourn the fact that the one advocating a u-turn away from the cliff was marginalized and ignored.

[maha]

116. Cute, but not true.

You oversimplify the situation we're in, and thereby distort it.

The picture as I see it:

*IF the Bushistas keep control of the White House and Congress in 2004, kiss America goodbye. It's over.

*IF ANY Dem gets into the White House in 2004, but the GOP retains control of Congress, the best we can hope for is a holding action.

PLEASE NOTE: Do not kid yourself that Magic Dennis would make things better, because under the Constitution, Presidents have very little actual power. If a majority in Congress want to ignore the President entirely, it can do so. This has happened in times past. DK may have wonderful intentions, but there's little chance he could accomplish even a small percentage of what he might want to do until Congress is suddenly filled with a large majority of like-minded progressive legislators, and that ain't gonna happen.

Under this circumstance, our best bet would be a strong, very smart guy who is really good at playing politics. His ideas will matter much less than his ability to finesse Congress. I don't see Kucinich in this role.

*IF ANY Dem gets into the White House, plus we get a majority in the Senate, it will still be a holding action, but we might be able to accomplish a little in the way of progressive policy. In this circumstance, it would be a damn shame if one of the the out-and-out appeasers like Lieberman or Gephardt were elected. Other than that, it may not matter much.

*IF the Dems get a small majority in both houses of Congress, then it would be great to have a progressive-minded President. Either Clark or Dean would do nicely, IMO. Kucinich has no copyright on progressive ideas.

*IF the Dems get a big majority in both houses of Congress plus the White House, I will be opening a flying pig franchise. Santa Claus can be President. You can be Pope.

[Padraig18]

22. My 'issue' with DK's run...

As I told John Kleeb about a week ago, while I sincerely don't believe DK can ever get the nomination, the fact that his run is opening up a safe Dem seat to possible Repuke acquisition and surrendering his 3 terms-worth of seniority in the House just frosts me, especially if we hope to regain the House in 2004.

[no name no slogan]

82. I'm pretty sure he can run for both

Remember Lloyd Bendtsen in 1988? Although he was running for VP, he also ran for re-election to his Senate seat. He lost the VP race, but he was re-elected to the Senate.

Then, it would be left up to the Gov of OH to appoint a successor.

Also, a strong Democrat will probably have a better "coattail effect" than one of lesser convictions. That would mean more Democratic Senators and Representatives in congress as well.

[Padraig18]

273. Has he even taken out papers?

Isn't Ohio's filing deadline Jan. 1st? I think John Kleeb told me it was.

[redqueen]

283. He's filed for both, yes. n/t

[cosmicdot]

177. and, that necessitates 15 negative DK posts in this thread?

I'm not keeping a count ... I had to count them.

but, what exactly is the point?

[Padraig18]

271. Negative?

It must be sad when anything less than a hand-clapping, rousing, "Go, team!" response in a thread is considered 'negative'.

[Armstead]

26. Another must-read

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=575508

This is a speech given by Cong. Bernie Sanders on the House floor this week. It lays out what is happening to the middle class and poor -- and a progressive alternative -- in clear and stark terms.

[maha]

28. Are you a Kucinich supporter?

If so, what makes you think that Kucinich is the only Dem candidate concerned about what is happening to the middle class and poor?

[IrateCitizen]

62. maha, Armstead is a Bernie Sanders supporter first and foremost

He never misses an opportunity to plug him.

And I very much agree with him, that Bernie is one of the sanest voices in the wilderness out there. You've got to love a guy that is able to win every time in a predominantly rural state, without a big campaign fund or the backing of a political party, and who is a (GASP!) self-proclaimed democratic socialist!

It's a piece that is meant to show that the status quo just ain't workin' anymore -- and that proposals to continue to just tinker around the edges are only going to allow the much more malignant, underlying problems to fester and grow.

[maha]

97. I like Bernie Sanders, too.

And, I agree the status quo ain't working' any more. But then I've thought that way since the Nixon Administration. I'm an OLD progressive.

My question is, what makes people think that ONLY Dennis Kucinich sees this, among the Dem candidates we've got, and what makes people think that ONLY Dennis Kucinich can do something about that nasty old status quo?

[Armstead]

104. I'm betwixt Kucinich and Dean

I still don't have an official personal dog in this hunt yet. Frankly, I believe totally in Kucinich's message, but I don't think he's the right messenger -- he is a bit too unyielding. But that's just image crap...Dean to me is the next best thing, even if it's more rhetoric than substance.

I'm an old progressive too (well a middle-aged progressive) and have seen and followed the deterioration and theft of America since the mid 70's.

Kucinich represents what I believe the Democratic leadership and politicians need to do, which is to acknowledge that something is very rotten in Denmark, and offer some REAL answers and solutions. They need to challenge the status quo and the Big Lies of the right wing and corporate conservatrives.

I'm all for pragmatism and realism -- but I hate "centrism" with a passion. It is worse than right-wing conservatism. The lack of challenge to what has been happening for the last 25 years is the reason the right wing has been allowed to get away with it. And I believe Corporate Power is a core issue that drives most otehrs today.

The Democratic candidates who continue to avoid this harsh truth and merely fiddle around the edges may care about the poor and middle class. But their refusal to tell the real truth is selling us all out to the right wing.

I posted Bernie's speech because -- as usual -- he told the simple plain truth that democrats should stop avoiding.

[IrateCitizen]

115. I'll see if I can summarize it by presenting my views on the candidates

1. Howard Dean. Dean is much more than just a candidate, he has come to represent a movement -- a takeover of political campaigns by the grassroots. This is why, IMHO, the DLC and Lieberman are expending so much energy in attacking him. While the guy is not a progressive, I am hopeful that he will remain true to "them that brung him here". But I also see a lot more "attacking Bush" from him and not as much "offering solutions" let alone "challenging paradigms".

2. John Kerry. A classic NE liberal, which while is not a good thing, is not something that will be a vote-grabber. While I can understand his IWR vote, I cannot agree with it. He also is completely on the wrong side of the trade issue, in criticizing those who are questioning its effects so far (which have largely been disastrous for everyone outside of corporations). Everything about him just screams "Washington insider" to me, and he just comes off as a little too close to the "establishment".

3. Wesley Clark. An unknown. He's taken on a team of Clintonite advisors, which isn't encouraging to this progressive -- especially the fact that he's listening to that bastard Robert Rubin. I see him as directing his economic policies at the behest of Wall St., which IMHO is a disaster, because we need to reorient them toward Main St.

4. Dick Gephardt. He lost me when he joined with Lieberman in standing with Bush in the Rose Garden. He's good on labor issues, makes good points on trade, but is a dinosaur, IMHO. He also presided over the recent 2002 disaster in the House as Minority Leader.

5. Joe Lieberman. The worst thing going for the Democratic Party right now, IMHO. Typifies the unwillingness to challenge loony RW policies. Has no grassroots events, let alone support -- content to chase fat cat contributors. Gives possible fodder to the Bush campaign a la Gore in 1988 with the "Willie Horton" story. Closely wedded to corporate interests, blocked accounting reform in 1997, complete disdain for anything resembling populism. Plus the betrayal of fellow Dems, along with Gephardt, on the IWR Rose Garden ceremony.

6. Al Sharpton. He does come up with some zingers in the debate, but a completely dubious character whose motives are usually wholly self-promoting. Two words: Tawana Brawley.

7. Carol Mosley-Braun. I have to say, I like hearing what she has to say in the debates. She's forceful without being shrill, and is voicing opinions I can agree with on Iraq, trade, and economics. But her past is a bit dubious from her days as a Senator and some campaign fund misdoings. Plus, absolutely zero visibility.

8. John Edwards. Completely perplexing to me. Should be able to build populist support based on his background, but he loses it in his support for continuation of corporate-directed "free trade". Not quite ready for prime time, and it shows. He should never have announced he was giving up his Senate seat. Unpolished and disappointingly unpopulist, even though he makes moves in that direction.

9. Finally, Dennis Kucinich. Most of all, I like his views on the need to end the general attitude of militarism. He has both spoken of and demonstrated a willingness to take on the Military Industrial Complex. He doesn't avoid populism, he embraces it. His track record as the "Boy Mayor" of Cleveland and sacrificing a promising political career to save the public utilities is a big plus. His votes on reproductive choice are troubling, but I think he may have seen the light on this -- plus, he'd be surrounded by people who wouldn't let him regress on it. While I don't agree with his solution, he is absolutely right to point out the big problems with "free trade" as it currently exists. In short, not a viable candidacy, but the most important one out there IMHO, because it is a voice advocating drastic changes in our society and attitudes that are badly needed.

[maha]

139. I agree with much of your assessment.

I agree with all of your assessments except for Wesley Clark, who I like a lot, and for Kucinich.

Dennis Kucinich has some good ideas, which is why Dennis Kucinich should stay in Congress, where we need him.

A President should be less an idea guy than a do-er. The Constitution give Presidents very little actual power. All the real power belongs to Congress, which is why Presidents throughout history are only as powerful as Congress permits.

You put an idealistic, left-wing type in the White House with a hard-ass, right-wing Congress, and the Prez will be toast. Congress can choose to ignore him and govern without him in all matters of domestic policy. (This has happened before; Andrew Johnson comes to mind, but I'm sure I could find other examples.) Further, Congress can block whatever he wants to do with foreign policy.

Ideas are fine, but first and foremost a President has to be a master politician, tough, and somebody who can finesse Congress. And that ain't Kucinich.

[IrateCitizen]

155. Please note that I said I'm not harboring any illusions about him

I know that he can't win. I'm supporting him, both with contributions and in the primaries, because his message is one that needs to be heard nationally. That's why Dean is my #2 guy, because he has been a chief executive before and is more of a "doer".

As for Clark, are you comfortable with the drift he has made from the grassroots who brought him along to all of the former Clinton advisors? I have to say that I have found his comments on trade policy to be VERY amorphous and non-committal thus far. And the very idea that he's taking economic policy advise from Robert Rubin just plain pisses me off. Don't forget -- this is the same guy who went to work for Citicorp and was trying to arrange for Enron bailouts, not to mention the fact that he and Robert Reich were the two economic adversaries during the first Clinton Administration -- and I'd pick Reich over Wall St. Bob any day of the week.

[maha]

176. Clark interlude

"As for Clark, are you comfortable with the drift he has made from the grassroots who brought him along to all of the former Clinton advisors?"

No, and I hope that doesn't scuttle his campaign.

"I have to say that I have found his comments on trade policy to be VERY amorphous and non-committal thus far. And the very idea that he's taking economic policy advise from Robert Rubin just plain pisses me off. Don't forget -- this is the same guy who went to work for Citicorp and was trying to arrange for Enron bailouts, not to mention the fact that he and Robert Reich were the two economic adversaries during the first Clinton Administration -- and I'd pick Reich over Wall St. Bob any day of the week."

I understand your concern, but in the great scheme of things this may be nitpicking.

[IrateCitizen]

I would hardly call direction of economic policy "nitpicking"

We're talking about things that directly affect people's lives, not exactly a small, meaningless issue.

[Armstead]

235. Not nitpicking -- It's the core problem

>>>I understand your concern, but in the great scheme of things this may be nitpicking.<<<

No, who a candidate is listening to is more than nitpicking. One of the BIG problems with the Democtratic Party is that it has stopped listening to otrehr views and instead turtns to elite Wall St. Poo-bahs . So they govern by the same assumptions that guide the Republicans.

I am not against business, nor against those with business expertise. But the corporate/investment world is myopic and looks at the world as a market, and "economic growth" as the major yardstick to measure progress.

And that's why we're in the mess we're in today. The roghts and views of the business elite dictate (litwrally) everything in policy and politics.

[maha]

256. Robert Rubin isn't the scariest man on Wall Street.

In order to execute real reform, you WILL need SOME support from SOME people on Wall Street.

[Armstead]

269. I agree but

not all support from nothing but Wall St. and Big Bizness. That is why the Democratic centrists have swallowed so much bullshit like "Raising the minimum wage is bad," and "Free trade is good for us" and "Monopolies create competition."

There's a balance necessary, and the Democrats lost that balance a while ago -- 10 or 15 years at least.

The Corporate World has its own political party. And they aren;t stupid. They have to play ball with both parties, to hedge their bets.

I'd rather see us err on the side of ordinaryt people and the poor than to continue to kowtow so heavily to the oligarchy.

[Mairead]

194. um, Dennis has also been a 'chief executive', IC

And of a 'company' just as large as Dean's was AND much more reflective of America's diversity. The principal reason Dennis only had the one term was his integrity in sacrificing himself for the people, something Dean never had to face.

It's very easy to forget that Dean's 'governorship' was of a state no bigger than a medium-large city, and an almost completely homogenous one, too. And his legislative experience was less weighty than that of Dennis's city council experience, since Vermont's legislature divides a comparable workload among more members.

[no name no slogan]

270. "Idea Guys"

Let's keep in mind that neither Reagan nor Bush the younger were/are "idea guys". Most of their policy is dictated by their "friends", for which these two did the dirty work.

If that is what "do-ers" do when they get elected, give me an "idea guy" any day. :)

[ShimokitaJer]

34. Al and Dennis rock... but here's why I'm voting for Dean

Believe it or not, it's for the exact same reason you seem to be supporting Kucinich and Sharpton: because I think he has the greatest chance of changing the Democratic party for the better. I know Kucinich has, by far, the most liberal views. And I would dearly love to see each and every one of his proposals gain popularity. And I am grateful to him for staying in the race despite low polling numbers because that will help insure that those issues get talked about, unlike in the 2000 race.

The reason I am supporting Dean is not because Dean is the most liberal, but because he has the greatest chance of bringing the Democratic party back to Democratic ideals, as well as bringing others who love Democratic ideals but don't trust the Democratic party, back into the fold.

First, Dean's following has the greatest chance of breaking the Democratic party away from its ties to corporate money. This has very little to do with Dean himself and everything to do with those who championed his cause on the internet from very early in ther race. These people weren't all for Dean at first, but they found a group of people who shared their disgust with corporatism and the shift of the Democratic party to the right, and they chose a candidate to rally behind. That candidate happened to be Dean. Still, Dean or his advisors should be credited with recognizing the movement for what it was so early in the game and fostering it, rather than turning away from it once they became more mainstream (a la Clark). I think it has become clear that the DLC paints everything in terms of fundraising, no matter what the source, and Dean's movement has proven that the rules for fundraising are changing. If anything can halt the Democratic party's shift to the right, that can.

The other side of the equation is the so called "center" which Dean appeals to but which many on DU find disgusting. Moving to the center is not about adopting Republican talking points as your own or accepting donations from the same corporations that sponsor the GOP. It's about finding common ground with people who the two-party system tells you that you should hate. The vast majority of people in this country believe in a living wage, worker protection, protecting the environment, and health care. Somehow, the Republican party has convinced them that voting Democrat because of those issues also means they have to accept reckless spending, more crime, and high taxes, just as the Democratic party has convinced us that making concessions to them means accepting back alley abortions, prayer in schools, and state-sponsored racism. But it is not the move to the center which gave us Bush, but the increased polarization of the parties that allowed an extremist like Bush to gain the support of the Republican party. A candidate like Dean, who appeals to fiscal conservatism and "common sense" solutions, can bridge the gap without making concessions to the religious right and the corporations.

Yes, Kucinich is an amazing man and a wonderful candidate. Given the chance, I believe he could change the party for the better. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the power to take that chance. Right now, Dean does, and I'd like to see him get the opportunity to do it.

[Mairead]

67. " Unfortunately, he doesn't have the power to take that chance."

How do you know that? What evidence do you have that Dennis is not merely behind but hopelessly behind?

[Padraig18]

71. His flat 1-2% performance in poll after poll after poll, e.g. n/t

[xJlM]

77. And you believe those republican polls

Wow, you probably believe that Bush is the most popular president ever, too.

Wait till the actual polls of the voters start. I think you may see something a little different than what the corporate whores want to tell you.

[Padraig18]

80. No, I believe in legitimate polls.

Why is it that every poll that shows DK at 1-2% is a 'Republican poll'? I've actually seen internal Democratic polls here in IL (by Congressional district) that give him the same % statewide, and IL is a state that has gone consistently and heavily Dem for President in recent years.

Why don't you tell me where all these folks just itching to vote for DK are, because they're sure as hell not talking to anyone doing any polling. :shrug:

[Padraig18]

96. Dead silence. n/t

[no name no slogan]

274. His base isn't among "party Democrats"

I'd check who gets polled on those polls, too. Most of them self-select either registered Democrats or people who voted Democratic in the last election.

At least here in Minnesota (and in Iowa), much of his support is coming from political "outsiders" who have not voted Democratic in the past or just have not voted, period. We're seeing a lot of activity from Peace & Justice groups, church groups and poor people's rights groups who typically don't get involved in party politics. Nor do they get polled by Zogby and the likes, either.

As I've said all along, there will be many suprised people the day after Iowa. :)

[birdman]

81. Republican polls ?

You mean the polling companies know that Kucinich
is sweeping the country but are changing their data
to prevent him from getting to the White House ?

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MuseRider]

123. Even most of the people

here who do not care for him would disagree with you on that.

[cosmicdot]

124. He was a poor leader as a mayor

links please

Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich shook hands yesterday with Pablo Piano, the vice president of the Maui Filipino Community Council. Kucinich, a congressman from Ohio, was a guest at the annual installation dinner of the statewide United Filipino Council, attended by some 400 people at Westin Maui last night.

[Terwilliger]

293. REAALLY??

got links?

[Padraig18]

127. I was at a state Dem meeting last Sunday

There were literally 100's of Democrats there from all over the state; I saw *one* DK button-=-- one. I saw several dozen CMB and AS buttons, and tons of buttons for everyone else. Again, where is this huge groundswell of support for DK? I see no evidence of it anywhere, and I think the polls are probably about right. :shrug:

[cosmicdot]

145. we'll take that as an official poll of those unable to attend

thank you for reporting from the field

you love posting in Kucinich threads, don't'cha?
:loveya:

[Padraig18]

152. No, I normally avoid them.

It was as legitimate an observation as most I see from DK supporters; anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence. :hi:

[cosmicdot]

157. what were the demographics of the state-wide meeting?

any info on that?

[Padraig18]

173. Good lord, no!

It was a statewide meeting of county Democratic organizations, not 'official' county Democratic parties. It looked 'like Illinois', basically, in my estimation. Mixed urban and rural, blue-collar/white-collar, Black, Caucasian and Latino mix about right, etc.

[cosmicdot]

187. what are Democratic organizations? that are officially not part

of the Democratic Party??

need some educating here

[Padraig18]

267. They are clubs

Social, political clubs. "Boosters" would be a good word, I guess.

[redqueen]

237. Hundreds is a handfull?

And with amost NO advance press?

:wtf:

[birdman]

75. Between 1 and 2 % in all polls - no significant movement in months

It's pretty hopeless.

[Padraig18]

78. And that's among likely voters.

We can hold hands and sing protest songs and emote about love and joy and universal peace and goodwill all we want, but when the dust settles in November 2004, it's going to be who got the most votes (if they count them) against *. DK will not be that person, even if he gets the nod--- America is *not* ready for DK.

No more complex than that.

[cosmicdot]

148. likey voters, according to whom?

who is setting the parameters of public opinion?

so, we cherry pick whatever suits us or do we reject the entire premise by corporate pollsters?

they WILL prevail over the best interests of the people

surrender to Corporate Amerikkka!

[Padraig18]

158. Likely voters are...

... people who have voted in the past. believe all the utter horseshit about 'cherry-picking' you want; I'll be interested to see what happens when those poll numbers translate out into real votes in about the same percentages.

[cosmicdot]

169. kinda like they did in Georgia in 2002?

Utter bullshit? don't use that tone with me, youngster

will real votes go through the Diebold voting software?

what will that prove?

[Padraig18]

268. I'll thank you not to address me as 'youngster'! n/t

[ShimokitaJer]

180. It's not a matter of Kucinich just being behind

As I thought I was making clear, it's Dean's huge base of energized supporters that makes his campaign so important. The way I see it, Kucinich supporters are very loyal and very motivated, but they have had an extremely hard time increasing their numbers. And though Kucinich's positions on the issues are inspiring, he has failed to inspire me on anything but an intellectual level. I truly wish that that was all it took to win an election, but I think we all know that it's not (exhibit A: the current White House squatter).

You also failed to address Dean's appeal to the center. The very things we like best about Kucinich also throw up all the worst red flags for the voters who have been taught to fear those devil-worshipping liberals. You can barely hear Kucinich's name mentioned without hearing that he's a Vegan. Well, personally, I don't care what the man eats, but it's clear the mainstream press is poised to paint Kucinich as a weirdo radical. And if the mainstream press thinks Dean is too far to the left...

Believe me, I wish this country were ready to listen to a candidate like Kucinich. I just don't think they are.

[Zorra]

161. Nice post. I was wondering.....

Sorry! I thought I was responding to a different post.

Nice original post though, thanks!

[Zorra]

172. Hmm....maybe you could help me out here

I was wondering if you might know where I can find a link where Howard says that he will attempt to limit corporate power. I found a link in a Truthout interview done by Will Pitt, but Howard did not address the entire issue, focusing on corporate media only (not that I'm complaining, I love what he says there)but he does not address the issue of corporate power in general.

If I could read somewhere where Howard says he intends to take corporate power out of government, I will very actively support him if he gets the nomination. Thanks.

Here's the excerpt from the truthout interview:

PITT: For a great many people across the political spectrum, the number one issue of concern is the vast and growing power of corporations within government, and even more so within the media. It can be argued that one of the main reasons why the Bush administration continues to enjoy the approval ratings it does is because the news media has been demonstrably derelict in its duties. Where do you stand on the power of corporations in America, particularly within the media? Do you have any thoughts or ideas on how that might be dealt with?

DEAN: I do. I think, first of all, it is true that the media has a conservative bias, and is being well-funded by conservative people like Rupert Murdoch. There is no question about that. But I also believe that part of the fault belongs to the Democrats, because the Democrats don't stand up and therefore there is no other side to cover. We've got to do that. Now, some of them are doing it during election time, but it's a little late. Here's what we need to do. In politics, sometimes one single event can crystallize what the problem is. For me, when the Cumulus Corporation, which owns a lot of radio stations, kicked the Dixie Chicks off their networks – a couple hundred radio stations – I realized that media corporations have too much power. What they were doing was using a public resource, i.e. the airwaves, and removing the ability to view and represent both sides of an issue.

When you have that kind of power, you have too much power. I believe we need to re-regulate the media, go back to limiting the number of stations that can be controlled in one particular area, so we can be sure that the American people get moderate, conservative and liberal points of view.

PITT: You're talking about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

DEAN: Yes, reinstating controls over how many outlets you can own in any particular media market. The media has clearly abused their privilege, and it is hurting our democracy. Deregulation in many areas has simply proved to be bad for America, bad for the American economy, bad for the average working person, and bad for democracy. We need to take a different view. Some deregulation is a good thing. We went too far, and now we need to cut back.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/052203A.shtml

[ShimokitaJer]

196. To be honest with you...

I don't have a quote of the type you ask for. Most of what Dean says on this is rather vague, so you have to take a lot on faith. He can barely get through a speech without saying he wants to take the power away from the special interests, and I guess you can interpret that in a lot of different ways. And admittedly, given the unpopularity of the FCC ruling, the stand he took on Truthout isn't exactly a dangerous position.

Here again, I believe the key to knowing what he will do is the way he has conducted his fundraising. Whatever the intentions, I believe any candidate will be beholden to the ones who contributed to his/her campaign. Those who rely on corporate money will work for corporations and those who rely on Washington insiders will work for the status quo. When Clinton successfully co-opted the Republican's pet issues, he was also forced to take a pro-business stance that gave us NAFTA, the WTO, etc. I believe that most of Dean's supporters are so energetic because of their disgust with the status quo and their desire for change. Dean has been very responsive to this, and frames nearly all of his speeches in those terms. And unlike Clark, who turned his back on the grassroots in favor of Washington insiders once he began his campain, Dean has proven willing to listen to his supporters.

Of course, it's always possible that Dean is a poser who has suckered us all and will decide to champion the cause of corporations once he's in office. That's where the trust comes in. But of all the candidates, I see him as having the least responsibility to maintain the status quo in order to retain the votes of those who put him in office.

[Mairead]

219. This is interesting...

PITT: You're talking about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

DEAN: Yes, reinstating controls over how many outlets you can own in any particular media market.

But Dean didn't answer the question because that isn't what the Fairness Doctrine was about. So, didn't Dean know that, or does he only intend to limit ownership? Because the FD solved (or at least occasionally had some effect on) a problem that limiting ownership doesn't begin to even touch.

I wonder why WP didn't catch that.

[donsu]

86. I'm with you Mairead - Kucinich, Sharpton, Braun

nt

[Zorra]

119. I agree also. None of the other

candidates are saying anything much, if anything at all, about limiting corporate power, which, IMO, is a fundamental principle of the Democratic Party. Limiting corporate power is the key to restoring our Democracy. And I don't seem to be the only one who thinks this:

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism"-FDR

"The people of this country, not special interest big money, should be the source of all political power." - Paul Wellstone

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our
moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our
government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of
our country." --Thomas Jefferson

"We need a new relationship between corporations and our society. Just as our founders understood the need for separation of church and state, we need to institutionalize the separation of corporations and the state. This begins with government taking the responsibility to establish the conditions under which corporations may do business in the United States, including the establishment of a federal corporate charter which describes corporate rights and responsibilities" --Dennis Kucinich

Jefferson and Madisons 11th Amendment to the Bill of Rights

Most Americans don’t know it but Thomas Jefferson, along with James Madison worked assiduously to have an 11th Amendment included into our nation’s original Bill of Rights. This proposed Amendment would have prohibited “monopolies in commerce.” The amendment would have made it illegal for corporations to own other corporations, or to give money to politicians, or to otherwise try to influence elections. Corporations would be chartered by the states for the primary purpose of “serving the public good.” Corporations would possess the legal status not of natural persons but rather of “artificial persons.” This means that they would have only those legal attributes which the state saw fit to grant to them. They would NOT; and indeed could NOT possess the same bundle of rights which actual flesh and blood persons enjoy. Under this proposed amendment neither the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, nor any provision of that document would protect the artificial entities known of as corporations.

Jefferson and Madison were so insistent upon this amendment because the American Revolution was in substantial degree a revolt against the domination of colonial economic and political life by the greatest multinational corporation of its age: the British East India Company. After all who do you think owned the tea which Sam Adams and friends dumped overboard in Boston Harbor? Who was responsible for the taxes on commodities and restrictions on trade by the American colonists? It was the British East India Company, of course. In the end the amendment was not adopted because a majority in the first Congress believed that already existing state laws governing corporations were adequate for constraining corporate power. Jefferson worried about the growing influence of corporate power until his dying day in 1826. Even the more conservative founder John Adams came to harbor deep misgivings about unchecked corporate power.

A few years after Jefferson’s unsuccessful attempt to incorporate this amendment into the Bill of Rights, the fourth Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Marshall, unilaterally asserted the Court’s right to judicial review in the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In practice this meant that the Supreme Court would have sole and unchecked power to determine what the Constitution meant. Jefferson was aghast. His fear lay in the knowledge that an unelected branch of government, one which is not subject to the will of the citizens, and is effectively immune from check by the two elected branches of government (Only one Supreme Court Justice has ever been impeached—none have ever been convicted and removed) was now solely responsible for determining the meaning of the Constitution. The meaning of the Constitution, and hence the very nature of our political system, was now in the hands of an un-elected and effectively uncontrollable body. “The Constitution has become a thing of wax to be molded as the Court sees fit” Jefferson lamented.

http://www.liberalslant.com/mpb052403.htm

:dem:Kick the corporations out of government. Support Dennis.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

89. very nicely stated...and i concur

[cosmicdot]

111. I agree, and thanks for Ductape Fatwa's superb series of essays' links

I had missed them.

Plus, this thread enabled me to update my "ignore" list
:)

the issue of our time: corporate power and influence over our lives and our society


The very name of Mata Hari has become synonymous with spying, espionage, etc.

A young Margaretha Zelle

[stickdog]

112. I Love DK. But all his supporters are doing is HELPING the status quo.

Just like Nader supporters did in 2000. The only candidate with a real chance to shake up the status quo this election is Dean. Dean is running the most successful national grassroots campaign in the history of the United States. Dean listens to his supporters, so we could really use all the hardcore progressive influence we can muster. Instead DK and AS supporters are just playing into the DLC's hands by throwing their time and money behind a candidate who has about as much chance to win the Democratic nomination as Ralph Nader.

To dream the impossible dream,
to fight the unbeatable foe,
to bear with unbearable sorrow,
to run where the brave dare not go...

To right the unrightable wrong,
to love pure and chaste from afar,
to try when your arms are too weary
to reach the unreachable star!

This is my quest --
to follow that star
no matter how hopeless,
no matter how far --
To fight for the right
without question or pause,
to be willing to march into hell
for a heavenly cause!

And I know
if I'll only be true
to this glorious quest
that my heart
will be peaceful and calm
when I'm laid to my rest.

And the world will be better for this
that one man, scorned and covered with scars,
still strove with his last ounce of courage
To reach the unreachable stars!

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cosmicdot]

122. I'll stand back and watch the fireworks

:hi:

[ThirdWheelLegend]

129. hehe

When someone posts such inflammatory baseless poopie I find it best not to respond at all. So no flames from me..(oh wait did I just flame? :P)

TWL

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maha]

287. The COMPLETE KUCINICH

There is an archive of Kucinich articles from Cleveland magazine called "The Complete Kucinich" that's a must-read. I particularly like this one from April 1978, "The Prince and the Power."

Life obviously has changed dramatically for Dennis Kucinich during the past year. No longer is he a belligerent city councilman or a rampaging clerk of courts, hustling and scraping for every available inch of media space. He is The Mayor, and now the reporters come to him. In droves. They come not only from local newspapers, but from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Milwaukee Journal, Time and Newsweek. They come to see this enfant terrible of Cleveland politics, the outspoken maverick who has wrested the power from the clutches of the old guard.

In their haste to write of the new wave of political reform that is supposedly being spawned here, most have failed to notice that a remarkable thing is happening at City Hall. The machinery of city government has been taken over by a startlingly young group of political zealots whose fervor to stamp out corruption and lethargy is exceeded only by their devotion to their leader. And riding the crest of that wave of youthful energy, using the rhetoric of reform as a funnel through which he can turn the zealots' thirst for justice into a continual high-powered media blitz, is a man with mighty ambitions - 31-year-old Dennis Kucinich.

A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war, and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules. And it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank.
- from Nicolo Machiavelli's The Prince, 1516

The art of accumulating power is one that Dennis Kucinich has practiced successfully for more than ten years. But now that he is mayor, he has turned what was once a game into something all his own - a holy war.

Later in the same article:

The loyalists' Superman-like pursuit of what they perceive to be truth and justice - and their apparent belief that they have a monopoly on those commodities - has already earned them such nicknames from city officials and councilmen as "the Red Guard" and "Hitler's youth corps."

Damn! The man's not a politician; he's a cult leader!!

[Terwilliger]

298. so, by the first sentence you post, the article is horribly skewed

yet you hang on every last work as if it's gold

Yeah...uh-huh

[Zorra]

132. A poor leader? Yuh, if you're the mob, or a corporation, I

suppose.

Consider this:

Palladino lost out on the Cleveland contract to rubbish rival Daniel Dzina, at the recommendation of Mayor Dennis Kucinich, elected in 1977. Unlike his predecessor Ralph Perk, the populist mayor was no friend of organized crime. In 1978, Cleveland Mafia lieutenant Tommy Sinito hired a hit man to kill Kucinich because the mob felt the mayor was harming organized crime operations. As the hit man tracked Kucinich’s daily routines, the plot was discovered by law enforcement before the hit man could find a clean shot. Undisclosed publicly until 1984, it remains the only known plot by the American Mafia to assassinate a big-city mayor.

When asked about the assassination plot, Kucinich, now a U.S. Congressman, said "Refer to the 23rd Psalm." That Biblical passage states, in part -- ‘Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: For thou art with me.’

http://www.americanmafia.com/Feature_Articles_213.html

Or:

Cleveland Magazine offered this summary: "Kucinich refused to yield to bankers who gave him a choice: Sell the Municipal Light System to the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. or the city will go into default. The mayor said no."

When Kucinich refused to sell Muny Light, the banks took the unprecedented step of refusing to roll over the city’s debt, as is customary. Instead, they pushed the city into default. It turned out the banks were thoroughly interlocked with the private utility, CEI, which would have acquired monopoly status by taking over Muny Light. Five of the six banks held almost 1.8 million shares of CEI stock; of the 11 directors of CEI, eight were also directors of four of the six banks involved.

By holding to his campaign promise and putting principle above politics, he lost his re-election bid and his political career was derailed. But today Kucinich stands vindicated for having confronted the Enron of his day, and for saving the municipal power company. "There is little
debate," wrote Cleveland Magazine in May 1996, "over the value of Muny Light today. Now Cleveland Public Power, it is a proven asset to the city that between 1985 and 1995 saved its customers $195,148,520 over what they would have paid CEI." He also preserved hundreds of union jobs.

When Kucinich re-launched his political career in the mid-1990s, it was on the strength of having saved public power. His campaign symbol was a light bulb. "Because he was right!" was his campaign slogan when he won his seat in the state senate in 1994. The slogan that sent him to Washington two years later was "Light Up Congress."

In 1998, the Cleveland City Council issued a commendation to Dennis Kucinich for "having the courage and foresight to refuse to sell the city's municipal electric system."

http://www.kucinich.us/

A poor leader as mayor? The people of Cleveland don't think so. They keep electing him because he stood up for them.

[Ficus]

138. Why

should poll numbers matter to me when I think about who I most agree with? 0% or 1% or 40%? I vote for who I agree with on most issues.

And for someone who has a banner that says "End Bush's War - Bring home the troops now" that is so anti-DK, I find it way strange that Dennis K is the ONLY candidate saying just that.


:dem: :dem:

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ficus]

154. I would rather

of had Paul Wellstone "lie" and decide to seek another term and continue to fight for us. For some reason, when I think of all of the things PW did in his Senate career, lying was not one of them. Perhaps you have some concrete examples, besides his pledge not to run again.

NOT to defend lying of course, but

In the abstract, because someone "lies" by your logic, then they are a liar. I don't know a single person out there who hasn't told a lie. Therefore, by your idea of what the party should be, we'd have a real hard time finding candidates.

I understand your point - but Paul Wellstone is not the person to direct this at. Paul WAS the Democratic Wing, and sorry Howard Dean is not, and never will be.

WWWD? Yeah, I think Dk would more often than others in the field.

:dem: :dem:

[maha]

146. He isn't, but let's go on ...

"I find it way strange that Dennis K is the ONLY candidate saying just that."

ALL the candidates (except Lieberman) want to bring the troops home asap. Where we disagree is what "asap" means. Kucnich under-estimates the difficulty of the task, IMO.

When you say that ONLY Kucinich wants to bring the troops home, you a lying. Why should I believe a liar?

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maha]

156. They all lie.

Every single president since George Washington has told lies. I can recommend a good book on that subject, if you are interested. I'm sure nobody gets into Congress without telling a few fibs, too, and that include Kucinich. I don't know what his lies were, but the abortion flip flop does come to mind.

Clinton told lies about his personal life, but when it came to policy, he was fairly honest, and that's what matters to me. Bush lies about policy, and has done so all along.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maha]

197. I'm sure Gore has told some fibs, too.

In fact, the Bushistas were able to paint Gore as a serial liar because he was caught in some small, technical fibs, while they lied on about BIG stuff.

The point is that the SYSTEM of power that we've had in place for more than 200 years pushes politicians into telling fibs. This is not to say that we should be complacent about lies, but do pick the lies you want to holler about.

[Ficus]

165. Maha

and I agree. Al Gore would be no more or less of a liar than Bill Clinton when it comes to policy - as would DK or Kerry or whoever. I think our field is if nothing else, MORE HONEST than BUSH. (that doesn't take much)

:dem: :dem:

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ficus]

179. What lies are you

speaking of? The decision to seek re-election? Is it just that or more?

I know this is a DK thread, but you seem to cast Paul Wellstone as being a compulsive liar. You assert that WWWD means in every case Wellstone would lie.

:dem: :dem:

[Name removed]

211. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ficus]

233. Of all of the US Senators out there

Paul Wellstone was not there for money and power.
Nor is Russ Feingold, who deserves a lot of props for his amendment to the pay raise.

Anyhow, this thread is about DK and Sharpton. I'll quit defending Paul Wellstone.

:dem: :dem:

[maha]

213. Paul Wellstone was a great man.

His loss was a terrible blow to America.

[maha]

185. If it hasn't been done since Washington's time

... aint gonna happen now.

[maha]

171. There you go.

There are no magic bullets. There is no One Perfect Politician who can be sent to Washington to make it better. Meaningful reform is going to take years and has to be done in the hearts and minds of the electorate before it can be done in Washington. And that's how it is.

[demrebel]

186. Agree - vote out anyone that lies

We need to look for honest and smart people who want to run but not stay in. Come in and make things happen.

Stop all this fighting with each other. Remember, it is we the people.

I think a great thing would be to stop the retirement plans for all in congress and put them on SS like us. That would help get you people who wanted to serve we the people.

[maha]

199. If we vote out all the liars...

Who's gonna run the Gubmint?

Won't be anybody left.

[demrebel]

203. You need to get around some honest people

They are around. It shows how sick we are on here that we will not think, and try something new that is real old. Be honest.

If we would have leaders say, I am going to do this, if I do not, I will not run again.

Make the the standard no lying.

[maha]

212. You are not being realistic. n/t

[Ficus]

160. I am not a lying

But the fact remains - he wants them out now. UN in, US out, as I've heard him say many times. We should turn this over to the world community and get our troops out of there. Others want to wait around. ok.

[maha]

184. But that isn't possible.

In the real world, the best we can hope for is for U.S. troops to be out of there in two to three years, replaced by multinational forces.

[redqueen]

175. You made a similar comment earlier

And I refuted it there. You are mistaken if you think he underestimates the difficulty of the task.

In fact, it is the other candidates who give up entirely on the task, preferring to asssume that we absolutely MUST keep control in Iraq, and as a result, we will get nearly no help, which dooms us to be stuck in this quagmire for years.

Did you enjoy the $87 billion? It's only the latest installment.

[maha]

183. Sigh.

"And I refuted it there."

You disagreed with it; you didn't refute it.

"Did you enjoy the $87 billion? It's only the latest installment."

You want to know what I thought of the $87 billion? Read this.

Until you do read that, don't say anything more to me about the $87 billion.

[redqueen]

254. I showed that he does indeed have a detailed plan.

You may think it's unworkable, which is your right, but on this topic you certainly can agree with no other candidate (except Al) given your sig image.

ALL the other candidates say we have to stay the course. ALL of them. And I'll take you at your word that you were as disgusted as I was with the $87 Billion, but that being the case, are you really willing to accept candidates who will sign us up for more and more? Because by insisting on US control, that's what they're doing.

I see we got $33 Billion from other countries.

But try to sell that to the families of the soldiers serving there now. Dennis's commitment to taking the fastest route (which means giving in to UN demands) is the most principled stand on this issue.

I can't argue with people's beliefs (such as the one that 'he's unelectable'), but I can argue facts.

[plurality]

266. actually we didn't even get $33B

that $33B INCLUDED our $20B, so we really only got $13.

[juajen]

291. I'm very late reading this thread, but I'll give it a shot anyway

We have 20 billion dollars in that pot. Other countries only gave 13 billion, and part of that is loans.

[Name removed]

189. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

230. FACTS?! What is your agenda?

You have done nothing but call Dennis a failure and a liar...

AND NOTHING TO BACK IT UP.

Oh and post these poll results I think almost 15 times now in about 3 threads.

What's your point?

TWL

[Iverson]

174. It's like a Green-Dem flame war!

I think that Kucinich's positions are very respectable. I also think that Sharpton's positions are, and I appreciate his sharp wit, although he comes with plenty of baggage that I'm sure we all understand.

Not too long ago, someone exhorted me to return to the Democratic party and put my progressive activism to work on the inside once again. This thread tends to reinforce my feelings about how welcome lefties are.

I hope that some of the contributors take a deep breath and read some of the hyperbole here. It's kind of absurd.

[cosmicdot]

181. truly

I hold that progressives have led the way in our history ... it's the others who finally come around, and those who remain opposed stand out like monocles and top hats ...

the first time in my life, I don't recognize some of these voices supposedly speaking as Democrats

could be the excessive influence of affluence on our society? and corporate america's outreach

wish I had a better handle on the sociology of it all

unfortunately, it might take a massive economic collapse (which I'm afraid is approaching) to turn the tide

"Market prophet is battening the hatches"

Analyst Michael Belkin called the bubble, the crash and the rally.
Now he's telling his clients to bail. Here are his long and short
strategies for a December downturn.

By Jon D. Markman

Rumors of the imminent death of the 2003 stock-market rally have been
greatly exaggerated time and again in recent months. But according to
one analyst with an enviable track record, the end days are finally
here, and it's time to prepare for a sickening plunge into December
and beyond.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P62345.asp

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ficus]

202. Dean

is not left. I'm not saying he's bad or anything, just not a leftie.

:dem: :dem:

[Iverson]

238. sorry

I don't understand what it is you're responding to in my post. Can you help me out here? Thanks.

[redqueen]

178. I agree, and thanks for the links

One thing I'd like to point out for everyone who seems to be psychic, or in some other way, to expect that we'll be stuck with a Republican congress next yera:

In 1932, when president Franklin Roosevelt was nominated, he ran on a platform of broad economic reform, which excited people to come out in vote in their own enlightened self-interest. As a result, FDR led a Democratic sweep, which resulted in a pickup of 90 House seats and 13 Senate seats. This was accomplished because he represented profound change.

So, go ahead and support a candidate who doesn't support profound change, and your self-fulfilling prophecy will become fact.

I prefer to go with what worked before, thanks. :)

[demrebel]

201. D Z K is no FDR

Dennis "Zero" K. is my name for him. Every where I look, he is 0 or close to it then double digits in dem polls.

[maha]

222. Um, in 1932

People had been living with the Great Depression for four years. They were in a "throw the bums out" mood.

As much as we need to throw the bums out, we'll be doing very well to pick up the White House and a few seats in Congress next year.

[redqueen]

244. Wish I had that 'you're killing me' smiley!

People aren't in a 'throw the bums out' mood?

How long ago did Arnold get elected governor based on populist messages and the public's disgust with 'the bums'?

[maha]

246. Replacing a Dem bum with a GOP bum.

The people of California allowed right-wing Republicans to cancel the results of an honest election and replace a lawfully elected Dem with a Republican who is just as big a liar, but with less experience at politics. I do not find this reassuring.

[redqueen]

282. The point is ...

Both Republicans and Democrats voted for someone new, with a populist message.

Barring ballot manipulation, Bush is toast -- even if a Monkey named Bobo were the challenger. :)

[IranianDemocrat]

220. Al Sharpton is a fraud and a joke!

He doesn't conduct himself like a president, he's a joke he hasn't been in any high leadership positions unlike the other candidates. Al Sharpton's candidacy would make McGovern's defeat look like an overwhelming victory.

[CWebster]

226. Looks like you are preaching to the choir.

Politics is more than the ideal positions, the ideal candidate has to represent more---from superficial buzz to character traits.

Wise men and butchers.... they weigh everything...

--Zorba the Greek

;-)

[Mairead]

259. *THIS* is the *CHOIR*?

Christ, what would the rabid opposition look like, then?

:)

[CWebster]

281. Sorry Mairead

Was in meetings most of the day, so I only scanned the posts and noticed many Kucinich supporters posting.

It is important that Kucinich have a groundswell of support, if only for the issues he represents - and to integrate the ideas he brings into the debate and effect progressive change. So, he should stick to the damn issues and cease with the juvenile antics--it is unbecoming if he wants to rise above the political mud-slinging and showcase his politics in the most positive light.

But, it is more than that. If it is about the real threat of Bush and his domination of the media with an obscenely inflated war chest, I have to back the best viable choice we have that furthers our chances and at the same time isn't a total sell-out. Watching the focus group on C-span last night was real eye-opener about the level of naivete we can expect from the US voters and we have to take our effort very seriously and realistically. Now is not the time for dreamers, we do not have the luxury. It is more important to me NOT to see some of the other contenders get the nod, than to back Kucinich based on his preferrable policy stands, because the factors which make him unelectible are not so much his politics--it is his style. He should NOT BECOME a liability to his politics, as happened with Nader.

[Ficus]

241. Al Sharpton is valuable

to the party. Is it just me, or is he more of a moderator at these debates than the actual moderators?

Al could also get many people registered and help take back the congress just as Jessie's campaign helped do in 1984. Sure he won't win the nom, but he can help out the party tremendously.


:dem: :dem:

[VolcanoJen]

296. I agree, and Al's not in it to win the nomination.

He's in it for far loftier goals, and I respect him immensely for that.

Stay, Al, Stay!!!!!

[LoneStarLiberal]

258. Incremental Accumulation Can Only Be Fought With...

It's not because we think the others are monsters. Of course they're not monsters, they're just people who think the status quo is basically fine.

I think this is probably framed in terms that are simply too broad to discuss in terms of one election. Elites in the U.S. did not accumulate all the power and prestige that they have overnight; they took it gradually. It is an absolute impossibility to undo all of that in one election.

It is also why it is absolutely impossible for someone like a Sharpton or Kucinich to win nationwide office on a message of revolutionary upheaval. As a country we tend to be firmly rooted in conservatism in terms of sea change; politicians on either end of the political spectrum advocating radical change simply don't make it out of the primaries.

The only way that we can change our country is to have someone who appeals to a broad group of people in that moderate way that you don't seem to like but who at the same time will begin to roll back the ground that the elites have taken from us.

I think there are at least five of our current candidates who can do that. If they will or not is another story; the parable of Clinton's clash with the economic aristocracy of this country in his health care fight is not lost on Democratic nominees. The message is clear: "Screw with us and we will take you out."

Incremental accumulation can only be fought with incremental change. The only other way to fight it is with armed insurrection.

[Mairead]

260. "a message of revolutionary upheaval"

Think chaotic dynamics: a small change, if it's the right change, yields disproportionate results.

If you don't think Dennis appeals 'in a moderate way', how do you account for his taking 50% of the GOP vote and winning by a 3:1 margin in 2002? Why did his GOP committee chairs when he was in the Ohio Senate speak so well of him as a legislator and committee member?

[LoneStarLiberal]

276. I Think That's An Ecological Fallacy, Though

There's a big difference between the dynamics of a House election and the dynamics of a party's Presidential primary cycle and a general election for the office of President.

It's an ecological fallacy. Extrapolating to a higher level results from a lower level without accounting for changes between the levels.

I do find that last bit of information interesting, though. Could you post a link where I could do some reading on it or point me toward a book chapter or something along those lines?

[ThirdWheelLegend]

261. understood... but ...

We have not gained anything by the Clinton presidency. The presidency of a moderate, as you put it "incremental change".

Because the only incremental change is that we move further to the right , but less than if Bush or Dole had won.

We are in a constant state of compromise and that compromise is always on the right side of the center.

You can't gain any ground long term even if you only give an inch when it's "your turn" in power.

The only way to change is to stop some of those compromises and pull the whole mutha leftward. We will still end up being more right leaning just because we have gone so far off the deep right end already.

My fear is that by "winning" with another corporatist centrist we are in store for the "backlash" in 4-8 years of Dubya's revenge. In the form of Jeb or someone twice as right(wrong).

?

TWL

[LoneStarLiberal]

277. Some Good Points...

I think the reason the Clinton Presidency failed to achieve many of its liberal goals is because they simply screwed the pooch by trying to move too left too fast with a moderate-to-conservative Congress. Once the Republicans figured out what they were up against, they fought like bastards for the next six years.

Even Clinton's initial hasty attempts to move left produced..."the revolution" of 1994 where we lost Congress.

Our entire system is built on compromise. You are correct that we are in a constant state of compromise; I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing.

A moderate with an agenda who learns from the successes and failures of Carter and Clinton can thwart a conservative power grab. A vulnerable radical can not.

Of course if my fellow credit bubble analyzers are correct, it's all going to be moot anyway because our next President is going to be handed a ticking bomb of an economy.

[redqueen]

285. I disagree.

"I think the reason the Clinton Presidency failed to achieve many of its liberal goals is because they simply screwed the pooch by trying to move too left too fast with a moderate-to-conservative Congress. Once the Republicans figured out what they were up against, they fought like bastards for the next six years."

They started fighting Clinton before he was even inaugurated. It didn't matter whether he tried to change things a lot or a little, they were going to do their best to defeat everything he did.

"Even Clinton's initial hasty attempts to move left produced..."the revolution" of 1994 where we lost Congress."

Which attempts were those, exactly? The Family & Medical Leave Act is one, but I'll be darned if I can remember another. It's not like he tried to have gays wholly accepted in the miliary, as in Britain and other rational countries.

"Our entire system is built on compromise. You are correct that we are in a constant state of compromise; I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing."

And it's not, if the compromise starts from two opposing sides. If it is between one side and another, similar side (this 'other' side being one which is not so mvery different than the first), well... we're living with the results of that now.

[jiacinto]

299. I won't vote for neither of them

I won't vote for Sharpton because of the Tawana Brawley case. DK is simply not a viable candidate. His recent comments on reparations confirmed that to me.

While I respect DK for refusing to sell the city's electric company, and losing his office because of it, I simply don't think he can beat Bush.