Forget candidates for a moment. What message do you want Democrats to have

[AP]

Poll question: Forget candidates for a moment. What message do you want Democrats to have

in '06 and '08?

What do want them to talk about primarily? What do you think the "frame" should be? What values do you think they should express?

[Guaranteed]

1. LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

And fiscal SANITY.

Jobs. Healthcare. Education. True world leadership and respect.

Depth posted this earlier:

http://www.depthaudio.com/music/HowardDeanMix.mp3

That's our message.

[demodonkey]

2. Democracy. Fair, Open, Transparent Elections where every vote is counted.

:kick:

[imenja]

3. I appreciate your focus on issues over candidates

that is very important. I think a poll, however, doesn't provide an open enough venue for discussing such ideas. We need to encourage thinking about the message and principles of the party in more expansive ideas that a poll can communicate. All of the options you provide were issues in the last campaign, and we still didn't take the White House.

[Guaranteed]

5. There's a certain pride that most of us used to be able to have

in calling ourselves Americans. While we weren't a perfect country, we were still pretty damned good.

That's gone now.

We need to find a way of putting that into words. We have to go back to the principles that the country was founded on. We need to use the words of Jefferson and Adams and Franklin. We have to make people remember what it meant to respect themselves and their country.

I'm not sure how to articulate that. My best shot was up top.

[imenja]

7. I think language that evokes the Founding Fathers is one way

I've said for a while that I would like to see the Democrats use the language of the Revolution and early republic to convey the notion of ours as a party "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The people over corporations and other special interests. I want them to stop talking about "helping" or "giving a hand" to the middle class as Kerry did (or, in the case of Edwards, the poor). That kind of language comes from a sense of noblesse oblige and conveys a certain patronizing attitude. Rather, they should talk about REPRESENTING the people. It's OUR government and should rightly serve our interests.

[Guaranteed]

8. EXACTLY. Bring our country back

to a meaningful, good place.

[KittyWampus]

17. I Like What You Say.

[imenja]

57. Thanks

I wish I had a way for my ideas to be heard at the upper levels of the party. I've joined my local DEC, but the meetings are devoted to nonsense. Procedural matters only. It's awful.

[Adelante]

22. Exactly right, imenja

Reminding people of the country we were meant to be will show what we have lost. Americans of all classes and beliefs know we've lost what is best about us. They need to be reminded of what that is.

[janx]

52. If Dean has anything to say about it, we'll be seeing a lot

of that in coming days. :party:

[mandyky]

67. Yes, esp in 06 the frame should be

that the GOP has proven if they get power they get corrupted and refuse to do their duty of "checks and balances". That the GOP has proven with allowing defecits and trade defecits they are incapable being fiscally conservative. And we have to find a way to address minority rights and separation of church and state where possible.

In 08 we need a presidential candidate who is strong and sensible on defense who appeals to a large number of voters. By 08 people will actually have had time to experience the "medicare reform", which I think will be a disaster. We need a former governor, not Senators to run, and if they have a military record, tone it down a bit.

[TwentyFive]

4. When Clinton said, "We're all in this together."

I thought that's the perfect alternative to this selfish, "screw the other guy" plan of the republicans. It says we want tolerance, better education & saving the environment.

[LittleClarkie]

6. Are we too past "The Apprentice" to say simply "You're Fired"

That would be running things like a corporation. Funny thing was, during the campaign, a Republican for Kerry came up with a big long list of the reasons why Bush should be fired. Another came up with an action plan memo that was several pages long. Bless them, they really were looking at the problem from the perspective of a corporation. And in any healthy corporation, Bush would have been fired long ago.

Message time though:
That Democrats are for the people. We care. We care that you don't have health care. We care that you don't have a job.

We're also alot saner. Sane government for a change. Saner means safer.

[imenja]

9. I wanted to see that ad during the campaign

It would have been brilliant: Trump telling Bush that he's fired. Apparently Trump gave money to both candidates, but more to Kerry. I doubt he would have gone for it, but it would have been wonderful if he had.

[cestpaspossible]

10. Responsibility to our children, building a better future

Things like the Apollo Alliance.

[RealDems]

11. None of those really say it for me...

How about: social and economic justice, grassroots democracy, civil rights, and a moral foreign policy?

[sandnsea]

12. Beacon of Light

How people define the specifics will vary on the group. But overall, everybody can agree the Democratic Party has always been the Beacon of Light for both Americans and people around the world.

[applegrove]

13. A vision for the next Century - of World Markets and Justice for All

A vision for the next Century - of World Markets and Justice for All

Most importantly - corporations will be what they were meant to be - tools to make the people employed and richer. And not the other way around.

But a big - expansive - we will take over the world with our ideas and values of openness - integrity - religious freedom - justice - down with elites - and education for all!

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[applegrove]

62. Yeah I read that. Horrible stuff. I knew parts of it because I was

Yeah I read that. Horrible stuff. I knew parts of it because I was interested in development economics. I know what a cost/benefit analysis is. Terrible stuff he talked about. And millions have died because of the poverty such policies perpetuated or perpetuated. The author himself I do not know about. Whoever he is - he got warped somewhere down the line. So I will not be reading the book because how could you trust a source like that. Anyway, I am outside the U.S. and most of us outside the US have been cringing ore the years at the sneaky dealings and democracy destruction the USA has been up to (other superpowers too). I do not work for a corporation. I doubt I ever will. But I do believe that we Liberals cannot let ourselves be separated from Markets.

Anything you have, over and above the food you could grow on your front lawn to eat, is because of trade. So it is a fallacy that liberals don't like markets or trade. Corporations are just another tool for humans to use in the market. Efficient tools to help create jobs and wealth for human beings - when they work as tools owned by human beings. When they are tools of the rich only, or warp government and make up things like 'oh - you can't tax us - we will just pass it on', well then they should be penalized with fines and slapped silly by a big healthy government.

I believe in big government. Efficient but big and strong. And always big and strong enough to slap any corporation silly when need be (cause they sure as hell cannot regulate themselves). And I believe in the UN. Even though it doesn't function perfect - I cannot imagine how it could function any better or reform any faster than it has been for the last 20 years.

So don't assume that because I see a use for corporations that they control me. They don't. And I'll die fighting to make sure we control them. We - the people. All people. All over the world. Who because we trade can get to be middle class if we are lucky. (in Cuba some professionals end up in prostitution to make a living wage - that is how poorly communism works).

I am pro-market. I am for being smart with money and always learning how to do things better. I am open to the rest of the world. I am compationate. I love universal health care because it works better than anything else. I am a Liberal.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

64. "smart with money and always learning how to do things better"

Hey, that's pretty good, could be a campaign slogan!

peace,
JOM

[applegrove]

77. to improve the lot of all the people!

Liberals: Smart with money and always open to new information to imporve the lot of all the people.

[eridani]

14. Everybody in, nobody out. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

15. End the war, bring the troops home NOW!

We cannot afford to do anything of what we want until we end this criminal and illegal war.

[bklyncowgirl]

16. Social and economic justice AND keep America safer

Both have to be addressed with strong and creative plans expressed in a way that average Americans can understand, relate to and get excited about.

[snippy]

18. End corrupt one party control.

I like this because it is brief but applicable to every thing Bush and the rest of the republicans do or say or even think about doing.

[KittyWampus]

19. Values? Unity, Progress, Accountability.

Unity- We're All In This Together
Progress- Rebuild Green economy
Accountability- responsible leadership
Security- engaging in sane foreign relations

AP, no matter how hard you try to push Edwards, he'll NEVER be able to cover his gap on security issues.

And he'd NEVER be able to cut defense spending which is what America needs to overcome poverty.

[rfkrfk]

20. Save the American way of life, and the middle class

I think that would be more popular than 2004's :

I {Kerry} served in VietNam, bush is a turd.

[Adelante]

21. Voted Other

The "frame" should be both of these combined.

We are all about fighting poverty, increasing opportunity, and rewarding hard work.

The world is a frightening place and we need a better commander-in-chief.

[janx]

51. "The world is a frightening place..."

I actually laughed when I saw that one. It sounds like the Republicans!

[wesrose]

54. I for one don't find that funny. The terrorism threat is real and

we're gonna need a real leader to deal with it. one with the national security and foreign policy experience, the brains, and the brawn. And we need a new kind of patriotism too. Not the fake kind.

[Adelante]

61. Here's the latest gallup poll

89% think terrorism is extremely or very important.

If we don't get a grip on this in our message, we keep losing.

On Edit: http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2005-02-07-poll-results.htm#2008

[AP]

65. It's a matter of priorities. Democrats will win when people decide it's

more important to have an economy which builds up a wealthy, economicallly, culturally and politically powerful class of people who work for a living.

FDR told us that that was how we were going to win WW2 and he told us not to be afraid of the world.

That so many people think that terror is so much more important than FDR's values is not a sign that Democrats need to play the fear game. It's a sign that they have to make a better argument based on FDR's values.

[Adelante]

68. No, we have to do both

There's nothing wrong with what you say, except it cuts off half of what we need to do. As long as the Democrats cede national security to the Republicans, we lose, just like 2004, fraud or no fraud.

[AP]

69. A national security platform untethered to a clear progressive value sys-

tem is not going to win Democrats elections.

Demcorats need to establish a set of values that is clearly and unmistakable progressive and then work FP and NS within that framework.

"I am a better commander-in-chief because I'm smarter and more worldly and can see all the angles" is not a clear progressive framework.

America believes in making the lives of people AROUND THE WORLD who are not the oligarchs, but are regular people trying to make it through the day and through their lives on their labor...now that's a good start...

[Adelante]

74. Nor is this what I said

"I am a better commander-in-chief because I'm smarter and more worldly and can see all the angles" is not a clear progressive framework.

Or would say.

The progressive set of Democratic values is what we have as a party. There is no confusion about what we stand for in terms of social responsibility. We need to expand on that to include national security and defense as a Democratic value. This is where, rightly or wrongly, we are perceived as weaker, as less committed, as less trustworthy, by the voting public. This is the ground we have to recapture if we are ever to win another national election. This is the ground Bush beat us on. If we don't take it, their next candidate will run on it and win.

Again, I am not arguing your progressive values; they are why I am a Democrat and not a Republican. But unless we clarify our standing on national defense and foreign affairs, we are going to lose. It is the reason so many swing voters who might have voted Dem in '04 did not. People sick to death of Bush and his reign, who wanted to vote against him, voted for him instead based on this very issue. We ignore that at our peril.

In any case, we don't have the numbers to do any of what we want ourselves without a change in perception about Democrats and national security. We will never have the money for progressive work unless we straighten out our international affairs, along with the economic.

Less than a third of registered voters are Democrats. We have to attract more unaffiliated voters than we were able to in '04 or we have to convert them into Democrats. This will not happen unless we get serious on the matters that held them back in '04.

That's why I joined the thread, because I think you are right: Forget about the candidates, let's talk about the message.

[ClassWarrior]

23. We're the party of Progressive values: responsibility and empathy.

Everything else fits under these two.

NGU.

[welshTerrier2]

24. poverty, opportunity, hard work. AND diplomacy, alliances

the front-runner choice is poorly worded because it completely omits foreign policy ...

if Democrats want to be seen only as the "domestic party", republicans will keep us at war for the next thousand years ... Democrats have given up on the idea that the STONGEST America is an America that builds strong alliances and benefits from its friendships around the world ...

Now, we all have to be ultra-macho and show that we are tougher than the republicans ... Democrats are so scared they will forever bear the stigma of the "peace and flowers" party that they are portraying a false image of who we are ... yes, we will use military force when we are attacked or threatened with attack ... but, as with Iraq, we become much WEAKER when we use our military inappropriately ...

so, I had to choose "Other" because your popular choice omitted this critical aspect of the message that Democrats must project ...

[ClassWarrior]

25. The front-runner choice is poorly worded because it posits...

...a scattered assortment of issues, policies, and values.

NGU.

[welshTerrier2]

27. should the Party's MESSAGE be restricted to only one of these?

i understand your point that the choices comingle a variety of categories ... and I agree that we need to establish and communicate a core set of values from which policies can eventually eminate ...

i guess my question is, in asking WHAT MESSAGE the Party should project, do you think our message should be limited to values only ... it seems to me communicating where we stand on issues and policies is an important component of our message because these are examples of how our values would manifest themselves ...

agree? disagree? have i missed your point?

[AP]

30. Does this sound familiar: "Dems lost in 2004 because people didn't know

what they stood for."

Everyone with any sense is stating the obvious: democrats must explain better what their value system is. They cannot continue to run on a laundry list of issues and statistics without explaining what the umbrella belief system is that explains why they take the stands they do on each individual issue.

So, no they don't have to run on one issue. But they must run on one core value system which explains why they take the stands they do on each issue.

I think running on buliding up powr in and shifting power to the middle class (to people who work for a living) is exactly what the Democrats are all about -- that it's what unites all their positions --- and they should do a better job of explaining that message.

In fact, if we don't do that, we lose again in 2008.

[ClassWarrior]

31. I couldn't have said it better, AP. Our message should be first...

...and foremost our values. Issues and policy shouldn't be ignored, but they should be broached only in the context of those values.

NGU.

[welshTerrier2]

36. we're in total agreement on "values first"

my post was a response to ClassWarrior's post ... i thought he was arguing that the "popular" choice was mixing values with issues and policies ... this was not MY position; it was my understanding of his ...

i'm in TOTAL agreement that job one for the Democrats is to define a core set of values ... once this is in place, a clear, consistent method of communicating those values can be developed ... and withing that communication can be examples of issues and policies that implement the core values ...

the only place we may disagree is that our values must include something about how we interact with the rest of the world ... in terms of values, we must value peace ... we must value cooperation with other countries ... we must respect strength and power but abhor war ...

central to our definition of values must be, as you stated, a commitment of power shared across America's economic spectrum ... but i also would include values that can serve as a guide to how we should conduct America's international activities ...

[AP]

38. Here's how that message applies to FP:

JENNINGS: I'd like to continue in this vein a little, if I may.

Senator Edwards, many people, I think, believe that the greatest security threat to the United States in the 21st century is the possible confrontation between the West and Islam.

Now, I know and take for granted, having heard you before, that you respect Islam. But could you take a minute to tell us what you know about the practice of Islam that would reassure Muslims throughout the world who will be listening to you that President Edwards understands their religion and how you might use that knowledge to avoid a confrontation, which, as Tom alluded earlier, might indeed end up sending sons and daughters from New Hampshire to war.

EDWARDS: Well, I have been in these parts of the world. I have been in Pakistan, met with President Musharraf, been in Afghanistan, met with then interim chairman — interim head of the government Karzai. I have met with other Islamic leaders around the world, discussed with them the problems that their country and their people face.

I would never claim to be an expert on Islam. I am not. But I do believe that Islam, as in a lot of other faiths that we as a nation embrace and lift up, that I have shown respect for faiths that are different than mine my entire life. I think I do understand the tragedy of the day-to-day lives of people who live in Arab countries, who live lives of hopelessness and despair.

I think that contributes to the animosity that they feel toward the United States.

And part of our ongoing vision — my ongoing vision for America includes getting at the root causes of that animosity toward the United States, which means being able to communicate, not just with the leadership, for example, in Saudi Arabia, but being able to communicate directly with the people...

JENNINGS: Do you think, Senator...

EDWARDS: ... to express...

JENNINGS: Do you think that we suffer and will suffer at the policy level because we do not know enough about the practice of Islam?

EDWARDS: I think we have a responsibility when we deal with the leadership of these countries. Our relationships, Peter, have been at the leadership level. And we see the results of that. We have ongoing relationship with the Saudi royals, with President Musharraf, with Chairman Karzai. We have relationships with the leaders of these Islamic countries.

The problem is, we have no relationship with the people. And not only do we have no relationship with the people, it's absolutely clear that they feel great animosity toward the United States. We need to, first, be able to communicate directly with the people.

Second, find opportunities. For example, President Musharraf said to me when I met with him: They desperately needed a public school system as an alternative to the religious schools, where their kids are taught to hate Americans.

We need to take advantage of the opportunities available to us and our allies, to reach out, not just to the leaders of these countries for our own purposes, but also to develop a relationship for the people themselves so that they understand what Americans care about and that we actually care about the peace and prosperity of the entire world.

[welshTerrier2]

44. excellent use of values

AP, thanks for raising the issue of a values-based discussion ... i can't tell you how sick i am of the "Dean is great, Kerry blew it, Clark in '08" threads ...

I think the Edwards "message" was excellent ... i will say, however, that i'm more comfortable with his approach than your "poverty, opportunity, hard work" choice ... please don't take that as a criticism ... it's not intended to be ...

but Edwards broadened his response into the international arena ... you underlined two perfect examples:

The problem is, we have no relationship with the people. And not only do we have no relationship with the people, it's absolutely clear that they feel great animosity toward the United States. We need to, first, be able to communicate directly with the people. and

We need to take advantage of the opportunities available to us and our allies, to reach out, not just to the leaders of these countries for our own purposes, but also to develop a relationship for the people themselves so that they understand what Americans care about and that we actually care about the peace and prosperity of the entire world.

i guess the last three words demonstrate where i wish the choice in the poll had been more global: "the entire world" ... i also like the phrase "communicate directly with the people" ... i suppose some would consider this more of a policy but i'm not sure exactly how to phrase something like this as a meaningful value ... there was a great line in one of the MASH episodes (a Frank Burns' line) that said: "It's nice to be nice to the nice" ... sometimes i feel that we seek such extreme abstractions in defining values that we weaken our message ... my point is generic in nature and is not a reference to the values you have defined ...

[AP]

46. ...

Thanks for that thoughtful post.

By the way, ""poverty, opportunity, work" -- that's Edwards's theme. It's the focus (and part of the name) of his center at UNC. If you listened to him on CSPAN this morning, that was the frame for his speech. And, as I noted elsewhere in this thread, valuing those things -- building up power in the hands of people who work for a living, and giving everyone a chance to work for a living -- is the antidote to fascism. It's also the issue that is at the center of this statement about FP. Edwards is saying that you talk to and help the people in other countries and not the oligarchs, you make life better for everyone. Notice what he's talking about doing for Afghanistan: building public schools. That's the same thing he wants to do in the US, for the same reasons: to decrease poverty, to build opportunity, and to reward work.

[ClassWarrior]

41. For a good primer on values vs. policies and issues, see this article...

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/stratinit/view?searchterm=initiative&b_start:int=3

"Another policy direction is security for Americans achieved through a wise foreign policy centered on strong diplomatic alliances, and cooperative relationships with other nations. This incorporates the principles of a values-based foreign policy—the first-order value is Responsibility. Key second-order values are Strength, and Safety and Protection."

NGU.

[welshTerrier2]

43. very good website

i read their stuff all the time ...

sometimes i feel that the "values" discussion reduces things too far ... it becomes so abstracted that it sounds like the Boy Scout oath ... "As Democrats, we will be trustworthy, loyal, faithful ..."

these things have to be said and should absolutely be an integral part of the Party's message ... but when we start labeling things like international cooperation as a policy, i think we've gone past the point of utility ...

there's a continuum from values to policies ... we run from a level of the greatest abstraction to ultimately arrive at great specificity of exactly what our detailed plan is for a given issue ... i suppose someone will come up with a cut and dry definition that tries to put something in one bucket or the other but that's not the way i see it ...

so, for example, i think it's important to emphasize "responsibility" as a value, but i think it's also important to concurrently state that a manifestation (a policy if you prefer) of having that value is that we support all efforts to use war (a policy) as a last resort (a value) and that we seek strong alliances (a policy) so that we can hopefully avoid war (a value) ...

every policy, in fact every detailed plan, should have a core value that provides a guideline for how the policy was arrived at ... conversely, every value should lead to the development of policy ... if the value is too vague and provides inadequate guidance, it's value is not clear ... for example, if Democrats say they strongly favor "responsibility" and those who wanted to invade Iraq argued that it was the only "responsible" thing to do, and those who opposed the invasion argued it was "irresponsible", of what ultimate value is the value of "responsibility"?

it seems to me the goal of values definition is the communication to others how you will act in the future ... "if i understand your values, i know what you will do" ... if the definition of values becomes so vague that future conduct cannot be predicted, or at least that some degree of confidence in predicting future conduct can be gained, it's not clear to me what value communicating that value actually has ...

[ClassWarrior]

47. "sometimes i feel that the "values" discussion reduces things too far"

Maybe for you and me, but not for Joe Sixpack. Do you think empathy and/or responsibility is "so vague that future conduct cannot be predicted?" I think those values demand very specific conduct from those who wear them in public. And I think that's all most of public really wants to know.

And again, it's not that we should avoid the details, but simply that we need to ALWAYS, ALWAYS connect the details to our values, to build the rhetorical framework of a values system for Progressives in the mind of Joe Sixpack. Fortunately for us, our values are the very best of American values, and we don't need to rely on making it up like the Radical RW does.

NGU.

[welshTerrier2]

48. empathy and/or responsibility

again, i think we're very much on the same page here ...

still, i'll put the question you asked me right back to you ...

let's say Democrats strongly emphasize their belief in the values of empathy and responsibility ... perhaps some would reasonably assume this means Democrats believe we should invade Iran because we have to free the Iranian people from the tyranny of theocracy and the abusive mullahs (i.e. we share empathy with the Iranian people) ... perhaps others would reasonably assume, because we are empathic, that we are sensitive to building a global community and think war should only be used as a last resort ...

the good news with being more abstract is that we really become a "big tent" where a broad spectrum of policy possibilities is not filtered out ... the bad news is, however, that our identity, at least our identity in terms of how we would act in a given situation, is less clear ... I think it's critical for voters to know us at our core and for voters to be able to understand how we would handle any future situation by understanding our core beliefs ...

i guess ultimately what i'm arguing for is a platform that contains exactly what you stated: "that we should not avoid the details, but simply that we need to ALWAYS, ALWAYS connect the details to our values" ...

so my question is: do you believe that ONLY VALUES should be enumerated in the Party's platform or should policies that link directly to those values also be included?

[ClassWarrior]

50. No, but those values SHOULD be enumerated in the...

...press release announcing the Party's platform. And those values should be... ummm... liberally... (Progressively?...) sprinkled throughout the platform. And everyone in the party who's interviewed should be well-versed in prefacing every last comment with a re-affirmation of those values.

Three cheers for message discipline! <LOL>

And I think you're right - we are pretty much on the same page.

NGU.

[welshTerrier2]

53. ding ding ding ... we have a winner !!

And everyone in the party who's interviewed should be well-versed in prefacing every last comment with a re-affirmation of those values."

"Message discipline" ... there you go ...

1. define and document core Party values
2. provide concrete, living examples of how those core values would manifest themselves on specific issues and specific policy choices
3. message discipline ... every Democrat, speaking both publically and privately, should tell the same story over and over and over and over ... here are our core values from which the following policies eminate ...

it's as easy as 1, 2, 3 ...

[AP]

29. The front runner choice is about the economy -- it's about class & ....

... opportunity. It's about the middle class. It's the same argument FDR made. And FDR made it for the same reasons it needs to be made today. A strong middle class is a bulwark against fascism. When the Republican party was trying to bring fascism to America and when Hitler was trying to spread fascism abroad, FDR didn't make an argument that the world was a scary place and he was the best commander and chief. He didn't argue that the Republicans were evil people. He didn't say, "vote for me, and I'll get in the way of everything Republicans believe in." He didn't say "I can run businesses better than Wall St."

He said that he stood against poverty and for opportunity and work. In other words, he stood for building up wealth in the middle class. He not only said that because it's the right thing to do -- because it's moral. He said it because he knew that that was the antidote to the biggest global threat in the world then (and perhaps ever): creeping fascism.

[Tinoire]

26. Other. The war, social justice, the war and the charade of wars

# 4 was almost ok. If it had said

" fighting poverty, increasing opportunity, and ending these obscene wars", I would have picked it.

And I want them to say exactly what they mean (which most of them are articulate enough to do) thus avoiding a slew of campaign operatives feeling a need to spin, spin, spin what they said to try & force it into being palatable.

[welshTerrier2]

28. perfect !!

that's exactly the message i'd support ...

Democrats cannot have a message that only encompasses domestic issues ...

[ClassWarrior]

32. "fighting poverty, increasing opportunity, and ending these obscene wars"

Sounds like responsibility and empathy to me.

NGU.

[AP]

33. I don't think your average American voter is anti-war when you frame

the question "are you against war or for war?" They're more likely to say, I'm for war because I believe in protecting the American way.

However, if you ask them if they're for wars that concentrate wealth in the hands of Hallburton, that shift the wealth of a nation away from people who work for a living in that nation, and into the hands of a very vew wealthy Americans, and if it's poor and working class Americans who die so that those few Americans can get wealthier, I think people will say, no, I believe in wars against tyranny, oppression, and fascism (like the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and WW2).

So, I think with Americans, you need to refine the anti-war message so people can understand that difference. Too many Americans believe Iraq is war of liberation.

Now, if Democrats strongly align their message with #4 aboved (which is really a message about being against fascism), and then make being anti-war a subset of a domestic anti-fascist message, then I think people will understand that the Democrats are about being anti-any war, but that they're about being anti-fascist, if it takes a war to do that, and they're about being anti-fascist/imperialist war.

[ClassWarrior]

34. More simply, do you believe in waging war responsibly?

Or irresponsibly?

NGU.

[AP]

37. "responsibly"/"irresponsibly" doesn't explain a core progressive value.

A core progressive value is about who has the power: the people or the fascists.

Do you believe in waging a war that transfers wealth to the people or to a few very rich people?

The US is on the way to spending a trillion dollars on Iraq, most of which has gone to American corporations. Iraq would be a paradise on earth if that money were flowing down to the Iraqis. What makes that war irresponsible (beyond the fact that it was an invasion) is that it's just being used to concentrate wealth in the hands of the wealthy.

[ClassWarrior]

39. Disagree. Responsibility is a core Progressive value.

Empathy is the other one. Think about it. Everything we believe flows from either or both of these.

NGU.

[AP]

40. Responsibility is a core value. I don't think it says enough about the

difference between conservatives and progressives.

"Empathy" does, however. It contrasts to "survival of the fittest", which is what Republicans believe in.

[Guaranteed]

72. I believe in waging them rarely, and never

by choice.

[Tinoire]

42. Good point but

I think

the question "are you against war or for war?" They're more likely to say, I'm for war because I believe in protecting the American way.

I think that begs to be followed by some very pertinent thought-provoking questions about what they mean by that statement. What is the American way in their eyes, how do wars protect that and do they really believe that. Then by yeah or neah we divide them because I frankly don't see how you can stand for wars to protect the American way unless you value some lives so much more than others that they rest of the world has to subsidize them and be subjugated. I think eventually we end up to your same point about concentrating wealth in the hands of Halliburton which has been involved from WWII to Vietnam to Kosovo to Iraq. (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11240)

Military outsourcing is nothing new. The latest wave of military privatization started in the first Bush Administration, when Defense Secretary Cheney asked Halliburton to study what it would cost to have a private company take charge of getting US forces overseas in a hurry. Halliburton was hired to do just that in Somalia, employing 2,500 people. The Clinton Administration picked up where Bush/Cheney left off, hiring Halliburton--then run by Cheney--as the logistics arm for the war in Kosovo. Halliburton's contract started out as a $180 million deal but soon mushroomed to more than $2.5 billion as the company built Camp Bondsteel and other military facilities on lavish, cost-plus terms.

http://www.agenceglobal.com/article.asp?id=135

I think you're correct that "refining" the message would help sell it better but no matter how we refine it, I think it all leads to the same thing... war is a racket ;)

[JohnOneillsMemory]

58. Yup. War is a Racket, Not a Tool of Justice...even Dems don't get this.

The White Hat Rescuer propaganda around WWII and Kosovo are responsible for this attitude.

A poll asked the question "is there such thing as a just war?"
(I wish I remembered the source, sorry.)

Around half of Europeans said yes.
Almost all Americans said yes.

This is very telling. Europeans know what war is like from being destroyed by it. Americans think of war as something that happens to someone else, just bad guys.

We will continue to have Glorified War if this attitude doesn't change and oil and water become scarcer.

[LinuxInsurgent]

35. here's the message

freedom, justice, transparent democracy, social solidarity, and following the Golden Rule in foreign and domestic affairs.

[BootinUp]

45. Taking back the values - the real American values

Civil liberties at home. Human Rights abroad.

Working with our allies and making more instead of threatening them.

We should even let our patriotic feelings show for our country.

We need to be the full service party, with pragmatic plans that will work on the economy and healthcare.

Finally, in a clear and concise way demonstrate the shift in wealth over the last couple decades and how it is hurting the country, destroy "trickle down" advocates once and for all.

[wesrose]

55. Full-service party. Exactly.

[American Tragedy]

49. Civil liberties, the most patriotic ideal of all.

Individual freedom of personal behavior and beliefs, the rights of all minorities, be it of ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, affiliation, or any of the other diversions from the status quo that make our citizens who they are.

We should stand up for good old-fashioned freedom of Americans to live without the government engineering and censoring our media, without faceless bureaucrats controlling our own lives at every step.

How can the Republicans continue to claim to represent small government, when time and again they produce massive, invasive, expensive administrations? No prominent Democrat yet seems to have addressed this, yet it is so obvious.

[Zhade]

56. #4 is awesome, but I don't want Edwards. Sorry.

NT!

[MissMarple]

59. Those are classic progressive, populist goals.

And Edwards is populist and progressive, but it's OK if he's not your favorite. He is, however, a good man to have on our side, and deserves respect for what he unabashedly stands up for.

[Zhade]

70. Oh, I like Edwards in many ways.

His anti-NAFTA stance, for example, is very commendable. And he does seem to get it about domestic issues.

Foreign policy, though - wow. He's so not representing anywhere close to my views on the war both on Iraq and on "terra", the Israel-Palestine issue, or FP in general. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too hawkish for my tastes, since I don't support this brutally illegal war, didn't support carpet-bombing Afghanis, don't support the murderous war criminal Sharon, and think the whole "War On Terror" is a scam to fleece the public of its treasure and liberties while conquering the globe.

Sorry guys, it's how I feel. I can't accept him. I wish I could, because I really respect his domestic side.

[AP]

76. On what your basing that interpretation of FP?

If it's the IWR vote, here's a list of some of the Democrats who voted yes on Gulf of Tonkin:

BAYH, Birch Evans
BOGGS, Thomas Hale, Sr.
BYRD, Robert Carlyle
CHURCH, Frank Forrester
DODD, Thomas Joseph
ERVIN, Samuel James, Jr.
FULBRIGHT, James William
GORE, Albert Arnold
GRUENING, Ernest
HUMPHREY, Hubert Horatio, Jr.
INOUYE, Daniel Ken
KEFAUVER, Carey Estes
KENNEDY, Edward Moore
LONG, Russell Billiu
MANSFIELD, Michael Joseph (Mike)
McCARTHY, Eugene Joseph
McGOVERN, George Stanley
MONDALE, Walter Frederick
MUSKIE, Edmund Sixtus
PROXMIRE, William
RIBICOFF, Abraham Alexander
RUSSELL, Richard Brevard, Jr.
SALINGER, Pierre Emil George
STENNIS, John Cornelius
TALMADGE, Herman Eugene

Notice that some of them ran as anti-war candidates later.

[Zhade]

78. Indeed. And if Edwards comes out against the war...

...admits he was completely wrong about it up to this point, and advocates for withdrawal, he will become acceptable.

[AP]

66. Whether you're for him or not, he's the only one making these arguments

really effectively.

So you better figure out a way to at least take the message, if not the man, and go wide with it.

[Zhade]

71. That may be what we have to do.

And please believe me when I say that it pains me that I can't accept him because of his foreign policy views - the guy's great on the domestic side.

[AP]

75. FP views:

(notice that they're the same as the DP views: build up the middle class with good public schools, stop making life comfortable for the oligarchs while making it uncomfortable for the people)

JENNINGS: I'd like to continue in this vein a little, if I may.

Senator Edwards, many people, I think, believe that the greatest security threat to the United States in the 21st century is the possible confrontation between the West and Islam.

Now, I know and take for granted, having heard you before, that you respect Islam. But could you take a minute to tell us what you know about the practice of Islam that would reassure Muslims throughout the world who will be listening to you that President Edwards understands their religion and how you might use that knowledge to avoid a confrontation, which, as Tom alluded earlier, might indeed end up sending sons and daughters from New Hampshire to war.

EDWARDS: Well, I have been in these parts of the world. I have been in Pakistan, met with President Musharraf, been in Afghanistan, met with then interim chairman — interim head of the government Karzai. I have met with other Islamic leaders around the world, discussed with them the problems that their country and their people face.

I would never claim to be an expert on Islam. I am not. But I do believe that Islam, as in a lot of other faiths that we as a nation embrace and lift up, that I have shown respect for faiths that are different than mine my entire life. I think I do understand the tragedy of the day-to-day lives of people who live in Arab countries, who live lives of hopelessness and despair.

I think that contributes to the animosity that they feel toward the United States.

And part of our ongoing vision — my ongoing vision for America includes getting at the root causes of that animosity toward the United States, which means being able to communicate, not just with the leadership, for example, in Saudi Arabia, but being able to communicate directly with the people...

JENNINGS: Do you think, Senator...

EDWARDS: ... to express...

JENNINGS: Do you think that we suffer and will suffer at the policy level because we do not know enough about the practice of Islam?

EDWARDS: I think we have a responsibility when we deal with the leadership of these countries. Our relationships, Peter, have been at the leadership level. And we see the results of that. We have ongoing relationship with the Saudi royals, with President Musharraf, with Chairman Karzai. We have relationships with the leaders of these Islamic countries.

The problem is, we have no relationship with the people. And not only do we have no relationship with the people, it's absolutely clear that they feel great animosity toward the United States. We need to, first, be able to communicate directly with the people.

Second, find opportunities. For example, President Musharraf said to me when I met with him: They desperately needed a public school system as an alternative to the religious schools, where their kids are taught to hate Americans.

We need to take advantage of the opportunities available to us and our allies, to reach out, not just to the leaders of these countries for our own purposes, but also to develop a relationship for the people themselves so that they understand what Americans care about and that we actually care about the peace and prosperity of the entire world.

[Zhade]

79. It's a start.

NT!

[KnowerOfLogic]

63. Honesty, rationality, fairness, rewarding work, freedom....nt

[mordarlar]

73. Truth