IWhy Gore (or Kerry if not Gore) should be the leader of the party.

[Mass]

I see a lot of people here saying that, once somebody has lost once, he should leave the place to others. While I can understand that for somebody who has been badly beaten, it makes little sense to me. So can somebody tell me the rational of it?

Having a rookie gives them a power that they would not have with experimented players like Gore or Kerry.

First of all, how do we know? The last time a Democratic nominee was nominated twice, I was not even born and I am not a kid. So how do we know it does not work? Have we tried or cant we just think out of the box once in a while?.

More importantly, we complain a lot about Washington Democratic strategists being too fond of polls and focus groups and not letting the candidate express themselves enough.

Guess what! This is all good for these strategists. The less experimented the candidate is, the more powerful the strategists become. No wonder many of them are playing down Gore and Kerry as candidate. The men are too experimented for them.

(In the next sentences, I am dismissing the fact that Gore should be president to make my point - Dont flame me. I am trying to deal with reality here. Gore should be president, but he is not) In any other countries, Gore would be the leader of the Democratic Party and would be teaming up with the DNC to rebuild a strong party. If not Gore, it would be Kerry. Here, it seems as if the Democrats do not want to build anything for the future. During the 12 years before 2004, the DNC did not bother building strong grassroots that could help future nominees to win the elections. Since 2004, Dean is trying hard to do that, but he seems to be doing that alone, and it is largely because we deny our nominees the right to be a strong leader.

We need to look how other progressive parties in other countries work or we will continue to deny ourselves strong progressive leaders who work for the long term.

[NV Whino]

1. For me having a fresh face

means that any of the existing (experienced?) faces just haven't cut it. They are all too embedded in the party mud.

[oneold1-4u]

8. You got it right!

They have been given high top boots but can't lift one foot after the other to walk out of mud puddle of partisan politics. Most of them got where they are, along the line somewhere, by showing that they could at least slosh a bit, but today they all seem to want to be "nice and quiet" and not ever make a tiny wave. Where is the strength one person to at least slosh a bit and splash those who deserve to get wet?
We are all getting muddy!

[sandnsea]

22. You know that's a talking point, right?

Most likely coming out of the Warner campaign. It's fine if you're supporting Warner and that's you're reason for saying it. But if not, you should know where the talking point came from.

[NV Whino]

39. Maybe Warner got it from me.

I got it simply from observing the players.

[rockymountaindem]

2. In parliamentary systems, the party leader often goes through multiple

elections cycles. A loss doesn't mean they're down and out. Look at Mackenzie King in Canada, who despite losing an election early in his career went on to become Canada's longest-serving PM. Just because someone loses once (if Kerry and Gore really lost at all) doesn't mean they're fishwrap.

K&R

[kaygore]

3. Gore did not lose, but by not fighting as he should have

and by Kerry's not fighting, I don't think either of them is a leader. I sure as heck would not follow Kerry again after he took the $55 million of whatever he had left over from the campaign and did not put that into good use fighting the anomalies in the election results.

As long as the Democratic leadership is silent on the issue of stealing the election, it doesn't really matter how we vote, the candidate will lose.

Look at California with the Republican appointed Secretary of State already disqualifying a significant number of registered voters and certifying the very voting machines that stole the elections in other states and which do not even meet the Secretary of State's own criteria!

If this isn't the issue then what is?

Let's be frank, other than Dean and a handful of House and Senate members, the American people have no voice and no leadership!

Gore? Kerry??? who had even less of an excuse than Gore who had been given assurances by the Bush people that Bush would run an inclusive administration.

We were lied to once. Shame on them. But that Kerry did not fight? Shame on him, and shame on us!

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[kaygore]

29. A*M*E*N !!!!!!!!

Well said!

[blm]

47. How can lies from RW sites set up to attack Kerry be "well said" to you?

Those are the exact same lies that were posted by GOP operatives here at DU throughout the primaries - operatives who ended up outing themselves on election night, and laughing at those DUers who believed them.

[karynnj]

35. What Garbage!

Kerry was not taken off Iran/Contra because he was destroying evidence. Kerry intially was the only Senator willing to stick his neck out to investigate the Contra drug running. After a year, with the administration throwing obstacles at him a plane crash of one of the people helping the Contras confirmed Kerry's charges. Kerry was left off the Iran/Contra hearing because it became high profile and he was an extremely junior Senator. (Kerry would easily have been the star on that committee.) Others wanted to make names for themselves and instead made a mess. Many of the perjury charges were for lying to Kerry's committee, because Kerry didn't give them immunity.

Kerry did not destroy evidence of anything original that his committee investigated on Vietnam. There were people who preyed on the relatives of the MIAs, saying there were men still held in Vietnam. Newsweek printed a picture that purported to be US GIs - which was proven to be a fraud. Because these sick people were believed the committee was formed.

Kerry's entire staff wanted him to turn down Senator Mitchell's request that he head it - because it was a no win hot potato. There is no reason that Kerry would protect Nixon - in fact politically if there was proof of POWs left behind - it would futher destroy Nixon's reputation. Kerry and the committee went through mountains of Nixon era documents and questioned both Kissinger and Nixon. Then they traveled to Vietnam and checked out every rumor they had been give. Bob Smith (NH) was the Ranking member. He had been a true believer when they started. Kerry alone made 14 trips there. All committee members destroyed their copies of each claim as they found it untrue - rather than be the source of rumors.

The other reason the story can't be true is that there are less than 2000 people who are unaccounted for. (There are about 8000 from Korea) Vietnam is still returning bodies as they are found - per the agreements based on this committee's work. (In fact, that is why the body of Dean's brother was returned in late 2003.)

Obviously you will belive anything.

[zulchzulu]

40. Why does John Conyers admire Kerry-Edwards post-election vote efforts?

"When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor."

- John Conyers

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

[blm]

46. You got those lies from RW websites posing as lefty sites - GOP operatives

posting at DU throughout the primaries used those EXACT SAME POINTS that you are now repeating. Those operatives got a good laugh out of it here at DU, shocking many who had believed in their "leftist" creds.

[Trevelyan]

5. John Kerry lost because he worked his ass off to do just that.

~what a stupid f*ck! John Kerry lost because he worked his ass off to do just that.

He had it and gave it away. He makes me sick.

IMPEACH BUSH AND SEND THEM ALL TO THE HAGUE!

~Kucinich, Dean, Feingold, Sharpton
Clinton was such a centrist as to effectivley be a republican and his indiscretions cost us the White House and now, most likely, the Supreme Court. His wife is to the right of him, a shameless opportunist who will be eviscerated by true democratic wing of the democratic party in the primaries and, if not, will be sliced and diced by the GOP in the General election.

Then we will have 8 more years of hell. Clintons go away. And take John Kerry with you,

capitulating bastard....And where are our leaders demanding vote accountability? I am ready to vote in a whole new batch, the old ones are fat and lazy and living the good life.

A big reason for Kerry's rapid capitulation in November 2004 was that the US military was poised to annihilate Fallujah and waiting for the election to finish so it wouldn't upset our Fallow Merkins and Bush's re-stealing of the White House.

On today's Democracy Now show Amy Goodman had a US soldier who was in Fallujah confirming the use of napalm-like white phosphorus on that city's civilians, another US use of chemical weapons.

The former US soldier also said that they were poised to take Fallujay but told to do nothing until the US election was over.

So I think Kerry's excuse that he was the wrong one to out election fraud due the 'sour grapes' factor is cover for him conceding to military pressure to get it over with so they could destroy Fallujah.

That's a lot of pressure.

Covering up the US atrocities in Fallujah is something that unites the Dems and Repubs in complicity with war crimes.

Here's General Wesley Clark's Washington Post op-ed at the time explaining that "Winning in Fallujah is just the beginning." He's the next bogus 'Dem' to report for duty to the naive electorate unaware there is only The War Party.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47034-2004Nov12.html

[rockymountaindem]

10. I don't see how you can say Kerry "had it" and gave it away.

Could you clarify that statement?

[_dynamicdems]

24. I can: stupidity. JK didn't give anything away. This is so tiresome. n/t

[rockymountaindem]

26. Yeah, I was really hoping this person would reply

so I could get a better handle on just what kind of BS he/she was pushing so I could smack it down better.

[_dynamicdems]

33. ::high five: I LIKE that attitude! : - ) n/t

[FrenchieCat]

14. Using only the "Title" of Clark's op-ed, and not its content and the

true message is Intellectually desingenious and is a sorry excuse to attempt to make a slam by playing on those who either won't bother to read the article....or who don't "like" General Clark to begin with......

So what say you about this content of the article?......Was General Clark truly Cheering the Battle of Falluja, as you are implying? Or are you just being a tad dishonest in order to bolster your opinion?


"But in what sense is this "winning?

Troops are in Fallujah because of a political failure: Large numbers of Sunnis either wouldn't, or couldn't, participate in the political process and the coming elections. Greater security in Fallujah may move citizens (whenever they return) to take part in the voting; it's too early to say. But it's certain that you can't bomb people into the polling booths.

We should be under no illusions: This is not so much a war as it is an effort to birth a nation. It is past time for the administration to undertake diplomatic efforts in the region and political efforts inside Iraq that are worthy of the risks and burdens born by our men and women in uniform. No one knows better than they do: You cannot win in Iraq simply by killing the opponent. Much as we honor our troops and pray for their well-being, if diplomacy fails, their sacrifices and even their successes in Fallujah won't be enough. "

[Sparkly]

36. It's amazing how often that article is cherrypicked

without reading or comprehending the entire idea, isn't it?

It's like writing an article saying that while bacon is admittedly tasty and goes well with eggs, and you feel really happy at the moment you're eating it, you must keep in mind that there's a bad side to it, your cholesterol may be getting sky-high and the bad news is unless you do something different, your doctor's going to tell you you're in line for bypass surgery. And people pick out and quote over and over again: "OmiGOD, he said bacon's tasty -- he thinks it's GOOD for you!!!"

(By the way, I don't eat meat!)

[kaygore]

30. Y**E**S !!!!!!!!!

We were had in 2004. Let's NOT let that happen again!!!!!

[welshTerrier2]

6. a few comments on this ...

first, and most elementary, we have got to get back to standing behind those who combine the best ideas for the country with an ability to motivate Americans to support those ideas ...

the idea that this standard would ever be trashed over such stupidity as "he already had his chance" truly boggles the mind ...

if one were to rule Kerry (or anyone else) out as a future candidate, the decision should be based on his ideas and his ability to lead ... i'll not express my views on these issues about any candidate at this time other than to say that those who continue to vote funding for war will not receive my support ...

from a purely pragmatic point of view, i would be interested to know the history of candidates who ran for President and failed and then subsequently ran again and won ... is there anything meaningful we can learn from history here? the point isn't that we need be prisoners to history; only that we should consider what has previously occurred ...

[karynnj]

37. Good point on learning from history

In this case though I don't think it's very meaningful because it really is a very rare occurance. In the 50 years between 1956 - 2006, there are I think only 2 people who got the nomination twice after first winning. Adlai Stevenson (1952, 1956) and Nixon (1960, 1968) - one won and one lost.

I do agree that in 2007 and in 2008, we will all look at the candidates and the issues facing the country and will decide who we feel can both be a good President and be elected. Kerry did convince a large part of the party that he could be a good President and he came very very close to winning, but he didn't win. Those questions will be answered be the primary voters in 2008 for all the candidates.

[marmar]

7. I so wish Al Gore would run again....

This American Prospect article crystalizes why:

The most important speech of Al Gore’s post–non-presidency was neither well-covered nor particularly dramatic. He delivered it against a plain blue curtain, and when he finished, the applause rippled but never roared. None in attendance, however, would have dared call it boring.

The address was the keynote for the We Media conference, held at the Associated Press headquarters in New York last October and attended by an audience that included both old media luminaries and new media innovators. In attendance were Tom Curley, president of the AP, Andrew Heyward, president of CBS News, and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, all leading lights of a media establishment that, five years earlier, had deputized itself judge, jury, and executioner for Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, spinning each day’s events to portray the stolid, capable vice president as a wild exaggerator, ideological chameleon, and total, unforgivable bore.

www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11299

[still_one]

9. because it has only been successful one other time

and that was with nixon

The point is more than giving someone else another chance, the point is we NEED A STRONG CANDIDATE. You may not like it, but both Gore and Kerry ran terrible campaigns. Sure, the media was against them, and the voting irregularities were against them, but when they had control over certain aspects, they did not perform well

It is time we select a STRONG candidate, who speaks well, and whose campaign is run by competent people, but most of all someone who is consistent. I may not agree with bill clinton on many things, but he had the magnetism to win, and get across ideas, and we need someone like that or we will lose.

If six years hasn't taught us anything it should have taught us that.

[Skip Intro]

11. A golden opportunity to say "we were right then, and we're right now..."

A Gore or Kerry nom (or a combination of both) would allow us to say just that - and man, would people go for CONSITENCY!

"We tried it their ("bush republicans," as all running repubs should be labled) way, you see what we got."

[Name removed]

12. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

19. I absolutely agree

How are people supposed to trust our party when the day after we tell them we've got the man to be President we say "oops, didn't mean it". It's incredibly stupid, we should never let them trash a former candidate. We even let them trash Carter, who was right on just about everything he did. We should be out there saying so.

[Guaranteed]

42. Gore would agree with that. nt

[FrenchieCat]

13. I think that talk of who is the leader within the Democratic party

is less constructive right now, and that this discussion questions what our priorities truly are vs. what they should truly be.

Is the pressing goal to come out of this with a leader today who will go on to run and win in 2008?......or is the goal to have a sound strategy to have our candidates win in 2006? They are not the same goals....and one can easily fuck up the other.

Let me just say that whomever is running again, running for the first time, or ain't never gonna run in 2008, I say Kewl! The more leaders, the more betta'!

BUT....

Now I do hope that the "would be's", "were", and "wannabees" Presidents are all doing as much as they can to make sure that 2006 is a successful election for the Democrats and that they are focused much more on that than on talking so much about the "ME, ME, ME, I have the plan, I know what to do, I said it first, make me your leader" stuff. They'll be more than plenty of time for the grandstanding and the "my plan is better than your plan" routines.

Right now, The American people and the Democratic Party don't so much need "A" leader as much as they need as many "LEADERS" as possible....I mean PLURAL, i.e., the Democratic Party should be working to be seen as the party of "LEADERS"....cause that's the only way the voters are going to put us back in charge of the congress.

So I'm all for "Kerry the leader" and "his" plan....I'm all for "Biden the leader" and "his" plan.....and whoever else has a "plan" and is a leader.....I just hope that these various plans include making sure that "these leaders" are not complicating the congressional races of Democratic candidates by making them have to choose "which Plan" and "which leader" the candidates back when the media asks them the questions (which the media loves to do). Many candidates have tough enough races as it is without the Democrats dividing themselves in being compeled to "follow -A- leader"....when following or even choosing a Democratic leader is not what 2006 is even about!

The Dems HAVE TO be as united as possible going into the 2006 season, because whomever divides them will also be the reason that we fall, 2008 politics be damned!

Leadership is not so much about getting people to follow you....as much as doing what you think is right.....which naturally will lead folks to support and follow one. I wish Kerry supporters would not feel so compeled in translating Kerry's focus into wanting to be followed and concentrate on the priorities that Kerry is and should be stressing...which I have to imagine is....

"Vote Democratic in 2006....cause WE are the party of leaders".

[Mass]

15. You totally missed my point, which was not a punctual question

but something repeating itself.

We certainly should be as united as possible until 06. I have been saying that for more than one year on this board and others.

But the issue of how the Democrats deal with their leaders is a real issue that does not seem to disappear. Let say 08 arrives and the Democrat (whoever he is) loses. What do we do? Do we assail the candidate or do we start thinking about what it means to be a Democrat, about what the institutions are and whether or not it makes sense to drop the person who was the best of the best the day before.

May be it is because I learned politics on another continent, but all that does not make a lot of sense to me. It did not in 2001 and it still does not. I still think that Gore should have been the party leader in 2000 and the nominee in 2004. Sorry if it bothers you. May be I am wrong! May be the Democrats are right! But be sure that the only reason I stay a democrat is because there is nothing else, not because I am elated by the way the party works.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Oh.....I've got the point....alright.....

all too well in fact.

The title of your thread ...."why Gore, and if not Gore than Kerry should be the leader of the Democratic Party".....is quite clear.

I just happen to think that "who should be the leader of the Democratic party" at this point should really NOT be the point. That was MY point.

[Mass]

17. Thanks god, You know what I was thinking better than I do.

May be I should have avoided to put Kerry in my title and you would have felt better.

I happen that this is a question who will come soon (as in 3 years if we dont win the 08 elections, and that it is worth asking ourselves this question. But, of course, we cant think at two things at a time.

[FrenchieCat]

20. I'm going to leave you with this......

Because my post was not about "Me" feeling better.....

I note that you could not have left Kerry out of the title because the thread really is all about how just because John Kerry ran and lost, that this should NOT disqualify him from running again......and that he and Gore should be seeing as leaders of our party.

I think they are leaders of this party......just not the only ones.

I thank them for the leadership, as I do many others.

They are great patriots and I profusely thank them for their service. :patriot:

I hope that they lead the battle for our victory in 2006.....and whether they run again, or whether they should be the only leaders just isn't a priority discussion from where I sit at this point in time.

[sandnsea]

21. That sounds fine

Except for Biden because he's just an idiot. Otherwise, exactly, we are a party of leaders. Instead, we trash our leaders like Carter and Gore and Kerry. It's like Clark said a while ago, if we don't fight for each other, why would America think we'd fight for them.

Again, except Biden, gads what a blowhard.

[_dynamicdems]

23. That's a great quote from General Clark.

I wholeheartedly agree. Biden can get me steamed at times but when the chips are down, he's a Democrat, and I'd support him.

[sandnsea]

25. Oh I'd support him

Just like I'd support Hillary. It'd actually be easier to support Biden. I wouldn't like it though. Too many times he's come out tough, then rolled over on his vote. Annoys me no end.

[karynnj]

38. This holds true for the Clark supporters too

"I wish Kerry supporters would not feel so compeled in translating Kerry's focus into wanting to be followed and concentrate on the priorities that Kerry is and should be stressing...which I have to imagine is...."

I see far more "Why Wes should be President" type threads than threads of that sort for Kerry. Most Kerry threads outside of our group, where it is certainly reasonable for us to support Kerry, are related to specific current actions. They should then be compared to the many "Clark speaks on..." threads.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Ok.....I'm just jealous....

How's that?

Please post the numerous "Why Wes should be President" threads....cause I'd like to read them. Thanks! :hi:

[karynnj]

43. I said nothing about you being jealous

I assume that you are 100% committed to Clark and I think your informative posts on him are excellent. I have at least once defended you when you and Clark were attacked unjustifiablely.

My point was that you attacked the Kerry supporters for something that we are among the least guilty of. All of us know that a post of the form "Kerry (should be President),(is the best) (2008) etc" would lead to nothing but flame bait. Instead, the posts are on actions or positions Kerry has taken. Posts for other candidates of this type tend to simply discuss the candidate in question. The Kerry threads on anything lead to the attacks on him for reasons not related to the posts.

If I am wrong on there having been Clark 2008 threads I apologize - I honestly believe there were but it would be completely unproductive to look for them. This thread is not implying that Kerry be the 2008 candidate, but that he should be recognized as the standard bearer - because he did win the nomination. He certainly has as much claim to a leadership role as Dean, Reid, Pelosi or anyone they designate do. He was the clear winner of the 2004 nomination.

[sampsonblk]

18. The one who leads should be the leader

IMO, it shouldn't depend on whether (or not) someone has been a candidate or nominee or anything else. It has to be about which person takes up the cause of the party faithful and articulates and promotes it best.

Following that line of thinking, its no wonder we feel sorta leaderless at the moment.

[imlost]

27. Gore Maybe, but Not Kerry! n/t

[lojasmo]

28. Dean is doing just fine.

When the nominee becomes the candidate, we'll see who's up to leading the party.

Right now it seems like it might be Feingold.

[Cobalt Violet]

31. I believe either one of them could win, AGAIN.

But not Hillary.

[politicasista]

32. True

I like Michigan's governor over Hillary. Too bad she is Canadian.

[ray of light]

34. you're right!

[1932]

44. Gore is a Rubin/Summers-style neoliberal. They're the problem, not the

solution.

Historically-speaking, he's on the wrong side of the most important political debate today.


Lieberman is another one I'd throw in with that crowd. I'd rather have them than a Republican in office. But I'd rather have a non-neoliberal Democrat in office than one of them.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

45. Not Kerry, too many people dont like him

but Gore might have a shot. I hope Hillary pulls out so that it will upset all the conjecture about her running. Wesly Clarke! Other than those I dont see many front runners that make sense

[karynnj]

52. Plenty of people liked Kerry

If they didn't he wouldn't have won the nomination as easily as he did. How do you run in modern America when the media is invested in your opponent's saying in power.

Kerry won the primaries through lots of one to one meetings and doing an excellent job in the primary debates. He was not a favorite of the powers in the party nor a media favorite - he won just because when it came down to it he easily out classed all the others in the debates.

[More Than A Feeling]

48. Why do we need "a" leader?

I actually like the approach we've been taking a little better. Call it "the flavor of the week" approach. Nobody gets a free pass to be designated "the leader". They have to earn it, and they have to keep earning it.

Harry Reid was the man when he shut down the senate, but he's been nowhere on censure. He's formally the leader of the senate Democrats, but I don't see him getting as much love as he used to. John Kerry has been the man on Downing Street, the Alito filibuster, and he has supported censure. All those are fine things, but if he craps out next week on something, he'll hear the boos. Feingold has consistently led, since day one of the Bush administration, but he wasn't immune even when he kept leading in calling for censure. People questioned his timing and his tactics.

Yet, here we are, up double digits in the generic congressional ballots, with our committees furiously raising money, stretching Republican defenses to their very limit with our 430+ seat strategy AND rebuilding the party in all 50 states.

In the face of all that, having a formal "leader" seems, well, kind of unnecessary.

[McCamy Taylor]

49. Dem Leader should be some one NOT running for office. Party first.

Dean seems happy with his current job.

[Teresa4ChrisCarney]

50. I want the person I most agree with

and the person most qualified to run the country. In my opinion that person is Gore. But I would be open to someone else who catches my attention by saying the things I want to hear. That would have to be someone new.

[ClarkBayh 2008]

51. If you want to lose and make a statement...

Sure... why not Gore, Hillary, Kerry...
Why not nominate JFK in memorium?

There seems to be some sort of existentialist problem with
the Democratic party. They'd all rather be right than win.

One day your grandkids will ask why the democrats kept losing
even after the 2000 & 2004 elections.

Clark is the only logical leader of this party during wartime,
as Bush has already said troops will be in Iraq through 2008.