Can a TRULY radical candidate get elected as US President?

[Stinky The Clown]

Think Paul Wellstone on steroids.

Think of a rational Ross Perot

Think of Ralph Nader pre-ego trip

Think Paul Tsongas with charisma

Think of ANYONE you know who has radical but truly patriotic ideas to lead this country's people in a whole new direction.

Imagine a candidate who would attack the out-of-control corporatism head-on. Imagine a candidate who would remake the military into an effective and unstoppable force for the **defense** of our country. Imagine a candidate who would overhaul the tax code from the ground up to incentivize the good things and draconianly disincentivize the bad shit. Imagine a candidate that would put people ahead of everything. Imagine a candidate who would restructure the national priorities such that every citizen would have at least the basic levels of care needed to sustain him from cradle to grave.

Imagine a candidate who is unable to define 'band-aid'.

Can a radical candidate get elected?

[Radical Activist]

1. Yes.

I think Paul Wellstone would have had a good chance. Its going to take more organizing, more support from liberals who think they can't dirty themselves with electoral politics, and a near-perfect candidate. It would also require the left to stop being so pessimistic and actually support one of their own for a change, instead of backing a more "electable" moderate. If someone with views as extreme as Bush can get elected, then a radical can get elected.

[ProudDad]

48. That's why they killed him

[Lindacooks]

74. Sigh.

:cry:

[Sinti]

2. If he had even a remote chance of winning

I think the Multinational Megacorp Juggernaut would have him eliminated... plane crash, car accident, random wacko with a gun and three names... you know the drill.

[katsy]

3. I think a candidate like that...

would unite Americans.

:applause:

I think it would also unite gop and Democratic politicians (national level) against that candidate.

Politics without graft?

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. I think we already got one. Only it isn't the same kind of radical

you are thinking about.

[movonne]

5. How about the radical bush....and his administration..

[sandnsea]

6. Wellstone voted for the Patriot Act

Disqualified as radical per DU Purist rules.

Kerry worked with Wellstone on a lot of legislation, which continues to baffle me as to how Wellstone can be called a radical and Kerry a DLC whore. :crazy:

[alfredo]

24. Remember, the Rep leadership said they would fix

what was wrong with the Patriot act, in the next congress. That eased some fears of the Dems and moderate Reps. Of course the Rep Leadership lied. They had no intentions to fix the Patriot act, they moved to make it more draconian. The mistake the Dems made was taking the Reps at their word.

[sandnsea]

30. The Senate passed better legislation

It had the support of the ACLU. Unfortunately, the mistake the far left made was to reject everything that had to do with counter-terrorism so the people never got an opportunity to even know there was good legislation available.

http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/safe.html

[razors edge]

34. but was he allowed to read it first?

[sandnsea]

36. Probably read it in 1996

When Democrats were proposing new measures to fight terrorism after OKC and the Republicans prevented anything from being passed.

[razors edge]

38. Charlie Rangle didn't seem real familiar with it

in F-911. edit- at least he said something to the effect he had not read it before the vote.

[sandnsea]

39. So he says

I never bought the "I didn't read it" line because I remembered what happened in '96 and that Democrats had been fighting for improved terrorism measures of years. I don't know why some Democrats decided to pretend to be stupid on what was in the Patriot Act, but I never saw it as anything more than a political excuse because they didn't have the guts to stand up to the left. There's a reason the majority of Congress voted for the Patriot Act and that's because it was generally good and necessary legislation.

[razors edge]

42. I don't doubt for a minute it was originated from our side,

but if memory serves wasn't lieberman a cosponsor or something?

[sandnsea]

43. Biden introduced it

along with Arlen Specter. I don't know who all the co-sponsors were or if there were any at all. But that isn't the point. The point is Democrats pushed legislation after OKC that could have helped prevent 9/11, Republicans blocked it and then turned around and blamed Democrats for not doing anything about terrorism. Even people like Paul Wellstone supported the legislation, a version passed the Senate to fix the objectionable parts, but the left just continued to stand on the sidelines throwing rocks and not knowing the history or facts behind any of it. Even so-called radicals like Wellstone make sensible votes when they have all the facts.

[razors edge]

45. I also remember reading somewhere,

probable here, that Gore had presented the big dog with a 90 page or so review of security threats that focused on airline problems, but upon taking it to newt's place it was Pooh poohed as to expensive for the airline industry, proloy would have been a bargain in hind sight eh?

[sandnsea]

46. Lots of things were ignored

I think Clinton should have gone ahead and done whatever he thought was necessary, regardless of the rantings from the right. It just annoys the hell out of me that we've let the right destroy Democrats on terrorism when the ones who really deserve it are the Republicans. That's why these attack posts annoy the hell out of me, the far left seems to believe everybody would just be nice if we sent chocolate and wine and flowers. They seem to be able to grasp that our neocons are power mongers, but they can't wrap their heads around the fact that people of any ideology are capable of manipulating the masses for pure power. We've got to look at more than a hyped up vote here or there to decide how best to go forward after we throw the rat bastards out.

[razors edge]

54. If I remember correctly

Bill was immersed in the Monica thing and Al's recommendations were killed in committee by the thugs, no way Bill could do s**t on that one.

The media destroyed the Democrats on security, they were given one very clear message to tow the neocon line and thats all it took, anthrax.

If I believed a group of islamic fundamentalists attacked this country and pulled an end run on all our defenses, which I don't, then I would have to say to those who are untouched personally by that action yet supremely outraged, get over it. If Americans want to be the biggest bully on the block then get used to the idea of a bloody nose from time to time otherwise we sound like a bunch of whiners.

If the reich wing nascar f**ks feel the need to be the baddest, most belligerent force on earth for no other reason than that turns them on, that too in my mind is media fueled. They can't make the connection that american troops in 100+ nations ain't to protect us, it's to protect profits for the very people who never serve or pay taxes to fund these adventures. Lost causes all around.

Wanna stop terrorism, stop all foreign aid and influence in our politics, two year review of all treaties since 1913 by the USSC for constitutional review. Make the robed ones hand down more that a dozen decisions a year, and start with the Federal Reserve, then worry about the other things.

I have worked in remediation of expensive and neglected facilities for 20 years, and sometimes you have to cut out a whole lot of rotted infrastructure to save the plant.

Radical and about as likely as Bush teaching physics, but short of major changes we are all going to hell in the same hand basket.

Now what would be easier, major changes to the structure of our society that admit bad decisions of the past, or just killing of a bunch more americans in another black flag operation to get the easy money? I know which I expect to see from our so called leaders.

[Stinky The Clown]

40. I could be mistaken ... but I **think** you're actually referring to .....

..... John Conyers in F/911, not Charlie Rangel.

[razors edge]

41. Yep, sorry its been a while, will have to

dust it off and review it. I was clearly the remember the chilling words when asked if he had read it at least to paraphrase, its not done that way, or words to that chilling effect.

[Ravy]

7. Of course. Neocons are radical. They just have to say

whatever it takes to get elected. Then go about their own agenda. Bush did that.

Nation building? Uniter? Control spending? Social Security safe?

[mdmc]

8. with charisma and diebold, anything goes

I think that Americans want... something... in their President.

[Warpy]

9. Stupid is a radical

but no, the haves will never, ever allow the have nots to elect a strongly pro labor, anti corporate candidate. The only reason Roosevelt got that first term is that he was part of the moneyed class and they thought he'd display more class loyalty than merely saving capitalism from the increasingly socialist majority.

[Joe for Clark]

22. FDR was elected by a middle class that got screwed by

Hoover - and did it four times in a row.

Joe

You know - even Ronald Reagan looked up to FDR - really strange considering.

[ProudDad]

49. Of course, ronny ray-gun looked up to FDR

FDR saved capitalism...to the detriment of the working class!!!

[Joe for Clark]

52. I haven't heard that in a long time -

ray-gun.

I think, FDR saved a lot more than capitialism, with due respect.

Dad was with the army when Buchenwald got liberated - do you have any clue what really went on there??

I do.

This was not about capitalism or even the Jews. I figure Dad killed about 1200 Nazis - I calculated it once. And I thank god he did - and I know it tortured him to the day he died. I listen to Bush's people trying to compare this to that - it makes me sick to my stomache.

No - I give Reagan certain credit, he did believe in FDR. He knew what was really going on.

SO on a certain level he was ok with me.

Joe

[ProudDad]

57. I probably know more than you

what went on in Buchenwald. It was corporate capitalist money that financed and supplied the place. Ah, but they "didn't know what was going on.".

Reagan didn't believe in shit except the bullshit right-wing line that Nancy's father spoon fed him at the supper table. Reagan SURE DIDN'T KNOW SHIT about what was going on...he was busy making films during the war and thinking he was in it.

Anyone who says reagan was OK at any level is totally deluded.

[TankLV]

60. Bush money went into building Buchenwald and all the other death camps.

NEVER FORGET THAT...

[Joe for Clark]

68. I guess anything is possible -

but since you don't know me or what I know you make a pretty bold statement about my knowledge or lack of it as to Buchenwald or any concentration camp or WWII generally.
AND
All I said about "ray-gun" was that even he was an FDR supporter - I think that is a redeeming quality.

Joe

[blondeatlast]

10. No. americans want sweet talk, not leadership. nt

[135th]

11. Not on a national level

Americas political process forces a run to the middle, radicals must adapt or fail. In the unlikely event that one did succeed, do you think they would be more likely to come from the far left or the far right?

[Joe for Clark]

12. Yes, it can happen.

I think when the country is really in trouble it can happen.

FDR was radical - and probably the greatest president we ever had.

Teddy was a great president, although initially come to power from the death of the former, he was afterwards elected.

So, rarely, it can happen.

Joe

[welshTerrier2]

13. probably not - but i think it's the wrong question to ask ...

setting electability as the measure of radical proposals, is, perhaps, not a valid measuring tool ...

to be sure, getting elected to obtain the power to implement the beliefs is ultimately necessary ...

but it is not a starting point ... it would be no more valid to demand that a seedling provide the much needed shade from the oppressive summer sun ...

so many times, especially on DU, i've seen radical ideas dismissed, often without any debate at all, because they are considered "unelectable" ... this, of course, is "finger in the wind leadership" ... it does not lead to solving problems; it leads to electing people who are good at campaigning ...

we need to focus on what our real national priorities should be ... we need visionaries who can define the details of the problems we face and what is causing those problems ... we need visionaries who can show us a path to change ...

these visionaries, by definition, will be outside the "common wisdom" ... their ideas will be new and not initially well-received ... it takes time to build a case for change ... if we are short-term thinkers only concerned with getting elected in the next election so that we can have power, what will we do with that power? too many who chose this approach do little more than reinforce the status quo ...

the days ahead are likely to be very dark times for the US and perhaps for all mankind ... this is not the time to stifle the voice of radical new ideas and the voices that talk to us of significant changes in our lives ... we should not lock them away in our attics and hide them from public view ... and we should not demand of them that they demonstrate their electability in the next election ...

let the seeds be planted for the future ... this does not suggest we should ignore short-term political considerations; but we must not inhibit and disrespect the long-term thinkers ... radical change, which is clearly necessary, will take time ... we do need to be sensitive to implementing change in a way that will be accepted by the public ... but this is where i see a broad failure in today's Democratic Party; i see a fear of political impact silencing the voices calling for major change ... perhaps the right model is one where we talk about our long-term vision and commitment to radical change but recognize the practicalities of a slower pace of implementation ... right now, the deck seems totally stacked solely in favor of short-term political considerations ...

it is my view that, in the long run, having the right vision will yield the best political results ... i'm especially worried, in today's political climate, that Democratic support from the electorate is being driven by an anti-bush sentiment rather than making a strong, long-term case for the ideas and values and platform of the Democratic Party ... i'm all for winning in the short-term; i'm afraid, however, we're doing that at the expense of the long-term ...

[anitar1]

82. Welsh, a very good post ,imho. Thanks. n/t

[citizen snips]

14. no

I don't think that any socialist will be elected president.

[Joe for Clark]

16. FDR did have a socialist twinge in his programs.

Hell, I am a great believer in FDR and I admit it. But that is what had to happen for us.

He was very radical - in a very good way.

Joe

[citizen snips]

18. I don't think that a marxist prez could be elected.

[Joe for Clark]

20. I understood what you meant.

We are certainly not going to elect a marxist. But the actions taken by FDR to pull us out of the depression and get us positioned for WWII were VERY radical.

The entire concept of social security, for example, was socialist for the day.

Many things like this.

And the man wasn't just elected - he was elected four times in a row.

I know what you meant. Its cool.

Joe

[citizen snips]

23. The country had a socialist turn in the great depression.

so I can see how those positions can be considered radical.

But I don't think we will see marxists who are like lenin and trotsky ascend to power.

[Joe for Clark]

26. Thats right.

[ProudDad]

50. FDR's agenda was only "radical"

to the upper classes -- the "Owners" of society, like my grandmother.

They were anything BUT radical to the rank and file.

FDR co-opted a tiny sliver of the working class, Socialist agenda in order to co-opt her what went on to become the way of life in Europe. As a result we have no national pension system, no universal health care, no safety net worth SHIT compared to the civilized world.

That's FDR's real legacy...

He wasn't quite the traitor to his class that my grandmother thought he was...

[Joe for Clark]

55. You don't really belive this, do you??

You know, FDRs real legacy isn't the result of the depression - not really -

Although it is really something -

But for FDR we'd all be speaking German right now - know what I Mean??

I think it really should be taught just how close we came to losing that war.

And BUT FOR an FDR, we would have.

I think that is the main point,

Joe

[ProudDad]

56. I told you

FDR only co-opted a part of the Socialist plan...just enough to quiet the masses until he could gin up a war to fully take their minds off of their real oppressors.

And his MAIN "legacy" is "ending the depression". The war was just the tool used to finally end the depression and begin the final destruction of the labor movement and any possibility of a comprehensive social safety net in this country.

Strategically, if you think that Hitler could have taken over the U.S., you're sadly mistaken... If the U.S. and other corporate capitalists like Ford and CocaCola, etc. hadn't been so quick to support hitler, he would have gone nowhere. Trust the capitalist to go where the bucks are...

[Joe for Clark]

66. Wait - you think FDR "ginned up" WWII??

I don't even know what to say to that.

As to Germany's intentions toward the US, there isn't any doubt about it.

Hitler wrote a sequel to Mein Kampf - it was found in a safe at his publishers office and then published a few years ago. Pretty scary stuff - before he even took power he had some very "ill intentions" toward the US. Clearly he understood the inevitable result of his conquests would result in a show down with us. He was right.

And frankly, I strongly believe FDRs main legacy lies in his ability to get us sucessfully thru that war. I think some things get lost in the clutter of history - but we really did almost lose that war - it was a close run thing. And if we did lose, the consequence were unthinkable.

Churchill said once about the Nazis that "a new dark age was comming" - He was exacly right.

Joe

Joe

[Stinky The Clown]

19. A 'socialist', actually, is not what I had in mind .....

What I had in mind was a person who holds views that fit no established mold.

[Joe for Clark]

25. A radical just thinks "outside the box".

We think of it in 20th century terms. That is really very limited.

I think about every 50 years or so we do get such an "outside the box" thinker - and we are really over due at this point.

Joe

[citizen snips]

28. when you said radical

you made me think of the far left of the political spectrum.

[Joe for Clark]

32. I read the other responses - and they are right -

radical can mean radically wrong.

I don't think left or right MATTMAN - I think what is in the best interest of our country and that is all. Sure does seem the "left" is usually radically right - excuse the pun.

Joe

[ProudDad]

51. That's still the piece of slime that's inhabiting the White House

at present.

He fits no established mould (he is a moldy bastard though!! :) )

He's a radical fascist...

[Totally Committed]

15. Paul Tsongas was RADICAL?

Even with charisma, he may have been a NICE GUY, but RADICAL? In what way, "radical"? He had economic ideas that could have been considered "different", but "radical"?

Bobby Kennedy was "radical". Paul Wellstone was "radical" (no steroids needed!) Mario Cuomo, in his own quiet way, was really "radical". Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosevelt, MLK... "radicals". Paul Tsongas???? Not even close. Paul Tsondas was a dear, sweet, quiet man whose lack of charisma made Mike Dukakis look positively luminous. Period.

Now, to answer your question: I dunno. They seem to kill of the true "radicals" before they can lead anyone in a "whole new direction", don't they? RFK, MLK, JFK, Paul Wellstone, JFK, Jr. -- all dead before their time, and by unnatural causes. Think about the odds of that... either a "lone gunman" or a "small plane" did each of them in. (Eleanor and Rosa were women, and therefore, easily marginalized, so they died natural deaths in their old age.) I often wondered what would have happened to Mario had he not withdrawn against Clinton.


TC

[Stinky The Clown]

21. Mario ........

.... in my best dreams, Mario is my president.

He would have been a great one.

(Sparkly gave me shit about my characterization of Tsongas, too. :hi: )

[Totally Committed]

27. Mario Cuomo will forever be the best President

we never had.

I knew Paul Tsongas. He was a lovely man, but there wasn't a "radical" bone in his body. I'm glad Sparkly set you straight! LOL! :hi: right back atcha, my friend!

TC

[SaveElmer]

17. No...not in a national campaign...

American History has shown a consistent rejection of radical politics by a majority of the people. We are simply too diverse, with too many holding differing political philosophies for everyone to get on board with such an agenda.

[PresidentWar]

29. No. They want a face and prescripted platitudes.

Not someone with a radical vision.

[RadiDem]

31. bush is a radical neocon - so I guess the answer would be yes

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. Sure. A radical with spending capacity approaching infinity. n/t

[razors edge]

35. Not likely,

it would require challenging everything we now have spoon fed to the sheople and the press has invested too much in controlling the "mood" of the discussion. (along with controlling who gets access to your tv, look at how the dean scream was used to remove the one candidate who opposed media consolidation) she/he would have to be gorgeous, rich, vice free, respected, something like a JFK jr., oh never mind he got wellstoned too.

[FrenchieCat]

37. I don't think Democrats would go for someone like that......

it would make it too easy! We ain't into all of that!

[MasonJar]

44. He did. Bush is radically self-absorbed, ignorant and selfish.

[ProudDad]

47. Not a chance

and if she/he did, he/she'd be taken out.

The corporate capitalist class will not ALLOW any deviation from the status-quo...

on edit: I'm assuming a positive, progressive radical ... not the goose-stepping asshole currently occupying the White House.

[AZBlue]

53. I certainly hope not.

By definition ("radical") this person would represent a small minority, not anything near a majority, of US citizens. We already have that now - let's not have it again, ever.

[Greyhound]

75. Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. It is what Repukes would like you

to believe it means, but the facts dictate otherwise.

rad‧i‧cal  /ˈrædɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference.
2. thoroughgoing or extreme, esp. as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company.
3. favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.
4. forming a basis or foundation.
5. existing inherently in a thing or person: radical defects of character.

[Tom Rinaldo]

58. Wes Clark can be our bridge to that.

Because for almost all of his life Clark has been independent of the money guzzling corporate/political machines that own government in America. Clark managed to rise to a position of enough stature to run for President without previously having had to finance a string of political campaigns fueled by big money donors. Clark retains far more independence than a typical political leader as a result, and he is not the product of any specific political machine. Clark took a third path; not politics, not business, but public service through the military. He earned below $100,000 a year until the very last few years of his Army career, and for most of his career he earned much less than that. The Army is one of the most integrated and least stratified institutions in America. The pay gap between those on the very top and those at the very bottom is tiny compared to what is commonly found in Corporate America. And because Clark understood in the Army that ultimate success in the life and death realm of battle requires building a strong team and everyone looking out for each other, Clark does not view American Society as an array of special interest groups that can be played off against each other in order to consolidate power, he views America as a whole and the contributions that each American makes as important.

So I am not saying that Wes Clark would come to the job of President with a radical agenda to totally dismantle corporate power and abuse, but I am saying that he is not a product of that agenda, and that his values were molded in a very different and more egalitarian environment than those that prevail in most American ruling circles. And I am saying that Wes Clark can achieve sufficient personal popularity across a wide spectrum of voting groups, from Moderate Republicans through Progressive Democrats with a few honest Conservatives thrown in as well, that he will be able to advocate for and sell social programs that few Democrats could deliver on and virtually no Republican would attempt to deliver on. Further, Wes Clark would run a relatively open government and by doing so he would acclimate Americans to expect that again from their subsequent leaders.

We have to get from where we are to where we need to be, and I see Wes Clark as the perfect transition President toward a more just, a more radically just, America. Personally I would love to see Feingold as Clark's VP. Feingold's apparent liabilities; being single, being a Senator when Senators are pinned against the wall by their record of thousands of votes, and being Jewish in a nation that is not completely beyond anti-semitism, would not hurt him as the second person on the ticket, and 8 years later America will be ready for him. But I would love Barbara Boxer as VP also.

[TankLV]

59. Yes. They already have. Unfortunately, they're all right wing assholes.

Raygun, bush I and bush* II...

[theanarch]

61. yes...

...but only if they're RW bat-shit crazy...

[rurallib]

62. I would submit that Bush is the most radical president ever.

Of course he did campaign as a moderate, but those who knew him knew he was a radical. Wish I had known.

[zann725]

63. In HIS time, F.D.R. had some pretty 'radical' ideas, & served FOUR terms

'Radical' is a loaded, many-viewed term.

I prefer re-defining "Liberal," and making it a MORE positive word, and re-born core value of the Dem Party.

[flaminbats]

64. want a radical?

George Bush on coke, an irrational Ronald Reagan, a Bill Clinton for a balanced budget, or a Governor Schwarzenegger who gives insurance companies special treatment in the free market..

whoops :crazy:

[LWolf]

65. Yes.

If rank and file Democrats actually wanted such a candidate, and were willing to run a good campaign, the "radical" candidate would be elected. A good campaign would make sure that voters "get it:" putting people ahead of everything is not "radical."

Of course, the biggest battle would be with Party "Leadership" itself. I think it's possible that Democratic Powerbrokers would be a bigger threat than Republican opposition. Those in power don't want THAT kind of change.

[SeaNap05]

67. John Edwards can do those things

You don't have to be radical in order to be a successful at all the things that were listed.

[politicasista]

69. So can other Dems n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. Riding the bus the other day

I overheard a conversation between two middle-aged women. I know from having seen and heard them on the bus before that one lives on disability and the other is a daycare worker.

Let me tell you, they KNEW that the current administration was screwing them. They were a little confused about some of their facts, but they knew that the Bushies were not on their side, especially about things like health care.

They were indignant about health care. Why wasn't anyone doing something about those insurance companies? Why couldn't someone keep those CEOs from cutting ordinary people's wages while taking big bonuses for themselves? And they agreed that democracy in the Middle East was the last thing that Bush wanted, because then the oil revenues would be used to better the people's lives instead of to prop up dictators.

You would have thought that you were at a meeting of the SDS, except that some of their positions on behavioral issues weren't typically progressive. For example, they took a "tough on crime" "law and order" attitude, and one of them anti-choice.

But on economic and foreign policy issues, the ones that the mainstream Democrats tiptoe around for fear of offending corporate donors, they were what our DLC apologists call "far left." However, they hated all politicians, precisely because they saw them as getting caught up in trivia and not doing the important work.

Fifty percent of the people don't vote, and most of them are poor and working class. There is NO better way to get an earful of what such people think than to ride your local bus. Yes, I know it's beneath your dignity :sarcasm: and you might have to expose your precious and well-toned, affluent body and highly trained mind to the presence of the poor, the disabled, the dark-skinned, the elderly, and the non-English speaking, but you will learn about America in the raw. You may not like everything you hear, especially in cases when a couple of young men refer to Cheney as a "cool guy."

But ask them why they think he's cool. It turns out that they know nothing about him other than that he's "tough" and "doesn't take any shit from anybody."

You may meet a convenience store worker who goes to work sick, is admitted to the hospital on Friday night after visiting the emergency room, and checks herself out against doctor's advice on Monday morning because she gets no sick leave and can't afford to miss a day's pay because she's already on the edge.

You will hear African-Americans exchange opinions about "the system" and learn that they understand how America works about as well as anyone. You may not like what you hear, but you need to hear it.

You may see an obvious schizophrenic riding the bus and wailing incoherently, and you'll wonder who, if anyone, watches out for him.

You will see people of different races and ethnicities sharing stories about their families and admiring one another's children.

No one is speaking to their needs. The Democrats pretend to, but for the most part, they're more worried about stealing the soccer moms and office park dads from the Republicans by mumbling vaguely about "programs that benefit working families" or proposing new ways of censoring video games.

Some of the DLC snarks will soon be popping in to remind me that populist Dennis Kucinich won only 3% of the vote. Not quite. In states and counties where troops of dedicated volunteers were able to to do an end-run around the hostility and scorn of the corporate media and even of the mainstream Democratic party, he got as much as 27% of the vote, and countless other people succumbed to conventional wisdom and thought, "I love Dennis, but everyone says he can't win." That was the automatic reaction to his name. "He can't win."

I saw what happened when people heard Dennis for themselves. The first time he spoke, he drew 800. The second time, he drew 1600. The third time, he drew over 2000. And yet, on that day, Edwards came and talked to 200 people and got far more print space, while that same article implied that Dennis had spoken only to a small group of 25 in another venue. That evening, Dennis spoke at a banquet, and as people were leaving, the kitchen staff came out and insisted on each having their pictures taken with him.

I could also remind you that in the presidential debates, before a single ballot had been cast in Iowa or anywhere else, Dennis got less screen time (5 minutes) than any other candidate, with the rest getting an average of 9. The New York Times would give each candidate's daily schedule, but acted as if Dennis didn't exist. When I went to my precinct caucus, the local political mavens told us that voting for anyone but Kerry or Edwards was "wasted." When it came time for the national convention, even though Dennis was the only alternative to Kerry remaining in the race, his speech to the assembly was scheduled for the few minutes BEFORE national coverage began.

Well, that election is in the past, but it was a real eye-opener. Here I was involved in a campaign that attracted everyone from blue collar workers to suburbanites to students to seniors, including every local ethnic group, and working for the only candidate who had ever made me cry with joy at hearing someone speak to the real needs of the country, and all the media did was ignore or diss him.

It answered the question of why progressives don't get elected president. The corporate powers who own the media and control the campaign contributions do NOT want progressives elected to high office any more than the neocons do. The corporate types may be Democrats because they think the economy works better or they want certain individual rights, but they have no interest in the problems of the rest of us. Unless progressives start being elected to Congress from every quarter, overcoming the hostility of the moneyed interests, they will never have the name recognition or the combined power to overcome the invisibility factor.

I don't know if Dennis will run next time. Odds are against it, apparently. But there will be some other progressive trying, as Fred Harris or Paul Tsongas did in years past, and I predict that they will be ridiculed, marginalized, and in general, treated as if they are irrelevant lunatics for coloring outside the establishment lines and questioning business as usual.

[LostInAnomie]

71. Yes, but it would take a crisis of some sort.

The two most radical presidents we have ever had: FDR and GWB* both had a crisis to allow them to implement their plans.

The Great Depression allowed FDR to introduce his New Deal.

GWB* had 9/11 to implement his ultra-right wing agenda. (I'm counting 2004 as *'s first election because he stole 2000.)

If we had another sustained depression or continuous terrorist attacks, I could see a radical getting elected.

[kentuck]

72. No. That candidate would split the Democratic vote...

and permit the Repubs to remain in power indefinitely.

[TheFarseer]

73. I still wish Perot would have won

He could have had he stayed in the race. We could be close to out of debt by now if the following administrations would have stayed on course. He would have stopped outsourcing and he wouldn't have given the repukes the moral authority they supposedly have now because of the BJ so I don't think we would be polarized. He sure as hell would not have signed NAFTA if nothing else. Of course all of this is assuming he doesn't go crazy! What I'm saying is yes, I think a radical candidate can be elected but they have to be fairly unknown and have a dynamic personality and alot of money or otherwise have access to media. It's alot to ask, but someone was close in '92 so why not again?

[Greyhound]

77. IOW, where is this generation's Huey Long?

I agree that had Perot not been a wacko he likely would have been elected and things would certainly be much different today. He was the lone voice warning against NAFTA, he was also opposed to many of the other tools of the global corporatocracy.

I don't know if you saw this already, but this is a great piece from last year following Katrina.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=453

[TheFarseer]

78. thanks for the link

I'm not familiar with Huey Long but interesting stuff.

[newspeak]

76. well, a radical already got selected

Paul Wellstone was the man. I wrote him a letter way before the 2000 election asking him to run for President. He listened and responded to the people. And, I don't believe Wellstone or Kuccinich are radicals, actually they have more reason in their little pinky than the whole cabal that's squatting in the WH now.

[eridani]

81. Wellstone had 17,000 very well organized volunteers in just one state

Now all we have to do is get that level of organization working nationally. When that happens, we can elect a Wellstone or a Kucinich.

[alvarezadams]

79. Absolutely

A truly radical candidate has been REelected, or re-selected if you will. A rw radical, but a radical far more extreme than Eugene Debbs was decades ago, one who made the "radical" Goldwater seem like a moderate leftist.

It's all a matter of packaging, of framing, of memes and of opportunity. Not to mention manipulation and the urgency of self-interest.

[Jacobin]

80. Well, Bush is in the WH, not that he was elected

He's as radical as they come.

[CarlVK]

83. As much as I hate it,

I think America is more prone to elect insane rightwing freaks than a leftwing one. It's a general orientation problem.

[Tiggeroshii]

84. bernie sanders n/t