A "New Democrat" will be the VP selection

[Null Pointer]

Historically, John Kerry is one of the more liberal members of the Senate. Having been a long-term member in a safe blue state, he hasn't really needed to run to the center to get elected. In statewide elections, Democrats routinely win with 60% of the vote (Last Gubanatorial race notwithstanding) here in the good ol' Bay State.

So, I think that Kerry's VP choice will come from the ranks of the DLC, the "New Democrats". He will not only need to run to the center himself, but pick a VP which won't intimidate liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats.

Who are the other DLC Democrats out there who are on the VP short list? Edwards? Bayh? I'm asking because though it seems to me that the names being floated about are exactly the ones that will not be picked. I mean, who foresaw Joe Lieberman in 2000? Almost nobody. And what was Joe Liberman chairman of in 2000? You guessed it. The DLC.

[lastknowngood]

1. New Democrat = Repug lite

n/t

[dolstein]

14. New Democrat = Old Democrat

Actually, the New Democrats are far more representative of the traditional Democrats than the modern-day descendents of the abberational McGovern wing of the party.

[tritsofme]

15. Thank you for saying that,

New Democrats= Clinton Truman JFK

Old Democrats= McGovern Mondale Dukakis

[genius]

19. Current new Democrats are Zell Miller and other repulsive people

[TexasSissy]

31. Zell Miller is not a moderate. He's a Republican.

When asked why he doesn't change parties, he says because he and his family have always been Dem., so he doesn't want to change in his twilight years.

He is supporting Bush for re-election. Clearly, he's a Republican who stays in the Dem. party to wreak havoc. He is not a moderate Dem. Dems are voting for the Dem. nominee, of course.

[dolstein]

48. Sorry, but this is flat out wrong

The Zell Miller of today is not representative of the New Democrat movement. Indeed, I don't believe he has any involvement with the DLC, and probably hasn't been involved since the early 1990s, when he was a fairly progressive governor, featured speaker at the 1992 Democratic National Convention, and a supporter of Bill Clinton.

I have now idea why Zeller Miller started acting like a Republican when he got elected to the Senate. There have been many theories advanced. But none of this has anything to do with the DLC.

Perhaps you should visit New Democrats On-line before you spread any more misinformation. The fact is, the DLC is made up of centrist, moderate and even liberal Democrats from all regions of the country. Hillary Clinton's a New Democrat. So is Kerry. Howard Dean used to be a New Democrat, until he made a calculated choice to transform himself into a left-wing Democrat for political gain (his gamble, by the way, didn't pay off). Odds are that the VP choice will be too, for the simple reason that so many of the prominent national Democrats are New Democrats.

[ulysses]

61. that certainly didn't stop them

from trying to rehabilitate Zell.

Sadly, Miller's perverse and premature endorsement of Bush, and his adoption by the right-wing media machine, will all but guarantee that few if any Democrats will pay attention to the nuggets of sound advice he offers his party. Most of the book simply warns Democrats that they cannot remain competitive in the South if they abandon traditional party commitments to mainstream cultural views and to the economic aspirations of the middle class. He repeatedly praises the Democratic Leadership Council for offering the right advice to Democrats, even as he endorses Bush administration positions on economic, fiscal, and foreign policies that the DLC consistently opposes. At a time when centrist Democrats are fighting insidious claims that its positions are no more than Bush Lite, Miller offers Bush Heavy as an alternative.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=2&kaid=127&subid=177&contentid=252210

[wyldwolf]

63. I was at a democratic party event this weekend

Rep. Majette was there, along with State Sen. Mary Squires (both running for Miller's seat) along with Bobby Kahn, Chair of the Georgia State Democratic Party.

The general consensus was that Miller was overwhelmed by the various schools of thought in the national party which were nothing like the downhome politics of Georgia.

It was also whispered that he is seeking certain "favors" for when his political career is over and it hitching his horse to the wagon that will grant him those favors.

[ulysses]

66. I'm not even about to buy

the idea that Miller is some backwoods Georgia hayseed overwhelmed by competing political philosophies and pining away for the simpler, down-home outlook. Bull. The man is a consummate, hardnosed, behind-the-scenes pol.

That said, I can certainly entertain the idea that he's just trying to get in good with the current team in power.

[wyldwolf]

67. well, like I said...

...the first thing was said aloud. The second was a "shhh... this is what I've actually heard but don't quote me..." kind of thing.

[ulysses]

68. I suppose it's natural

that the state party would try to explain away the "Zell anomaly" in public. Me, I wonder why no one ever seems to question the loyalty of the DLC/Zell Dems, but that's me.

[Finch]

81. Here! Here!

Excellent Post I couldn't agree with you more!

The Dem Party is pretty broad and the DLC is too, its really just a policy group these days. As a group of Conservative Dems its largely been superseded by the Blue Dog Coalition, which I happen to support... I just wish there was a little more toleration on this board... but ah-well

[wyldwolf]

56. Like Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards?

[genius]

20. Don't insult Clinton, Truman and JFK

Clinton told the New Democrats off and broke with them. Truman and JFK would be disgusted by the New Democrats.

[jonnyblitz]

24. I will never understand why "progressives" like Truman,

the nuke bomb (not just one but TWO) dropping asshole and "loyalty oath" guy. But I digress, that is not the topic of this thread...

[sangh0]

37. Because "prgressives" (in quotes) have their head up their asses

and think that Zell Miller is a DLC-type Dem, and that Clinton is NOT

[wyldwolf]

57. Clinton told the New Democrats off and broke with them?

Gotta link on that?

[no name no slogan]

70. Truman and JFK were economic populists, DLC are not

The DLC "New Democrats" are basically the same laissez-fair Rockefeller Republicans of the 60s and 70s. They are socially liberal to moderate, but their economic concerns lie squarely with those of Wall Street.

Which is also the reason why the Democratic party has been in decline for the last dozen years.

The "New Democrats" largely abandoned the concerns of working people to cozy up with the large corporations and the needs of the Wall Street corporatists. They're the party of "Free Trade", corporate welfare, "fiscal responsibility" and the abandonment of the concerns of the working class-- the most loyal constituency of the Democratic base.

So now, we're stuck with two parties who cater to the needs of the corporate class-- one that's socially moderate, and one that's socially conservative.

The so-called "New Democrats" have overseen the greatest decline in Democratic Party history. Where once we controlled both houses of the US Congress with majorities, we've now lost both-- the US House after 40 years of control. We've elected one Demcratic president (who won with pluralities both times), and lost more state houses and governorships than ever. Party identification with the Democrats among voters is at an all-time low. Even the word "liberal" is seen as a dirty word among some "New Democrats"-- although liberals continue to be the most stalwart constituency in the party.

"New Democrats" are simple the same old "Rockefeller Republicans" who couldn't swallow the right-wing social agenda of the Reagan Revolution. They have as much in common with "Old Democrats" as Pat Robertson does with Martin Luther King Jr.

[dolstein]

71. Don't try to drag JFK into this

He appointed a Republican as Secretary of the Treasury and his chief economic accomplishment was cutting taxes. Seriously, I have come to expect just about anything from DU'ers, but even this is beyond the pale.

The point I have been making, and which DU left-winger has effectively rebutted, is that the people DU'ers claim to be "real Democrats" are actually ideological descendents of the new left movement of the late 1960s that explicitly rejected the "old" Democratic Party symobolized by LBJ and Humphrey., no less so than the Dixiecrats. And it is in fact the New Democrats who are trying to bring the party closer to where it was in the 60s -- a party committed to equal opportunity and representing the economic interests of the middle class rather than a part consumed by the divisive social agenda (guns, gays, abortion) of the new left. In truth, the New Democrats have far more in common with the "old" Democrats than the typical DU'er, who is an ideological decendent of the "new left" (now the old left).

[no name no slogan]

73. Look upthread-- your cronies brought JFK into this

So let's quit the self-rightious crapola, okay?

Kennedy may have appointed a Repub to be head of Treasury, but you seem to forget that this was back when Keynesian economics were the bread and butter of BOTH political parties-- which is GREATLY unlike the situation today. Back then, BOTH Republicans and Democrats may have served the interests of the monied class, but at least both parties had a whiff of social conscience, and knew that in order for everybody to do better, EVERYBODY had to do better.

Alan Greenspan and his monitorist cronies clearly serve the interests of the corporate classes at the expense of working people. For example, in the 1960s (the period of greatest economic gain for working- and middle-class families), wages were steadily growing (encouraged by the Fed and Treasury), and interest rates were relatively high by today's standards. More people had money in their pockets to BUY things outright, and did NOT need to finance every purchase-- which was prohibitively expensive, because interest rates were high.

Flash forward to the 90s-today, and the situation is almost completely reversed. The Fed keeps interest rates dangerously low, and any whiff of wage inflation throws the Fed into a tizzy, and they automatically clamp down the money supply to prevent it. Furthermore, both political parties have rigged the system so that earned income is taxed much higher than investment income, placing more of the tax burden on working people.

So, what do we have? Stagnating wages for workers, which means less money to make outright purchases of goods and services. Plus, we have astronomically low interest rates, which encourage working poor people to finance damn near EVERYTHING with easy credit. That means less ownership and more leasing by workers, with ever greater payments each month, just to stay in place, because their wages have not kept pace with the rest of the economy.

IOW, working people become more and more indentured to the banks and lenders (owned by the investor class), who grow fatter and richer off the hard work of the working- and middle classes. What you get if you carry this out further enough is a classic third-world economy, with masses working for sub-living wages, and a wealthy elite who control everything. Not a pretty picture.

Sounds pretty scary, huh? Sounds like it will NEVER happen in America, right? It's already happening. Even after the "boom" years of Clinton/Gore, the wage of the average worker only started to climb by 1998. And even then it did not reach its previous height of 1973. The stock market "boom" (and the buy-in by small investors with their 401(k)s) did NOTHING to improve the situation, but did manage to shift even more wealth higher up the food chain.

At this rate, this country will more closely resemble Haiti than France in 100 years.

I don't know about you, but this is NOT the kind of country I want to live in.

[Finch]

83. True...

..sad how people don't realize this.

[Finch]

82. WRONG!!!...

...Actually Al From attacked Clinton for drifting too far to the right in his second term... you need to get your facts straight man, Clinton was a great guy and a great president but he was a centrist rather than a Dem, very bi-partisan in many ways... his presidency was modeled on that of the French Leader Francis Mitterrand, who as a socialist PM worked for over a decade with a conservative (Gaulist) legislature, he was meat to seem above partisan politics, interesting really and a good strategy.

[Upfront]

53. Bull

Bull shit!

[madfloridian]

16. You are comparing apples and oranges.

I am the traditional Democrat, who believes in social liberalism and financial responsibility.

I do not consider myself anything like the New Democrats, or some of them (esp. the DLC/PPI), who appear to be very tied to corporate wishes.

[dolstein]

28. No -- you're the one who's calling an apple an orange

You can do that all you'd like, but it doesn't make it true. The New Democrats aren't the DINOs you make them out to be. Perhaps if you actually bothered to read up on some of the positions put forward by the DLC (all readily available in NDOL), you'd know better. The simple truth is that the New Democrats are actually far closer to the "old" Democratic party of Frankling Roosevelt, Harry Truman, JFK and LBJ than the bastardized remnants of the Eugene McCarthy/George McGovern offshoot which sought to radicalize the Democratic Party in the late 60s and early 70s. Let's not forget that the final presidential candidate to emerge from the "old" Democratic Party, Hubert Humphrey, was despised by the new left. Fortunately, some of the members of the new left, including Bill Clinton, who worked for McGovern in 1972, later came to their senses and sought to undo all the damage wrought by the new left and move the party back to the center of American politics. However, many of these people are still seeking to destroy the Democratic Party. I'll let you figure out which side you're on.

[sangh0]

38. Traditional Dems were against social liberalism & financial responsibility

They were against GLBT rights, civil rights, abortion, etc and for irresponsibly populist financial policies like basing currency on silver.

42. I was going to write something like that earlier

thinking of Dixie democrats. Strom for example.
Why are you agreeing with me? or am I agreeing with you?

I'm having an episode of cognitive dissonance now. I'll be back later.

[dolstein]

45. Hubert Humphrey was a Dixie Democrat?

I don't think so. Hubert Humphrey was an early and crucial champion of civil rights -- he authored the civil rights plank of the 1948 Democratic Platform, which caused Dixiecrats to walk out of the convention and run a third party campaign.

Hubert Humphrey was the last of the "old" Democratic Party presidential candidates. The "new" left HATED Humphrey and was happy to see him lose to Nixon in 1968

47. no, no, you're missing the joke

regarding the silliness of using the word traditional.
Dixiecrats are one species of "traditional" Democrat. I think that's what the point is. Some "traditional" Democrats were racists. Some "traditional" Republicans were Abraham Lincoln.



Anyway Humphrey is from the North, not the South so he can't be a Dixiecrat.

[dolstein]

43. Traditional Dems fought for the working class

Hubert Humphrey, friend of organized labor and champion of civil rights, was the last presidential candidate of the "old" Democratic Party. The new left HATED Hubert Humphrey. And as the new left shifted the focus of the Democratic Party away from economic issues and the working class towards divisive social issues like abortion and gay rights, the Democratic Party's largely Catholic and blue collar base steadily eroded.

And your attempt to link the New Deal Democratic Party to the economic policies of Williams Jennings Bryan is ignorant at best and intellectuall dishonest at worst.

[Classical_Liberal]

87. Hubert Humphrey is no "New Dem" either

. New Dems have never been the friends of organized labor. Never!

[realcountrymusic]

96. Thank you

And that is exactly what NEW "New Democrats" have to start doing to win elections.

RealCountryMusic

34. Abberrational McGovern Wing???

McGovern was a true Democrat and a traditional Democrat.
I can see where you're coming from.

[dolstein]

36. Any student of political history would understand and agree

McGovern may have started his political career as a Kennedy Democrat, but by the late-60s, he had emerged as the leader of a left-wing insurgency -- the "new left" (in contrast with the "old left" symbolized by LBJ and Hubert Humphrey). The new left gained control of the party in 1972, and promptly lost control in the wake of McGovern's historic landslide defeat in the general election. Yet many DU'ers perist in claiming that the McGovern controlled party of 1972 is the "real" Democratic Party, as opposed to the party of FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, and Humprey (who the new left particularly despised).

39. So I'm not a student of political history??

spare me the insults.
All students of political history agree? That opinion is silly.

this link

http://www.4president.org/brochures/mcgovern72.pdf

doesn't look like particularly unusual positions for a Democrat.

McGovern may have been the leader of a "left-wing insurgency" as you put it, but putting it that way is very telling. I believe McGovern won the nomination fair & square. His "radicalness" was in being anti-war and he was painted as radical by Nixon.

I also found an encyclopedia entry that said McGovern rose to prominence in replacement of RFK after his assasination. RFK, hardly a nontraditional democrat.

LBJ and Humphrey, old left?? Ha!. Tell that to the IWW or to David Dellinger.

I guess it's all in how you define things.

[sangh0]

50. McGovern was considered very left-wing in 1972

and some of his positions were VERY unusual. His early (pre-1972) support for civil rights was unusual for the Democratic Party.

McGovern may have been the leader of a "left-wing insurgency" as you put it, but putting it that way is very telling.

Then there are many students of history that are "telling". I can cite several books, including Caro's Master of the Senate which describe McGovern as the leader of the left-wing of the Democratic Party. And speaking of "telling":

LBJ and Humphrey, old left?? Ha!. Tell that to the IWW or to David Dellinger.

The idea that to be left, one must be to the left of of the IWW and Dellinger, is also very telling.

I guess it's all in how you define things.

And Dolstein is defining the term based on McGovern's ideological positions in relation to the other Democratic members of Congress. Compared to them, McGovern was pretty far to the left, and at that time he was known as the leader of the left-wing of the Democratic Party. He had this position for many years.

51. whatever it's worth....

I would agree that the supporters of McGovern were an insurgency.
I'm just not so sure about McGovern himself.
The republicans of course wanted to portray him as left wing.
That PDF I linked to, which are his actual positions at the time doesn't look all that left wing.

As for the IWW, Dellinger reference -- what I was trying to get at is that there are different views of what the "Old Left" is. They would not consider LBJ to be leftists. The term loses its meaning if you use it to describe someone who engaged in such major escalation in Vietnam as being part of the Left.

I highly respect LBJ, in particular, for his record on civil rights. He was a great liberal, but I don't think I'd describe him as being part of the "Left," except in a peculiar American sense, certainly not in a European sense. Have you ever read Godfrey Hodgson's book "America in Our Time"? He has some interesting perspectives on this particular issue.

edit-- I just noticed this again "His early (pre-1972) support for civil rights was unusual for the Democratic Party."

Then he had some company in LBJ himself.

[sangh0]

54. His fellow Dem members of Congress considered him their leader

Whether or not you want to call it an "insurgency" is a matter of personal taste, but the facts speak for themselves. McGovern's positions were to the left of most Dems, and the Dems in Congress that considered themselves liberal looked to McGovern as their leader, and for good reason. He was their leader.

That PDF I linked to, which are his actual positions at the time doesn't look all that left wing.

The PDF is from when he was running for president, a time when candidates moderate their positions in order to attract votes. I suggest looking into some of the other positions McGovern took over the course of his political career.

As for the IWW, Dellinger reference -- what I was trying to get at is that there are different views of what the "Old Left" is. They would not consider LBJ to be leftists. The term loses its meaning if you use it to describe someone who engaged in such major escalation in Vietnam as being part of the Left.

You are failing to take into account the context. While LBJ was to the right of the IWW and Dellinger, neither of those two were ever considered to be mainstream Democratic supporters. There is no political context in American history in which those two were considered to be "moderate", so your arguments about the relativity of diferent point-of-views is not relevant, or at least, your example does not make the relevance clear. Instead, you are arguing argumentum ad absurdum. IOW, you're taking an extreme example to discredit a reasonable one.

You could argue that LBJ was not a part of the "Old Left" (and I would agree, to an extent), but using the IWW and Dellinger is not a reasonable way to do that, IMO. I would also point out that this discussion was more about "New Dems" than "Old Left"

Also, I see nothing inconsistent with support for the VietNam War and traditional Democratic liberals.

I highly respect LBJ, in particular, for his record on civil rights. He was a great liberal, but I don't think I'd describe him as being part of the "Left," except in a peculiar American sense, certainly not in a European sense. Have you ever read Godfrey Hodgson's book "America in Our Time"? He has some interesting perspectives on this particular issue.

When I consider the liberalism of American pols, I do so in relation to other American pols, and not European ones.

edit-- I just noticed this again "His early (pre-1972) support for civil rights was unusual for the Democratic Party."

Then he had some company in LBJ himself.

I don't think LBJ was as supportive of civil rights as you seem to. As leader of the Senate, LBJ was responsible for all the filibusters that killed every single civil rights bills for many years.

55. I don't know why

you find it so hard find room for agreement with people.

I guess the cognitive dissonance I referred to in an earlier post is over for me now.

edit, oh and this quote "Also, I see nothing inconsistent with support for the VietNam War and traditional Democratic liberals"

is exactly what I was saying. Liberal does not necessarily equate with Left. If it does in America, that is because, America has a skewed view of what the Left is. European perceptions are relevant. You have every right not to pay attention to them, but I believe that undercuts your credibility.

[sangh0]

59. I don't know why you think disagreement is objectionable

I used no insults or epithets or any hostile wordings. It seems you have a serious problem with disagreement.

Liberal does not necessarily equate with Left. If it does in America, that is because, America has a skewed view of what the Left is. European perceptions are relevant. You have every right not to pay attention to them, but I believe that undercuts your credibility.

In America, Liberal DOES equate with Left, and since we are talking about American political history, specifically the traditional policies of an AMERICAN political party and it's members relative position to those traditional policies, I don't see the value of comparing them to NON-AMERICAN political parties and/or philosophies.

I may be wrong about this, but you have not offered a compelling reason to look at European politics when discussing what the traditional positions of the DEMOCRATIC Party have been, and how various DEMOCRATIC politicians rate in comparison to those traditional DEMOCRATIC PARTY positions.

SO let's see if you can respond without any personal aspersions being cast. If I can do it, you should be able to do the same. After all, I'm the one with a congeniality problem, right?

62. All I asked originally

was if you had read Hodgson's analysis. It IS interesting, really.

As for compelling reasons I think it is relevant how the terms are used in America, like you say; but I also think it is relevant how the terms are used in the world. Both perspectives are relevant. For me, for greater clarity in discussion, both perspectives are needed.. Using only one of them lessens clarity. That is my compelling reason.
One really interesting question is why liberal is equated with the left in America in a way that is different than in Europe & without knowing how the left is viewed in Europe, the question can't be answered.

I'm sure you are aware of the argument that there is not really a "Left" in the United States, or that there has not been for some time. That argument can't really be addressed without determining what is meant by the left in different parts of the world.


Just because in America Liberal equates with Left, doesn't make it so. It perhaps means that the term has lost it's meaning.
The word Republican used to mean something different than it does now also.


I don't find disagreement objectionable at all. However, for some reason I get the sense that if I said the sky was blue, you'd find a way to say it wasn't & although some of this could well be in my head, I don't think it all is. Maybe it's got something to do with the nature of how discourse appears on the internet.

[sangh0]

65. No, I haven't read Hodgson's analysis

and since I don't have it handy, I doubt I'll be able to read it in time to make use of it in this discussion. Furthermore, since we're talking about the relative positions of Dem politicians (in relation to each other) I don't see how the positions of European politicians is relevant in any way.

As for compelling reasons I think it is relevant how the terms are used in America, like you say; but I also think it is relevant how the terms are used in the world. Both perspectives are relevant. For me, for greater clarity in discussion, both perspectives are needed.. Using only one of them lessens clarity. That is my compelling reason.

I see no reasons in there other than "I think it's compelling". Your 1st sentence says "I think it's relevant" twice. The next sentence (ie "Both perspectives are relevant") is an assertion, with no reasoning behind it. The next sentence is another assertion, without any reason (saying "greater clarity" peroves nothing unless you can show that in this case, it would bring greater clarity) to back it up. The next (ie "Using only one of them lessens clarity") is another assertion, and in the last, you assert the existence of a compelling reason even though there are no reasons at all to be found in that paragraph.

I don't find disagreement objectionable at all. However, for some reason I get the sense that if I said the sky was blue, you'd find a way to say it wasn't & although some of this could well be in my head, I don't think it all is. Maybe it's got something to do with the nature of how discourse appears on the internet.

Here in NYC, the sky is currently cloudy. But for most of the day, it was indeed blue.

I would say that the nature of discourse on the Internet leads some to assume that any disagreement signifies hostility. IMO, stating my disagreements with someone while not insulting them is an honorable way to show respect.

When a child says something stupid, I smile and think "Aw, ain't that cute?" I'd rather not treat you like a child.

69. the world is my guru

(and at the risk of casting aspersions)
you are not. Oh, that's a paradox but it's still true.

I'm so glad you'd rather not treat me like a child, but frankly I don't really care how you treat me.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything anymore, that's why I didn't back up my statements. So your critique of my statements being assertions doesn't bother me a bit. I knew they were purely assertions when I made them. It was quite intentional. You bit. They are compelling reasons for me. Which is what I said.

I could go into more of an analysis of why the positions of European philosophical perspectives on politics (not "the positions of European politicians" there's a big difference there) are relevant -- for example, they are not unique to Europe, some people in America have the same perspective, some people who are Americans & I think there were Democrats with positions in existence at the time when there was a Left in America..

whoops I accidentally started into an analysis, something I said I wasn't going to do.

I could go into more of an analysis, but I really feel it's a waste of time.


The point of asking you if you have read Hodgson was not to engage in an argument or disagreement about what he writes, but simply to ask if you have read it and to suggest you read him for his perspective. Maybe that wasn't clear. Maybe if you read it, you might see the relevance of a European perspective though.


signing off from work and the computer for this evening....

[sangh0]

85. Now I know why you don['t like the disagreement

It's becxause they run the risk of exposing the faulty logic you've employed

1) You continue to assert that there are compelling reasons for referring to European politics, but you won't state them. That's a sign someone has a weak argument, and they know it.

2) You claimed to be posting "reasons", but then you admit they were only "assertions".

I knew they were purely assertions when I made them.

But that adidn't stop you from calling them something else. Dishonest

3) You refuse to address the fact that since we are talking about how Dem politicians stand in relation to each other, the politics of Europeans can not be of any assistance in this matter, and is nothing more than a ploy to distract from your mistake, which was to portray the liberals in the DNC as being consistent with traditional Dem policies, which they are not.

[Zhade]

94. You post under two separate names, and you call HIM dishonest?

That's a laugh!

[Classical_Liberal]

88. Hubert Humphy and LBJ supported the Viet Nam war

Do you think that war was a good fucking idea? He did represent reform in the party, but it wasn't "new left" It was a necessary reform just like the Civil Rights movement.

[Cheswick2.0]

2. bad bad mistake

He has already run to the center and the left is hanging on by strings. He needs to choose someone who is decidedly un-DLC.

[emulatorloo]

4. Bush ran to the center

and look how well the rich right wingers are doing.

They all run to the center during the gen election, but how they rule is a different matter. A lot of the left understands this.

Kerry has to bring quote-unquote "balance" to the ticket. . . .the last bush ad I saw was all about how Kerry was an out of touch Mass liberal, worse than Ted Kennedy and more liberal than Sen Clinton (!?!?!?).

[Bill Wade]

5. I agree with you, but.

What if they are planning on getting the leftist/progressive/whatever no matter who they choose?

Maybe they think since Bush is so bad we'll just about vote for anybody?

It definitely seems possible. Can you imagine, Joe Lieberman as the VP choice. :(

[emulatorloo]

7. I think Joementum is over. . .

Thank Goodness!

[Cheswick2.0]

26. Joementum is not allowed here at DU

tsk tsk :7

[Cheswick2.0]

25. all they have to do is look at Naders numbers

to wake up to the fact that people are being pushed out of the left side of the tent.

[Null Pointer]

3. I understand

But that's who it's gonna be. Now, I don't want to start a flame war - but the most likely candidate is Wes Clark. I mean, he was endorsed by the Big Dog himself!

[LandOLincoln]

29. Clinton didn't endorse Clark, and Clark ran to the left

of everyone but Kucinich. Get a grip, please.

[JI7]

6. John Edwards, Mark Warner, Richard Gephardt

all would do ok .

[AP]

11. Edwards is 4th most lib senator in '03, and the DLC don't like him, but...

...I'll be the first to admit he looks pretty moderate to most people.

(Incidentally, I don't think the DLC will get the VP slot since outsourcing has become an issue...it was the one issue that really got people interested, especially in the midwest swing states. The DLC has been on the wrong side of this issue, and I think Kerry would go with Gephardt before he went with a prominent DLC'er.)

[PVnRT]

13. Edwards is the best pick

He's pro-death penalty (no, I don't agree with that, but, let's face it, most Americans do), he's got the aw-shucks factor working for him, and he can help out in the South.

[AP]

17. I don't think law & order is a big issue for voters any more (thanks to...

...Clinton improving matters re race).

But Edwards has the right economic message, the right cultural appeal (did anyone see him on Cold Pizza -- http://www.johnedwards2004.com/media/video/20031211-espn-coldpizza.ram -- man, this guy is made for the ESPN crowd -- he can shoot hoops!), the right biography, and the right geographical origins.

He's the perfect candidate to break down a lot of the shit Republicans have put up in the last couple years.

[PVnRT]

21. That too

His anti-free trade stance will play well in states hit hard by industry going bye-bye, like, say, I don't know, Michigan and Ohio.

[Null Pointer]

72. Kerry is anti-death penalty

Something to consider.

[JohnKleeb]

41. had no idea of that

I think Edwards is my VP pick, I dont care who it is really, just hope its not Bayh or Breaux or something.

[AP]

44. Here's the article:

http://nationaljournal.com/members/news/2004/02/0227nj1.htm

Edwards, on the other hand, had a moderate voting record during the first four years following his election to the Senate in 1998. The results positioned Edwards comfortably apart from Senate liberals, but not so far to the right that he locked arms with centrist Republicans. His consistent moderation placed Edwards among the center-right of Senate Democrats. But once Edwards decided to run for president and abandoned his bid for a second Senate term, his record moved dramatically to the left in 2003.

[AP]

46. Kucinich isn't even in the top 90 most liberal in the House!

That's an estimate. He's so far down, it's hard to count. So Edwards was in the top 4% in the Senate, but Kucinich almost doesn't crack the top 20% in the House. Hmmm.


http://nationaljournal.com/members/news/2004/02/0227nj_house_composite_lib.htm

[Indiana_Dem]

8. I was reading on another post about Edwards...

He was invited to the Builderberg meeting this weekend. I know he's a successful lawyer but considering that he left his Senate seat after one term to go for the presidential bid and then didn't make it, why would he be one to be invited to the meeting? That's why I'm wondering if he might be the one. What other reasons would they invite him? Isn't this usually an elite and influential group that discusses world events and probably brainstorms ideas and plans cooperatively? I wonder what Edwards would be doing there unless he's going to be an ambassador or something other than VP.

[Null Pointer]

10. I was thinking about that yesterday

and scouring all these bizarre websites trying to find if Al Gore had been invited to any Bilderburg meetings during the 1992 campaign season - trying to find precident because I knew Edwards was there. Well, Gore went in 96 and 99, but Clinton himself went in 91, I believe. So maybe Edwards has already been chosen and is merely there speaking for Kerry. Interesting, but also terribly obvious to any investigative journalist.

[AP]

23. Good catch. I don't know why I didn't notice that.

(An aside: Abraham Lincoln was a one term congressman about 10 yrs before he was president, and he lost a senate race two years before he ran. Edwards will have three times the federal experience (and the same non-political experience) Lincoln had.)

[TexasSissy]

33. What's a Builderberg mtg?

[Indiana_Dem]

40. It's a closed door meeting supposedly of the world's elite

where they discuss world events and more than likely discuss plans and brainstorming for ideas for the upcoming year and beyond. No reporters and no reporting about what goes on inside the meeting.

Here is a bilderberg website and has a list of all the attendees this year:

http://www.bilderberg.org/2004.htm

on edit: many conspiracy theories incorporate this group into the web of their conspiracies. also edited for grammatical errors!

[Scoopie]

49. And I can't believe any Dem thinks

attending this event is a good thing!!

Despite what other Dems have done, I think this Bilderberg group is atrocious in their elitism and exclusionary practices and should be ignored.

[Indiana_Dem]

52. Oh, I don't think it's a good thing at all!

I'm merely pointing out what the group is about and was questioning why Edwards would be invited to such a meeting???

[DieboldMustDie]

9. Last 4 gubernatorial races...

Massachusetts has had Republican governors continually now since Bill Weld was elected in 1990. :shrug:

[Null Pointer]

12. Oh yeah,

Then either Helms or Thurmond threw him to the wolves in the confirmation hearing for Embassador to Mexico because he admitted he smoked weed once.

The world is a better place now that those guys are out of the Senate.

[genius]

18. I thought he wanted to win.

[PVnRT]

22. Believe it or not

most of America is not as far left as DU.

[sadiesworld]

27. How would you categorize a 4-star general who speaks easily about

faith and family, yet argued against the Iraq War and presented the most progressive platform among the top primary contenders?

:shrug:

[leyton]

64. I'd call that a...

future statesman. I really do hope Clark is in the next administration. And maybe he can have is own one day.

[TexasSissy]

30. I think you may be correctomundo.

Is Vilsack a moderate Dem?

Is Bayh a moderate Dem?

I think Edwards MAY be moderate, though some seem to think he's progressive. I think his voting record says he is moderate.

Clark is liberal/progressive.

[faithfulcitizen]

32. Clark spoke at New Democratic Network last year n/t

[Comicstripper]

35. Clark

Wes Clark ought to have tons of appeal to the middle. He's a very reasonable man, and as I've said he would swing a lot of pissed-off but Kerry-hating Republicans to vote Democratic. I've spoken out against Clark on this board, but some of these nice people have been changing my mind more and more. (Maybe Richardson would make a good Secretary of State?)
And as to people who feel that "New Democrats" are Republican Lite, corporate-moderate pricks, etc... you're absolutely right. If you want liberal idealism, vote Nader. If you want a practical alternative to Former Governor Bush, vote Kerry and his sure-to-be-moderate running mate. It's not perfect, but it's our only option. So stop whining.

[wyldwolf]

58. A "New Democrat" is the Presidential nominee, too

I recall when Lieberman made it to the shortlist in 2000. As I understood it Gore was seeking the Jewish vote and, with Lieberman being a dem that spoke against Clinton during his impeachment, picking him would help move him away from Clinton (big mistake!)

[ulysses]

60. of course.

Feel the excitement, the Joementum. Whee!

[no name no slogan]

74. Yay

Just hope that Joementum doesn't sweep one of the most solid voting blocs right out of the party again! I guess some people never learn...

[wyldwolf]

75. Nay

I'm pretty comfortable without what you describe as "one of the most solid voting blocs," which in reality is the single most unreliable voter group in America. Unless you are simon-pure, you are unworthy of support from that group.

[DaveSZ]

77. McGovern's voting record is more conservative than Daschle's

http://www.adaction.org/lifetimesensouthdakota.html

[no name no slogan]

89. Ah, yes, those "moderates" are a SURE BET

The ones who vacilitate between the Repubs and Dems every two years? Yes, let's base a winning campaign around THEIR choices.

Or, we could latch on to one of the most active, concerned and well-informed voting blocks who have stuck with this pathetic party through thick and thin, even when the party leadership itself has given up on their values.


:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

90. ok

The ones who vacilitate between the Repubs and Dems every two years?

Proof?

Yes, let's base a winning campaign around THEIR choices.

Clinton? Kerry?

Or, we could latch on to one of the most active, concerned and well-informed voting blocks who have stuck with this pathetic party through thick and thin,

Fantasy.

[no name no slogan]

92. Yeah, those damn librals can't be counted on these days

You know, the human rights people, the unions, the teachers, the civil employees. What a bunch of undependable hacks.

However, we'll definately leave our fate up to the "fickle 5%" who voted for Perot in 1992, though. Besides, without Perot, Clinton would not have been President-- never having won a majority of the vote in either of his presidential elections.

Bill Clinton-- the best damn Republican president since Eisenhower™

[sangha]

93. Brilliant!!

Let's go after the people who ARE going to vote for us, and ignore those who might vote for us.

Simply brilliant!!

[no name no slogan]

95. No, you ASSUME they will vote for you....

....THAT'S part of the problem-- you take them for GRANTED.

But maybe it will take another Gore-ing this year to make the other apologists WAKE UP and realize that you cannot take the liberal vote for granted-- especially when your candidates blindly pander to the right-wing and forsake at the slightest sign of corpo-whore money.

Just keep spewing, keep disregarding the most loyal bloc of Dem voters, and watch those "solids" trickle away........

We swallowed our pride and voted for Clinton, in 1992 AND 1996, and what did we get? "Welfare Reform". NAFTA. The WTO. "Most Favored Nation" status for the murderous regime in China. The "Defense of Marriage Act". A continuing embargo and low-intensity war in Iraq that killed half a million children. Little improvement on environmental standards, and a president who couldn't keep his pecker out of trouble if his presidency depended on it. And the list goes on and on.

We have little (if anything) to gain from the 2004 John Kerry's presidential campaign/election. He'll still keep us in Iraq until at least 2008. He'll keep throwing billions of wasteful dollars at the Pentagon budget which could have been used to SAVE LIVES of people at home. He'll continue the so-called "War on Terror" that does NOTHING to keep this country or its citizens safer. There will STILL be 40 million people in this country without medical coverage, and more and more mentalliy ill Americans will die on the streets because they can't afford some lame-ass "medical insurance" scheme backed by DLC-friendly Democrats and their big insurance company backers.

"BUT HE'LL APPOINT PRO-CHOICE SCOTUS JUSTICES!!!" Bullshit. He has even said he'd consider anti-choice judges for Federal seats. And now the party wants to tamper with the pro-choice plank in the party platform. THAT's real reassuring.

Just keep it up, bro. You're doing a fabulous job of kicking the liberals out of the party that they made great.

[Padraig18]

76. Kerry will choose someone who does the following things for the ticket:

1.) Appeals to traditional Democratic voters, including those who defected and supported * in 2000.

2.) Helps win or put into play battleground states.

3.) Appeals to Independents and disencahnted moderate/liberal Republicans.

4.) Complements Kerry himself.

5.) Demonstrates the ability to work with Sen. Kerry, and have a congenial partnership with him.

Whether this is a 'New Democrat' or not, I believe this will be the criteria the VP nominee will be required to meet.

[DaveSZ]

78. I'd be happy with either Edwards or Clark

Edwards used to sue corporations for a living, and Clark's platform was quite liberal.


The only guy I was somewhat worried about was Kerry, and to some extent I still am worried that he's a neoliberal like Clinton.

Still, he says he will roll back big media, and he has one of the best environmental voting records in the Senate.

Whether or not he supports CAFTA will be a huge issue with me.

Does anyone know Kerry's position on the new child slave labor trade agreement Bush is pushing through?

I think he will be an improvement over Clinton, and for sure *.

[DaveSZ]

79. Social issues

I also agree that social issues have been used by the corporatists to divide the electorate, causing them to vote against their economic self interest.

[Padraig18]

80. I will be quite enthused about either Clark or Edwards.

Frankly, I agree with the pundits on this question. Each is well-qualified to be Vice-President and each complements Kerry nicely. No matter which of the two Kerry chose, it would still be a 'win' for the ticket. Clark and Edwards share some strengths, and each adds something to the ticket that the other does not. We can't lose, no matter which one he picks, IF he picks either one.

:)

[WI_DEM]

84. alot of these "new democrats" seem to be too much like

old republicans for my liking.

[Classical_Liberal]

86. Robert Rubin will be economic advisor

and Ross amd Rand Beers. will be advising on Iraq and Israel. He has run to the center. Why can't we have one liberal on the top of the ticket. The new dems shouldn't get both slots, like they did last time.

[Lefty Pragmatist]

91. I don't think the VP's position matters

one bit.

The election is not really a referendum on policy, as much as we political junkies would like it to be. Half the electorate doesn't know a budget deficit from a trade deficit. The election is a referendum on the perception of the ability to govern. Kerry's main negative is he looks like a soulless technocrat to many moderates. So, he needs a counter-weight who is positive, humorous, and has a genuine populist touch. I don't care for Edwards, but he'd fit the bill.

The political pedigree of the Veep doesn't mean squat. Just don't pick a warmed-over corpse like Gore, Lieberman, or... well... Kerry.

[jsw_81]

97. I certainly hope so

The far-left is just as nutty (and dangerous, IMO) as the far-right. Kerry would be wise to select a sensible moderate like Bayh to be his running-mate; he will lose if he picks a lefty.