How Could Edwards Hope to Be Pure Enough? Remember This Guy?

[mondo joe]

During the Gore - Bush campaigns I remember being told they amounted to the same thing.

I remember Michael Moore's open letter to Gore, saying "I truly believe Nader is closer to how the majority of Americans feel than either you or Bush."

Sure, DU has a big ol' hard on for Al now. But in 2000 he was just another dirty politician, too corrupt and Republicanesque to deserve a Progressive's vote.

Sadly not much of a lesson was learned.

So congratulations on your ability to be so uncompromising that finding fault with Edwards' house and lightbulb choice is more critical to you than finding common ground with other Democrats. You know who you are.

At this point I can only hope the rest of the Democratic party, and the independents, will remember the lessons of 2000.


(And lest you suggest the lesson of 2000 was about vote tampering, remember that the election was close enough that a little tampering could swing it. You want a Democrat to win, he or she has to win big. Of course, that's assuming you want a Democrat to win more than you want to cry about it on your soapbox.)

[Rosemary2205]

1. Ya, that Nader thing didn't work out too good.

I joined DU after the 2004s so I'm a newbie when it comes to the race. Thus far, I have to say, some of my fellow DUers have been entertaining to say the least.

[depakid]

2. Apologist rhetoric

won't win you any points.

Bottom line is that The Edwards' showed something to us all about themselves- and many people (and especially the MSM) won't forget the symbolism.

Whether they're well meaning is irrelevant.

[mondo joe]

4. Right, because America hates nothing more than people with big houses.

[Ken Burch]

21. If Oprah was actually running for president, her absurdly affluent lifestyle would get brought up.

If not by Dems(assuming she ran as a Dem)than by the 'thugs.

It's not the same for a talk-show host/publisher/global economic empress.

[meow mix]

5. and instantly, global warming becomes a meaningless non-issue

with many, many du-ers.
eesh...

[mondo joe]

8. If Edwards' home was the greatest factor impacting global warming you might have a point.

Instead you have a purity test.

Go prepare your Nader write-in vote now.

[depakid]

16. All I've heard in support so far are shallow "memes"

How about some rational analysis? Some foresight maybe?

[sandnsea]

19. EVERYBODY does

That's the whole point. I honestly didn't give that much of a rip about their house a few days ago, not that big of a deal to me. I didn't expect anything different of them, or any other rich people for that matter. But the way DU has reacted has left me disgusted. Do people really care about ANY of the issues that are facing us, or is it really all a political white hats vs black hats game?

Who the HELL thinks it's okay to just consume and consume and consume, with no regard to those exploited, the resources involved, the wars caused, or the environment damaged. What the HELL kind of Democrat thinks that. Yet, when someone points out the obvious, that it's Edwards style consumerism that causes all this shit - well Democratic values fly right out the window. This has been like a cheerleading camp for free market excesses and every thing DU has said they're against. Fuck it all, their money, spend it on any old thing they want, woohoo!! Those are Democratic values?? WTF??

I'm disgusted with DU at this point. Same as when people take their rigid stands on single payer health care. I think some of these issues don't really matter to people on a personal level. I don't honestly know why they're Democrats. Maybe they're abused children who developed an antagonism to authority or some sort of guilt complex; or maybe they're just having an economic downturn and will flip back to Republican the second things turn around. I don't know. But the display the last few days convinces me it isn't because of principles.

[mondo joe]

34. That's why a candidate's stand on POLICY matters more than the lightbulbs

in his or her personal home.

[sandnsea]

40. Bull. Shit.

You simply cannot get on a soap box if you're not willing to make the changes yourself.

[mondo joe]

41. So FDR couldn't take initiative to help the poor because he was rich.

Check.

[sandnsea]

45. He nearly went broke helping people

And that isn't the issue. This is a different time and we're facing different crises. Global labor exploitation, resource depletion and global warming DEMAND different consumer choices. If DU doesn't even get that, then we're just fucked.

[mondo joe]

47. So if you think the lightbulbs in Edwards' house matter more than policy he's fight

for in the White House, then I guess it's true that the electorate gets the government it deserves.

[sandnsea]

49. Light bulbs & tents - diversionary bullshit

It's that there is so much more they could do - that I've posted several times - AND DON'T. Not the stupid fucking lightbulbs. They could lead, they have the money to lead - and they chose not to spend their money in a visionary way. And frankly, it's DU's dismissiveness of their choices, and defense of BULLSHIT "environmentalism" that really makes me puke. It's their money so they can be fuckwits if they want to??? :eyes:

[mondo joe]

52. And then we have the purity test.

People are more hung up on how he spends his money than on his policies.

Civil rights, foreign relations, domestic spending, trade - they somehow all end up having the same weight as the house he buys.

[sandnsea]

54. More diversionary bullshit

No one will argue the issue - misuse of money in a world being destroyed by consumerism - so they keep throwing shit hoping something will stick. Not buying. Poor people aren't supposed to shop at Walmart or buy Chinese crap - but the Edwards can do this shit. Not in my reality.

[mondo joe]

55. Actually, I don't judge poor people for shopping at WalMart either.

I think matters of conscience are personal.

[sandnsea]

62. So nobody is challenged to change?

Then what the hell are we doing here? :shrug:

[mondo joe]

65. I don't think judging people encourages them to change.

And I think everyone is on their own track.

Here's a little story: As a member of a senior leadership team, I took part in a facilitated retreat focused on process improvement. The facilitator gave some data on waste in work systems, and then said we'd start close to home. Everyone was asked to take out their wallet or purse and pass it to the team member to their right, so the team member could go through the other's wallet to identify ways in which the other was wasteful.

The upshot is that it didn't happen. The facilitator had everyone hand back the wallet or purse, unexamined. Much to everyone's relief.

The point was that an approach like that is not useful and only incites anxiety. It has little to do with improvement or education, and plenty to do with simply judging others. And it reminded everyone that we all have our own waste, when examined by others, and that no one wants to be exposed and judged - so be kind to each other.

[sandnsea]

73. More bullshit

Nobody is going through anybody's wallet. The house is out there in broad daylight, for everybody to see. Nobody is judging them either. Demanding we actually CHANGE, instead of just giving it lip service, isn't judgment. Is Al Gore judging people when he recommends change?

[mondo joe]

74. Recommending isn't demanding change, and if you think Edwards was not JUDGED

then we really have nothing more to discuss on the matter.

Thanks.

[sandnsea]

85. He was not judged, he got some very mild criticism

Geesh. And if people hadn't kept tossing out these ridiculous defenses, post after post, it all would have stopped days ago.

[mzmolly]

80. Al Gore recommends being carbon neutral.

He recommends buying carbon credits to offset one's "carbon footprint."

http://www.terrapass.com/home/index.php

People say Gore isn't pure enough either:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

[sandnsea]

84. Not enough

If he's completely green in his office and home, and the carbon credits are to offset jet fuel - then fine. I haven't seen anything to indicate that's the case. They can do more and we should challenge them to do it, lead by example.

[mzmolly]

88. I think it's fine to challenge.

And, I'll join you in that challenge, but we can't demand perfection - nor can we dismiss when good people do their best. Kerry is not perfect, but he has a solid environmental record, that's good enough for me, for now.

[mondo joe]

89. And now we're back to my original post!

Do we need perfection, or can we accept improvement?

I know where I stand.

[mzmolly]

91. Exactly!

Common sense prevails! :hi:

[sandnsea]

93. From people who have the money???

EVERYTHING they have the money to do. What's so hard about that?

[mondo joe]

95. Yes - from them. Do you need perfection or will you take improvement?

If your answer is the former rather than the latter, good luck.

[sandnsea]

99. It's IN their control

This is their personal lives, not public policy that requires cooperation. They had the ability to choose a completely green home, even if it meant less sq ft, - and didn't. That's not perfection. That's what almost any DUer in their position would do. They made no sacrifices, why should they ask anybody else to.

[mzmolly]

101. Seems like "selective perfection" to me?

:crazy:

[sandnsea]

103. Only on your part

Who chooses to ignore how much can be done to make a home green, and the meaning of the word ALL.

[mzmolly]

105. What I choose to ignore are pathetic arguments, which is why you are now on IGNORE.

I pity you frankly. And, I mean that will all sincerity.

Cheers.

[Sherman A1]

111. SO we should instead have a purity test for our discussions?

That makes much more sense. I really don't care who lives in what house, but it might be relevant as it might appear hypocritical. Just as the former Mayor of NYC's actions with his marriages might seem as such to some and I believe they have been mentioned more than once.

[mzmolly]

56. Why the double standard? Here is what you said about Kerry in the past primary season:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3064191&mesg_id=3064253

John Kerry is exactly who he said he'd be in 2003 and 2004. He's continued to fight for what he said he would, most specifically ending the war. For people who say they care about the war, environment, poor, - he's the only logical choice with a proven track record. There still isn't anybody else who can compete with him on every single progressive issue. Makes no sense that he doesn't have progressive support, never did for that matter.


Kerry's house in PA


Kerry's Idaho ski chalet


Kerry's Georgetown property


Kerry's waterfront home in Nantucket


Kerry's place in Boston


Kerry's Scaramouche yacht

Save the feigned outrage, huh?

[mondo joe]

57. .

[mzmolly]

58. Bummer, can't see the pic?

:hi:

[mondo joe]

59. try again!

[mzmolly]

60. Cute.

;) I copied the link into my browser, I'm having "issues" lately.

[sandnsea]

61. I've already said they're included

Every single one of their homes need to be completely energy independent, no carbon credits allowed. They've got the money, they should lead.

[mzmolly]

64. It's obvious Kerry's homes are not energy independent.

.

[sandnsea]

71. No it isn't

http://www.oksolar.com/gallery/roof.htm

Regardless, I challenge them and the Gores and every other Democrat to invest in everything possible, not just these token half measures.

And really, very few people can compete with Teresa on putting her money where her mouth is on green building.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=teresa+heinz+solar+powered&btnG=Search

[mzmolly]

77. Yes it is.

Also, Edwards is building an "Energy Star home."

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=new_homes.hm_index

You'll need to do more than provide a link to pictures of solar roofs and a google search for Teresa Heinz-Kerry to prove that Kerry meets the same standards you have for Edwards.

[sandnsea]

82. ALL - is the definition confusing???

I said I challenged ALL Democrats with money to get with the damn program and make their homes energy independent. ALL.

YOU said it was visibly obvious Teresa's homes aren't energy independent and I said no, it isn't always visible. I did not say they WERE.

Energy Star is not enough for millionaires who intend to make energy idependence a campaign issue. If the richest among us aren't willing to sacrifice to make change, why the hell should they tell other people to. There is A LOT more that ALL of them could be doing and I challenge them ALL to do it.

[mzmolly]

87. Not confusing at all considering the hypocritical source.

Further, you should check your own links. The completed solar roofs have a visible panel "somewhere." Sure they are less obvious, but obvious still if one knows what to look for.







I said I challenged ALL Democrats with money to get with the damn program and make their homes energy independent. ALL.

Interesting timing. I'll await your critique of ALL Democrats who don't meet your NEW high standards. Though, I'd start with Kerry, if I were you.

[sandnsea]

92. I have

Solar shingles, you can't always see them.



These aren't NEW high standards. I've been well aware of Teresa's work on green buildings and green communities, it's one of the reasons I supported them. ALL means ALL, they ALL need to make every change that technology offers. ALL of them.

[mzmolly]

97. Kerry has said he doesn't have solar panels/shingles on his homes:

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2003/09/23/griscom-kerry/

Q > How do you practice it (environmentalism) in your own life? Do you have solar on your roof? Do you drive a hybrid car? Do you spend much time outdoors?

answer > My wife Teresa is very deeply involved in the movement. That's how we really got to know each other; we met at an earth summit. Teresa does so much. Through her philanthropy she built a green, self-sustaining building in Pittsburgh, she works on international environmental issues, and she is really visionary in connecting the dots between the environment and public health.

As for personal choices, years ago I got rid of my SUV and downscaled to a minivan. (We haul around a lot of staff and reporters on the trail, so a sedan isn't an option.) We don't have solar yet, but Teresa just built an office of sustainably harvested wood. I'm a nudge about recycling, even when camping or enjoying the outdoors. Teresa and I go for great long walks in Idaho under the mountains. I'm an avid windsurfer, kite-boarder, snowboarder, hiker, you name it. If there's wind, water, snow, trails, I want to be there. I want to taste it, feel it. I crave nature. Even on the campaign trail, I'll try to take a moment to go for a walk by the water in places like Seattle or Chicago.

I think we all need to respect that Kerry, Edwards and Gore do what they can to contribute in their own way to this issue?

[sandnsea]

102. First, "yet" Second, did you read the rest?

Do you know that they haven't upgraded by now? Besides, I never said they DID have solar anyway, I said you wouldn't necessarily know just from pictures. I also I am well aware of their environmental work, this green office building being just one, which is why I supported them and believe they are WAY BEYOND the Edwards on the environment. If they haven't upgraded in every way technology allows, then they need to. NO, I am not satisfied that they ANY of them have contributed as much as they can. Especially not the Edwards 10,000 sq ft monstrosity of a house - did they build it with recycled or certified wood?? This article was 4 years ago and Teresa had already completed a building with certified wood, that most people STILL don't even know exists.

[mzmolly]

104. So, you are ok with assuming the best about Kerry and demanding

perfection on the part of the Edwards?

Your most recent statement on the Edwards:

This is their personal lives, not public policy that requires cooperation. They had the ability to choose a completely green home, even if it meant less sq ft, - and didn't. That's not perfection. That's what almost any DUer in their position would do. They made no sacrifices, why should they ask anybody else to.

Contrast that to your statement on the Kerry's:

Do you know that they haven't upgraded by now? Besides, I never said they DID have solar anyway, I said you wouldn't necessarily know just from pictures. I also I am well aware of their environmental work, this green office building being just one, which is why I supported them and believe they are WAY BEYOND the Edwards on the environment. If they haven't upgraded in every way technology allows, then they need to.

I am not degrading John Kerry, so I don't have to KNOW that they have solar powered roofing. On the other hand you make statements like these about the Edwards: They had the ability to choose a completely green home, even if it meant less sq ft, - and didn't.

Why do the Edwards need A "COMPLETELY GREEN" HOME, while your satisfied with ONE green office building for the Kerry's, who have SEVERAL homes?

[sandnsea]

106. Hello??? I'M NOT

ALL. ALL. I guess you really don't know the meaning of the word.

They ALL need to make their homes green and energy independent. ALL. At least two of the Kerry's homes are historic and consequently there are limitations to what they can do. The others aren't new either. Preserving historic homes is environmentally friendly too. Still, if they haven't installed renewable power sources to their homes within the historic restrictions, they need to. How can that not be clear to you??

If you don't give a shit about the environment and resource depletion, fine by me. But stop saying I'm applying different standards because I'M NOT. ALL means ALL.

[mzmolly]

29. There are ways to offset ones impact on the environment, as I've said before.

I wonder how many people peddling the "Edwards will kill the earth" view actually listen to Al Gore?

[Jim Sagle]

12. Edwards doesn't need apologetics. Real Democrats know that.

[depakid]

15. Sleepwalking

Into the future.

What America and all of our children need are leaders who walk the walk and show people by example.

I don't reckon this (or certain other things) are very good examples. Nor will other voters.

[mondo joe]

17. Ralph Nader Thanks You for Your Vote.

:-)

[depakid]

26. Future generations thank you

for the foresight!

I voted Al Gore in 2000. And gladly would again in 2008, 'cause he learns- he's walked the walk and shown us all what leadership really looks like.

[Jim Sagle]

38. Other voters won't give a flying fuck unless the RNC-controlled media tells them to.

Thank you for your concern.

[Ken Burch]

24. Wow, Jim, that's the first non-insulting and non-obscene post you've done in months now.

I'm in awe.:wow:

[mzmolly]

27. What would people do without the phrases "apologist" and "DLC?"

:eyes:

[depakid]

32. DLC is a relatively "new" thing

Whereas apologetics goes back a long ways:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

I figure that if you looked at Greek & Roman rhetoric and politics, you might find examples of "triangulation" too.

With similar results to what we've seen.

[mzmolly]

50. Well, it's even less original then I initially surmised.

I had no idea that the origins were in ancient Greece. Thanks for the info.

Here's another interesting word:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originality

;)

[depakid]

110. Touche'

Truth be told, you're excellent mzmolly.

[mzmolly]

117. You're too kind Depakid.

;)

[Sherman A1]

3. So if I understand this correctly

we should not discuss the candidates, their actions, their statements and positions?


Perhaps I am confused here?

[mondo joe]

6. Congrats -- you did not understand correctly!

You should do whatever the hell you want.

But if you didn't learn anything from 2000 about purity testing candidates, be prepared to live with the results.

[Sherman A1]

14. My apologies for participating in this discussion

I am apparently too stupid to do so.

[Ken Burch]

22. The lesson of 2000 was NOT that we have no right to ask anything from anti-GOP candidates.

That loss wasn't the left's fault, and it's time to stop blaming progressives.

That loss was the DLC's fault and the Beltway's fault. And, to a degree, Gore's fault himself for listening to them. If he'd stayed with his "for the people, not the powerful" theme, rather than going back to his "vote for me I'm pretty much like Bush" theme, Gore would have won.

End the denial already.

What 2000 proved is that Dems were WRONG to silence and disempower progressives and activists.
And it proved that the DLC approach would never work again.

[depakid]

115. On the other hand

It seems to me that you have much to learn.

I figure that it will come with time.

That's usually how it works.

[frogcycle]

13. discussing positions and actions is fine

Belaboring one incomplete bit of information like it was the end of the earth is childish, diversionary, counterproductive, and just plain fucking stupid

If on further review it were to turn out that edwards is a scofflaw when it comes to environmentally conscientious behavior, I would take that in to consideration at the ballot box. it might even be a deciding factor for me. Probably would be. Except if there is any way I can vote for Gore I will, and after that I'll probably vote for whatever dem gets nominated. If its Edwards I very well might keep in the back of my mind that he sure built a McMansion and I probably would not like him personally and we'd better keep an eye on him for environmental bona fides.

But railing on over and over and over about late breaking news of the size of the house he is building and how oh-so-incorrect that is and how you are oh-so-offended is just self-centered blather.

People are huffing and puffing to show how pure THEY are. Well, either get started collecting signatures and fucking run for office, or go live in a cardboard box and shut the fuck up is all I have to say to them all.

[Surya Gayatri]

7. Thanks mondo joe...

Let's hope this "herd of cats" begins marching together a bit more cohesively towards a common goal--a Democratic return to the WH in 2008.

SG :kick: and recommended

[boobooday]

9. One point I would like to make . . .

The Al Gore who gets me hard now is not the same Al Gore who ran and won in 2000.

That's what changed my mind about him. When he came out later, and put himself on the line to point out that BushCo was trashing our constitution.

[pwb]

10. if the neocons say look over here? look over there.

karl rove and fox are really trying hard to divert our attention from news of the new congress and libby trial etc.

[sandnsea]

11. Hypocrisy

Funny that many people who were in an uproar over the excessiveness of the Edwards' house, flipped right on by the thread on Camden NJ Friday night. Some refused to even watch because it was on 20/20. Don't tell me you care about the poor when you'd rather fight on DU than look at it directly, even on the television.

And then don't tell me that you care about Gore and global warming when you can't even admit the Edwards made a mistake in the energy choices they made in their home.

And don't whine to me about Edwards being picked on when you stood back or joined in the ridicule of the Democratic Party Presidential candidate for the last 2 years.

DU is really full of a bunch of hypocrites. Remember the God Warrior? Yeah, everybody was set to tune into another session of ridicule two weeks ago. Didn't turn out so well. Funny nobody said a word when the black guy treated her like absolute dog shit.

The right does not have a market on hypocrisy.

And for gods sake, if you don't want the house to be an issue, STOP MAKING POSTS ABOUT IT.

[SaveElmer]

18. Spot on...K&R...nt

[Bucky]

20. Not sure who you're comparing us to, but DU didn't exist in 2000.

The site was launched in January 2001. So anyone who told you there was no difference between Bush and Gore could not have been a DUer. So please don't hammer one set of progressives with some idiocy spewed by a different and unrelated set of progressives. Not all lefties think alike.

[mondo joe]

37. It's clearly not addressed to all progressives.

But certainly there are people who thought Al was too corrupt THEN who are now on DU railing against others for not being pure enough.

[Ken Burch]

23. Edwards' house doesn't personally concern me that much.

It does concern me that Edwards still has residual DLC tendencies.

I will support Edwards if he's nominated, but there's no reason he should be the first choice of progressives in the primary. He's still too fixated on the selective tight-budget(no end to the cuts in social services but plenty of war spending) and "pro-business Democrat"(I.E., Democrat who puts the rich before the people) memes.

Edwards should adopt as much of Kucinich's program as possible. An unambiguously progressive Edwards who stood up for progressive ideas and for working people and the poor would be unbeatable. He really would be the next Bobby Kennedy then. But he's not there yet.

[mondo joe]

36. I have NO objection to looking at every candidate's stand on policy.

But the purity testing that leaves us unable to get behind candidates because of their house is regrettable.

[Ken Burch]

42. I agree with you about the freakin' house, ok?

Although you do have to be prepared for the fact that, if Edwards was nominated, the 'thugs will be all over it to nail Edwards as a "phony working-class hero".
There needs to be a strategy in place to counteract that.

[mondo joe]

43. Sure. But they'll be on anything for anyone, and if they can't find it they'll make it up.

We've seen that already.

Besides, I don't think Edwards' house would matter a tenth as much to the general electorate as it does to DU.

[Ken Burch]

46. If he's nominated, let's hope you're right.

I'm not being anti-Edwards here, I'm saying let's plan ahead for how to play this if he does end up being our candidate.

[mondo joe]

48. The funny thing - for me anyway - is that I'm not partial to Edwards.

Last time around I was a solid Dean supporter.

I have problems with Edwards. But I also have problems with these inane purity tests.

[Ken Burch]

51. As you have repeatedly said.

Bringing in the Gore thing was a bit inflammatory, though.

The situations with Gore in 2000 and Edwards now have little in common. Gore brought the Nader campaign on himself by being completely intransigent about running as a DLC'er.
He could have compromised with progressives and acknowledged how badly the party had treated them.

The Edwards thing is not comparable.

[mondo joe]

53. On this we don't agree.

Gore was considered not pure enough. I had god knows how many arguments with family and friends who insisted he was no better than Bush.

There is a certain... lack of practicality that comes into play in some politics.

The question is not whether Gore deserved the Nader campaign. The question is whether we deserved the outcome we delivered to ourselves.

[Ken Burch]

63. Gore has also moved considerably leftward since 2000.

If he been like this in 2000, there would have been no Nader campaign. And you know it.

The whole Gore/DLC approach to progressives and activists(as Clinton's approach had been)was "screw them. We won't give 'em anything cause they have nowhere else to go". Well, they MADE themselves somewhere else to go.

The lesson is, there's no excuse for the Democratic nominee dissing the left. We were never to blame for the party's past defeats.

[mondo joe]

66. On matters of policy we don't know where he'd be because he isn't running.

And the point of an election, IMO, is not to punish a candidate.

Even if Gore has moved to the left, did progressives get what they wanted by voting for Nader?

It's a matter of purity vs practicality to me.

[Ken Burch]

68. I don't think progressives got what they wanted.

But the party didn't need to go out of its way to keep progressives out in the cold in those days.

Gore should have totally repudiated the DLC mindset in 2000. It was already extinct as an effective political strategy.

It's like how 1968 came out. Granted, in retrospect it would have been better if all the antiwar liberals had gone to the polls in November and voted for Humphrey. But you have to hold the party accountable for doing everything it could to alienate those people. And you also have to hold the old party regulars accountable for stabbing McGovern in the back four years later to get revenge on the liberals for not backing Humphrey.

The party needs to be a place where everyone is welcome and we all have a say. The DLC opposed that. And Gore paid the price for their arrogance. Unfortunately, the country suffered as well. But it's totally unfair to just punish the Nader voters for that. The answer is to listen to them instead and to try to find common ground.

"shut the fuck up and know your place, peasant scum", the basic DLC approach, is not an effective way to win people over.

[mondo joe]

69. I'd still maintain that what the party or candidate gets out of an election is

negligible. What we, the people get, can really suck.

[noamnety]

83. OR ...

Instead of brainstorming how we can defend their indefensible decisions, we could plan ahead how to play this so all our candidates feel pressure to take personal actions to reduce their environmental footprints.

We could work together on a strategy to let them know that we expect them to walk the walk when it comes to global warming, and that - just like we're disgusted with politicians who send others to war but aren't willing to sacrifice anything themselves, we are no longer willing to support candidates who lecture us on making personal sacrifices to combat global warming, when they are using 10 times the resources, or more, than the rest of us are.

[Ken Burch]

94. Since none of the prospective nominees are saints, we need to do BOTH

pressure them to change AND be able to have a good defense for their shortcomings and flipflops or double standards.

That's just reality.

[noamnety]

98. I'm with you there.

I'm hoping the fuss pushes him to get off the grid. And that he pays to replant the trees he cut, in some other location that needs planting. And then he should come out and say "I screwed up, people held my feet to the fire, and I listened, because really, they were right."

And then he should pressure the other candidates to do the same.

If one mainstream candidate went off the grid, the others would be under quite a bit more pressure to do the same. They couldn't stand there and claim to be the environmental candidate in those circumstances.

And THAT would be the good defense for their shortcomings. They fucked up, but they were responsive to the general public when their flaws were pointed out.

I got no defense for "he's an energy pig, all our candidates are, so are yours, they've all earned the right to gobble up resources, who cares?!"

At the end of the day, I don't want talking points to dress up greed and waste. I've heard Edwards refer to that repeatedly as putting lipstick on the pig. I'm hoping we aren't expected to haul out the lipstick on his behalf.

[mzmolly]

25. Marvelous post!

Spot on! :toast:

[Rex]

28. Didn't you hear? Gore and Clinton had the most corrupt administration

in American history! According to fallacious windbags! Funny how they knew it would be needed for a real corrupt administration in 2000. It's as if they all knew. :sarcasm:

Anyone remember the 'Contract With America'? Mission accomplished and then some. 10 years later and still getting fucked over.

[dad]

30. s

What a stupid original post.
Al Gore 2000 is nowhere near the same guy as Al Gore 2007. Perhaps you are the only dingus who hasn't figured that out yet. Al Gore 2007 has a lot more Nader in him than the old version.

[mondo joe]

35. Talk about not learning your lesson. You sound happy that Gore lost. NT

[Jim Sagle]

39. So the last six years are all worth it because Gore is a better world citizen because of it.

Got it.

[Ken Burch]

67. Gore would still be conservative if he'd won in 2000.

He'd have given in to the right on all issues that matter, like Clinton did.

He'd have been a slight improvement on Bush, as Clinton was just barely better than Bush's dad, but the Republican majority would still exist(and would in all liklihood be larger)because no one was a passionate Gore supporter in 2000 and no one would have been inspired by him to change their vote from GOP to DEM.

And we can't assume, unfortunately, that Gore would have avoided going to war in Iraq. Perhaps, perhaps not.

Gore had no strength or courage in those days.

Give it a rest.

[mondo joe]

70. Gore would have been a "SLIGHT improvement over Bush"?

I rest my case.

[Ken Burch]

72. Well, with a congress that would've been GOP throughout his term

That really all he could've managed.

It wouldn't have been possible for him to do anything we could all have cheered for if Hastert had 270 seats in the House and Frist had had, say 60 in the Senate, which they would have had by 2004. The Democrats would've continued to decline on the local level as well.

I'm sorry Gore didn't win, but he would never have been as good in office as he was in the movie. I'm just saying you should face reality on that.

It would have been as if the last two years of the Wilson administration had gone on for eight years. That's all we could've hoped for.

[mondo joe]

76. If you really think Gore would have been only a slight improvement over Bush

then we have different ideas of what reality is.

Maybe I'm too practical, but I can't afford that idealogical purity.

[Ken Burch]

78. What's the practicality in supporting a Democrat

Whose victory would only have continued the Democratic party's long-term decline?

Al Gore was and is a good guy, but you need to face the reality here: He could never have rebuilt the party's popularity.

We would never have started gaining ground again with Gore as president. Republican legislation would be passing over his veto because Gore's presence would have ensured even more Congressional losses. ANWR would be opened and raped by now.

Where's the practicality in that? Why should we have settled for that? And why didn't Gore embrace the new progressive energy that was in Nader's campaign, rather than just saying "you have to vote for me, I'm the slightly lesser evil" over and over again?

We need to move on.

What happened in 2000 no longer really matters. What matters now is continuing the party's growth, a growth that has occurred largely because the party has begun to move left, and to galvanizing an enthusiastic progressive majority to retake the White House in 2008.

I hope Edwards, if nominated, will do the sensible, practical thing and run as a populist progressive, all remnants of this DLC past abandoned. That is the path to victory. Centrism is dead as a political force.

[mondo joe]

79. I guess avoiding 911 and the Iraq war alone would have been a MUCH greater

than "slight" difference to me. To say nothing of the way US intelligence, schools, science and many other systems have been decimated by Bushco.

[Ken Burch]

81. You're assuming Gore would've been able to prevent 911

(I'd like to think he could've, but it's so hard to say) and would've stayed out of the Iraq War.

There's no real solid basis for either of those assumptions.

And, since we both know the GOP Congressional majority would have been even larger and probably have become permanent, the cuts in school and science funding would've been forced over Gore's vetoes, all of which would've been overridden.

It wasn't worth settling for just a slightly slower swing to the right. We should've nominated Paul Wellstone in 2000.

[mondo joe]

86. Indeed, I am. And given Bushco's documented incompetence I think it's a fair

assumption.

Notice, you assumed Gore couldn't have done better than the worst case scenario, or even that he's more liberal now (something quite unknown, since he is not in the position of having to make policy choices for a campaign.)

I think the deal here is that you are far more idealogical than I am, and I am far more practical than you are. I don't think the Democratic party has really swung to the left - for goodness sakes, our response to the State of the Union was delivered by the former Secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan, and hawk Murtha was the darling of the party for much of 2006!

The idea that Wellstone would have had even a decent showing says everything to me about your idea of reality. (I say that respectfully, and with nothing but admiration for Wellstone.)

[fujiyama]

108. .

.

[Ken Burch]

120. That may be the most concise post in DU history.

What, pray tell, did it mean?

[Jim Sagle]

109. Pitiful.

[Ken Burch]

112. Yes, the truth about the DLC is pitiful.

A REAL Democrat who unapologetically defended progressive principles would have beaten Bush solidly.

Still, at least you didn't just swear at me, and that's always progress on your part.

[Jim Sagle]

118. Gore certainly helped w steal 2000 with his soft campaign.

But if he had taken office:

1) There would've been no 911 (since it was an obvious inside job);

2) There would've been no anthrax attacks (since they were obvious inside jobs as well);

3) There would've been no Iraq war (since it served no useful purpose); and

4) The surplus would've been used for public purposes instead of stolen by the kleptocrats.

Gore was DLC, but he was more than that, as witness his evolution since then. Compare and contrast to Bill.

[Ken Burch]

119. In any case, we will never know.

What matters is uniting progressives in and outside the Democratic Party NOW.

Waving the bloody shirt of 2000 over and over again(especially since many of those who blast the Green voters of that year gleefully betrayed the Democratic party by voting for Nixon in '72 and Reagan in '80 and '84) is pointless and hypocritical. In the name of future victory, please give it a rest.

What's needed now is dialogue and negotiation, Jim. Not just shouting "obey, peasant scum" to those progressives who, in despair and anger for how the party treated them between 1993 and 2001, went somewhere else.

[mzmolly]

90. Al Gore never needed Nader in him. He's the same man he always was.

I'd say some Nader supporters have a lot more common sense in them, than they did in 2000? Of course, given Nader has been shut out of rational political dialog after his national humiliation, that's understandable.

[Ken Burch]

96. Gore may not have "needed Nader in him"(weird image there, btw)...

...but Gore and the rest of the party do need to learn from the reasons the Greens grew in the Nineties.

The Green Party emerged because progressives weren't welcome in the Democratic Party in those years(or maybe were welcome to vote for the most conservative candidate the party leaders could force the party to nominate, but not beyond that). You can't continually treat a large group of the party's supporters like progressives were treated and then STILL demand absolute loyalty from them. It was inevitable that the Nader campaign or something like it would occur under the circumstances.

To avoid a repeat of that, the party must be re-democratized and re-opened.
We don't need party insiders and hacks. We don't need big donors. We need enthusiastic people who have been galvanized by candidates with real principles and convictions.
We need to represent the Excluded American Majority.

Democrats need to stand up to corporate power, as FDR did. We need to support a defense policy that defends the country from external attack but doesn't go looking for wars just to prove that the country's latest Kommandant-In-Chief is macho. We need to represent the poor, the cities, those who DON'T live like Ward and June Cleaver(and the majority of the people don't btw). We need to be a living, growing party that stands for a largeness of spirit and hope.

No DLC Democrat will ever be able to do any of that.

[mzmolly]

100. In all honesty, most Greens I know are Green because they want legalized Marijane.

And, I know quite a few. ;) Also, I think the GP grew in the 90's because they got help from Conservative groups and a corporate media. It is very ironic to watch progressives be played by the same groups they claim to abhor.

:hi:

[Ken Burch]

107. You don't know many of them, then.

Most of the ones I knew were sincere activists who wanted a society based on social justice, economic democracy and the preservation of the environment.

Democrats should embrace this agenda.

(btw, legalization of pot is not the biggest item on my own agenda, but really, Dems should give it thought. The hard-line law enforcement approach to drugs has been a total failure. It's really nothing but job security for cops.

[mzmolly]

116. Actually, I DO know many of them.

Further, Democrats DO embrace these things: social justice, economic democracy and the preservation of the environment.

[saltpoint]

31. My take on Nader is that he is a hell of an intelligent guy who

nevertheless defines himself by conflict.

Nader's earlier-than-2000 stance on gay and lesbian rights was fuzzy at best, perhaps resistent is the better word.

Gore was the qualified candidate of the 2 major parties in 2000 and was cheated of his victory. There has been an impressive evolution in Gore's stance as a public servant -- and in his perception of the republic generally -- since then, and at this point he is really a titan in the Tom Paine tradition.

I was asked by a Nader supporter in 2000 to "swap" votes -- with me voting Green instead of for Gore, and she voting for Gore in her state where he was ahead, but I lived in a state that was perilously close. All the polling showed a VERY close race against Bush.

All that was then and this is now, and I still think Al is interested in the top job. I expect him to jump in here pretty soon.

I go to Michale Moore's films and like them, but I don't always align with his choices in candidates.

[Ken Burch]

113. Of course, if you're going to talk about Michael Moore's role in 2000

You need to acknowledge that, towards the end of the campaign, he was TRYING to get Nader to withdraw from the race, or at least pull out in the swing states. Nader was too bloody-minded to listen.

And in 2004, Michael Moore BEGGED Ralph Nader on national television not to run again. So, no flies on Michael on this one. He was trying to do the right thing.

BTW, the real point here is not that Nader should be rehabilitated.

As a presidential candidate, Ralph's day has passed.

Ralph pretty much blew it when he refused to do the logical thing after 2000 and lead a national campaign for electoral reform(going off instead on bizarre tangents about atm fees and NBA officiating of all things)and when he refused to back the "safe state strategy" the official Green candidate advocated in 2004.

I will never understand why, in the last presidential campaign, when Kerry was clearly more liberal than Gore had been and when it was imperative to deny Bush a second term, Nader still placed punishing the Democratic Party before any other consideration. He sort of got too in touch with his own inner Lenin that year, reducing his movement to a sect and even ending up screwing the Green Party over in the end.

[Clark2008]

33. I love Al. Loved him back then, too.

But, my problems with Edwards haven't a thing in the world to do with his house. I couldn't give a rats ass about that.

I have problems with his voting record, his legislation (or lack thereof) and some of the statements he's currently making on Iran.

Is that acceptable.

[Straight Shooter]

44. To you, Clark2008 ...

:toast:

[KoKo]

75. I've Met Al Gore and Knew him back in the 80's and John Edwards is No Al Gore!

I'm a former constituent and supporter of John Edwards here in North Carolina.

[Tom Rinaldo]

114. In fairness, Moore opposed the Democratic Party nominee in 2000

It is Democratic candidates themselves who are literally opposing each other now, and they will increasingly do so until the primaries are actualy upon us. Actually, now is the appropriate time for Democrats to consider making choices BETWEEN Democrats. Sometimes we act like it is only us onliners who have the rarified status of "voter" who bring up negative issues against Democratic candidates, as if that is intrinsically terrible.

Guess what folks, the candidates will do it to each other soon enough. They did last time and they will next time. They are competing with each other and each one wants to win and each one thinks that they are a better leader for America than the other guy or gal, and they will not hestitate to tell you why, and there will be many blows landed all around in very close proximity to the belt.

And then the Party will be asked to unite around our nominee, and hopefully we will. That is democracy in primary season.