I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
I'm somewhat envious of those who still want/need a hero. As Ted Rall writes in his recent article, even if a democrat wins the 2004 election, he inherits the big pile of shit that Bush leaves behind.
abso-frickin'-lutely! It sounds trite, but the Dems should be able to debate and fight for the nomination without crippling eachother. 11th commandment time for us?
My guess has been for a while a Dean-Clark ticket, which would have a nice sense of balance without being "soft on Bush". I personally think it would be a good ticket. But I would also vote for any Democrat, no matter who, because sometimes there is such a thing as being "objectively pro-_____" and this is one of those times.
Exactly!
Issues #1-5 for the Democrat Party in the 2004 election:
"Beat Bush!"
All other issues flow from this premise.
As Tracy Ullman says, "Bee-have!"
***
I will vote for Dennis the Menace in the Ohio Primary, not because I think he'll win, but because I've always enjoyed his honesty. And in the general election a year from now, I will vote for whomever the Democrats choose at their convention. Why? Because one term of Dubya is enough. So all the money both sides will spend over the next year is wasted on me.
We should all vow that when we speak of any Dem candidate, it will only be in positive terms. We will never refer to another candidate as "unelectable" or use the phrase "will be a disaster against Bush." When endorsing a particular candidate, we will focus only on the positive attributes of the candidate we are endorsing and not attempt to frame the other candidates in a negative light compared to the endorsed candidate. Anybody have other suggestions?
I find it very disheartening that, especially coming from the Democratic party supporters, that the Beat Bush mantra is ridiculed when discussing any candidate but their own.
I personally support Kerry or Clark, but I can assure everyone here (as if that matters) that if Dean, or Kucinich, or ,yes, even Lieberman gets the Democratic nod, I will provide what support I can to assist in getting them elected.
There are those Liberal anti-Bush people who read this, and post regularly (we all know who you are 
), and I just cannot comprehend, especially with so much on the line in 2004 how one could say "I will absolutely NOT vote for xxx"
If that is your belief and you can justify it in your mind, good for you, I just hope that you feel good about your choice if things go horribly wrong next November (jeebus, I hope not), and Shrub is elected.
OTOH, I really don't care to hear why certain people think the Democrats and Rethuglicans are not the same. I believe deeply in the differences between the two parties, even if the moderate wing of both parties sound similar. This debate has been hashed out over and over again, ad nauseum, here and elsewhere.
If you've made it this far, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't surprised, so I will wrap this up by saying:
Anybody but Bush, '04!
personally, i've opted out of sharing my primary opinions in any public forum (i'll discuss it friends, obviously.) i seriously don't even care who it is.
you know those mythical 'bush haters' they speak of all the time. i'm one of those. i'd vote for a fucking rock over that asshole. i was 8 years old in the 1988 election. i drew a picture of bush sr announcing that if he lost the election he would pee his pants. i wasn't even pro-dukakis (i mean, come on, i was 
i was just against that wimpy nerd who wanted to be president.
i am a bush-hater and i am frikken proud of it.
primary-schmimary. i think all 9 candidates are fantastic people just for answering the call, and whomever gets the nod in the end will get my full support.
How about prefacing any criticism with the words "compared to Bush he's a prince among men and would be a much better president, but" then go for a little criticism. Criticism isn't all bad; it's feedback for the candidate, even though it provides ammunition for the opposition's machine. I suggest some immunizing words before, after, and mixed throughout the criticisms, to help neutralize it's usefulness to the oppositon.
And most importantly, I suggest in the strongest possible way that no one EVER, EVER, use the word "unelectable" about ANY of the Democratic candidates!
that is supposed to read "come on, i was 8" and then the closing parenthical.
oh well!
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that infighting will be exploited and encouraged by GOP operatives.
Lieberman is the Man.
I agree completely. Part of the reason that the Republican Party has lately been more successful than the Democratic Party is because the Republicans are a political party while the Democrats are just an assortment of politicians. The Democrats worry about getting just the right candidate to beat Bush, as if it were a battle of personalities. It is, to a certain extent, but that isn't the whole of it, and it isn't the most important part of it.
When Republicans win, it isn't because they have great candidates. How was Bush a great candidate? Republican candidates (except in rare cases like Arnold in California) tend to be interchangeable. They win because they have the power of the Republican machine behind them, not because of their special virtues. The only virtue that is important is to keep from shooting yourself in the foot.
Republicans are a brand, and voters know what they are getting (okay, they don't really, but they know all the advertising slogans by heart).
What I think that the Democrats need to do is to become what Will Rogers said they aren't: an organized political party. They need to come up with a coherent platform, a plan for what the Democrats want to accomplish and how they want to accomplish it. Yes, individual candidates may have lots of ideas, but what we need is for the party to figure out what it believes in.
The campaign for the nomination should be aimed at working out the agenda for the Democratic party in 2004 and the years that follow. That agenda should be something that the Democrats can all work towards even if they don't win the White House or the Senate or the House in 2004.
The blame for a lot of the negativity can be delivered to the doorsteps of the DLC and DNC. They both need a swift kick in the butt!
I am first ABB and second ABD(anybody but Dean). If Dean is the nominee than Green willbe my color.
yes, it's time for the 11th commandment. i would like to see at least one of the candidates stand up and say:
"i may not be the nominee. might walk away with the nomination. and if he does, i will support him 100%, because his plans beat bush on the economy, iraq, fighting terror, healthcare, tax policy .... etc."
the point being that the object is not to beat kerry, or dean, or braun or edwards. the point is not even to put a democrat in the white house in 2004. the point of the 2004 election is to explain to americans what is wrong in america and how replacing team bush is the answer.
and it would be endlessly entertaining to watch the democratic circular firing squad actually do something right for once.
the message is: team bush is the problem. pass it on.
OT- The entire 213 page script of "The Reagans" is available at Salon.com for download.
Atrios, you're right. Bush is the problem and I will support any eventual Dem nominee, although with more enthusiasm for some than for others.
Anybody like BM, who says they will support the Green candidate, is living on another planet.
I am first ABB and second ABD(anybody but Dean). If Dean is the nominee than Green willbe my color.
BM, that's a little odd. If your first principle is ABB, seems like voting Green in '04 is in fact voting for Bush.
What if the Greens don't run a national candidate and Dean is the Democratic choice? Which priority of ABB or ABD wins out?
"I am first ABB and second ABD"
Given the traditional meaning of the word "anybody" this philosophy is logically inconsistent. You're philosophy is more accurately described as ABBBD.
FWIW, I think you're delusional if you think Bush is a better option than Dean, which is what not voting for Dean if he's the nominee he implies.
By what metric is Bush preferable to Dean?
edwards was winning the money primary at one point. and he went nowhere in the polls.
problem was, most of that money came from other lawyers. look it up on opensecrets if ya want.
i like his message and all, but his campaign has been singularly inept.
Running on very little sleep..ignore the grammatical errors. Guh.
You are so right, Atrios.
ABB.
The new Bambi rule? If you can't say something nice don't say anything at all? (And above all, don't try handicapping any races if you're not a professional.)
Look, I'm all for keeping the discussion on the highest possible plane. But that doesn't mean that there can't be substantive discussion among ourselves about real issues that arise from the campaigns. And I'm not in the least bit sure that any (even mildly) negative comment about a candidate's policy, presentability, or strategy must be the same as "RNC spin." (Some is, some isn't: let the facts speak for themselves.)
While I am the first to want to impose a sense of party unity in the effort to get everyone behind the eventual nominee, whoever that is, I don't want to leave the process of determining who that nominee is solely to the vagaries of the mainstream media and other forces. Sitting down and shutting up, or imposing some sort of self-imposed silence on the part of the blogosphere or Internet political groups in the hopes of achieving unity could have unanticipated--and unhappy-- results as well.
Silence is not always golden. And I don't particularly like group-thought (or lack of thought) whether it comes from our side or not. I get a little weirded when I hear 30 different writers all use the same "we know what he meant" line, for example. It seems eerily reminiscent of the kind of GOP blast-fax journalism we complain about all the time.
Candidates, indeed, need to be strong enough to withstand criticisms. If the criticisms are bull, they should be easy to refute and transcend. If they have some substance ... well, let them have substance.
But let's not agree not to say anything at all.
I agree with this - I'm aggressively ABB and will vote for any Democrat, including Lieberman, with great satisfaction and joy.
And I don't want to be told anymore what is wrong with the Democrats. We know their shortcomings - enough already. It's time to get real and get rid of the dangerous fanatics who have taken over our government - because if we don't, we are in deep deep trouble.
Last night there was a report on the local news here that a Muslim outreach group who ministers to prisoners is under investigation as a terrorist organization. There was even a statement by a member of the ADL about it. This is how it starts, people, and it has started. If we don't want another holocaust, this time of Muslims and liberals, we have got to get serious about getting rid of this administration.
Well, my candidate does rule, but I try not to diss the others. As you say, Heathers. Their supporters I'll diss, mind you.
One note: I'm actually choosing who I think would be best in the WH, not who would be best campaigning against Bush. I prefer choosing in these terms.
GFS, I enjoyed your "rock" comment.
I am first ABB and second ABD(anybody but Dean). If Dean is the nominee than Green willbe my color.
You may not want to vote for Dean but it’s unlikely that you’ll be able to vote Green, BM.
It's time to get real and get rid of the dangerous fanatics who have taken over our government - because if we don't, we are in deep deep trouble.
Tena, it is very surprising (okay, shocking) that some people don't realize what is happening in this country. We're going backwards. We have got to get rid of Bush and his right-wing agenda.
The news about reinstating a draft-like program should be enough to scare everyone from the *potential cannon fodder* to their friends and relatives.
In a perfect world, my dream dem candidate would pray to Satan while strapped into a latex gravity boot system hanging upside down like a fruit bat and watching John Stewart while urine runs down his inverted torso, but I know I'm not going to get everything I want so I'm willing to compromise. Go Dean.
Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose.
"I don't belong to any organized political party -- I am a Democrat."
Will Rogers, April 1933 speech in San Francisco
Sniping at each other is par for the course. I would rather have a candidate and his supporters that are battle-tested--even if it is the intramurals--than one that has no hard campaigning experience.
I don't want to be told anymore what is wrong with the Democrats
I hope you’re willing to discuss what can be improved. Rejection of Bush and Republicans in general is not enough to sustain a party.
Of course, Atrios is right in principle. But these candidates have to distinguish themselves from one another for the primary. Democrats always take the moral high ground, play fair, no dissing your opponent, etc. BULL! The moral high ground always looses in politics.
Haven't the Democrats learned anything?
Consider that 40% of Americans will vote for any idiot the Republican put forth and 40% of Americans will vote for any candidate the Democrats nominate. It's that middle 20% - who swear they are registered independents - that have to be persuaded to pull the D lever this time.
The democratic party must rally around a candidate that can sway the non-committed, non-attention-paying middle during the primary in order to win the general election. Electability is VERY important. Rove would love to see Kucinich nominated. But that middle 20% will either vote for Rove's boy or stay home.
I've actually had the biggest problem with Kerry's comments against other candidates--perhaps because I expect better of him. When Sharpton goes after Dean for the flag comment, I remember Tawana and just shrug/
I don't think Dean or Clark have gone negative. They seem to be the only ones. Edwards also went negative over Dean's flag thing, and he should have been ashamed of himself.
And I don't want to be told anymore what is wrong with the Democrats. We know their shortcomings - enough already. It's time to get real and get rid of the dangerous fanatics who have taken over our government - because if we don't, we are in deep deep trouble.
Hear, hear. Yes, we can decide for ourselves which of them we think, personally the best, and legitimate policy disagreements is part of the primary vetting process, but enough with the Chait-esque rants on why Dean or [insert other candidate's name here, but it's usually Dean] will be an unmitigated disaster. Or has flip-flopped on whether kicking puppies or beating baby seals is worse [or substitute other substantively vacant dispute here].
As Mike S. has said a number of times on the Kos message boards: no more eating our own.
Half of the electorate will probably not vote at all Wonderwoman. We can do more than rally around a candidate. We can get people interested and registered to vote. It takes more than just the idea that a candidate can win, it takes a positive vision of why this candidate will make a difference once in office
Yes, we can decide for ourselves who of them we each personally think is the best, and legitimate policy disagreements are
[sigh]
Yes, we can decide for ourselves which of them we personally think is the best
[giving up]
antiphone - What I'm talking about is the harangues we've been getting from some who just won't stop with the "There's not difference" meme.
Let me expand on my earlier comment - the reason the Muslim group is under investigation is because it distributed a video tape to prisons that has a mullah from, I believe, L.A. on it. In the clip I saw from the tape all he was doing was questioning the government's version of 9/11, and Iraq. That isn't terrorism, it's dissent. But it's going to land him and anyone who came in contact with him in prison. And the spokesman from the ADL (and please don't jump me for being anti-semitic - I am also aggressively not anti-semitic,) was all over the statements the mullah made, talking about how dangerous this is. It was dissent - not an incitement to violence. At least, that was the content of the part they showed on the news, and since it was all about how this guy is a terrorist, it stands to reason that that was about as inflammatory as the tape gets. I could be wrong, but it scared the shit out of me. The mullah was saying the exact same things we say here every day.
>As for me, I think all the conventional wisdom is roughly wrong at this point, but that doesn't mean I really know what's right.
C'mon Atrios, the nomination is Dean's to lose.
Sure, he could be exposed doing something so out of character and so stupid, it would be all over. But since the beginning, he has shown incredible intelligence and run a brilliant, non-business as usual campaign which has set the conventional wisdom on its ear.
And shown he has the stomach and fighting spirit to actually take on Bush....on his ---Deans-own terms.
I am not bothered by the other candidates attacks on Dean---bring em on. They can't lay a glove on him. He has an an uncanny ability to be able to use these attacks to get the troops fired up and....writing letters to undecideds in Iowa!
What bothers me...is that the supporters of the other candidates won't even to attempt to "get" what Dean is about. They get their information filtered through their candidate's talking points....they regularly insult the Dean Army on the most personal of levels...and many...are just so frustrated at their own candidate's lack of ability to catch fire, they take it out people like me.
Now...that Dean is on the verge of getting into some really scary territory...that is a discussion of how the Republicans have used divisive tactics with regard to race, CLASS, and gender....we will be proceeding into some very risky territory...
however, in order to break the 50/50 spit in this country....we are going to have to break a few eggs. And smash a lot of dearly held beliefs...
and some people are terrified of risk...even though that terror and timidity with regard to issues which truly have to be addressed can only continue to propel the Democrats into another decade of minority party status.
You don't have to make nice with me me, o supporters of the other guys...
but listen...whatever names you call me ain't going to get your guy elected....and I have a long history of being able to come back and say, "I told you so."
And thank you Atrios for being non-aligned. I have committments to a specific candidate, but those committments are dwarfed by my committment to regime change here in the US.
I don't want to leave the process of determining who that nominee is solely to the vagaries of the mainstream media and other forces.
I agree with you samela. There’s a certain amount of aggravation involved but if we don’t engage in the discussion we still have to live with the results of the process.
What Atrios said - ditto.
What I'm talking about is the harangues we've been getting from some who just won't stop with the "There's not difference" meme
I feel your pain Tena. Nihilism runs rampant.
I don't think Dean has it done by a longshot, but I do think he's become an overwhelming favorite.
Anything can still happen, but it's looking less and less like anything will.
I think Kerry is still alive, but barely. The Iraq vote hurt him, but his personality hurt him more. Ever watch the guy? Just call him Mumbles. Just call him windbag. I like the guy, I really like him, and at the start I thought he would be my candidate, I just think he does a really horrilbe job of presenting himself. Why he chooses to fill every sentence with inflated empty prose and blab after blab after blab of doublespeak, I have no idea. But he does, and I'm finding him less and less watchable. I don't see how he's ever going to set any electorate on fire with that approach.
The one place where I think you're really wrong is Clark's military background. Not that that makes him the instant WonderPresident, but I think the rebranding opportunity he presents for the Dems is monumental. Too much to explain here, but read my Sept 5 post on it if you're interested: Who really makes Karl Rove pull the covers up over his head? http://blogs.salon.com/0001137/2...09/
05.html#a510
Most of all, though, I like your (Atrios') circular firing squad caution. I get the same feeling visiting some of the sites, too. I'm still supporting both Dean and Clark, and I wince every time I hear supporters on either site bring up the other.
I hope I haven't been guilty of that right here myself with Kerry. I try to stay away from attacking who he is--or attacking him just for the purpose of helping candidates I like--but I don't want to stop speaking frankly about he comes off. And that's actually something he could do something about. Conceivably.
Antiphone - thanks - and I can understand very well why nihilism is rampant - I feel a little of it myself from time to time. But right now I'm just flat scared, and this is the first time I've been this scared.
The one thing that the Democrats should do is to frame the Bushistas as anti-military. Along with the Bush administration not having a real coalition in the war in Iraq, they didnt' have a game plan for winning the peace, nor have they supported out troops by ensuring adequate funding of vets' benefits including their leaving military children "left behind" during their service to our country. That taken with Bush, the mother-hugger-in-chief, not actually offering condolences in public for the American families of the dead and wounded in Iraq should be hammered by each and every Dem candidate. (That he can write the families of the dead a personal letter (probably a form letter), but he can't actually pick up a phone to offer condolence is a disgrace.)
Nancy, sorry.
I will definitely vote for Dean if the choice is Dean or Bush. No doubt about it -- hell, I'll probably work the phone lines.
Meantime, I've guess I come down somewhere between Atrios and the other folks who've chimed in. If we're going to learn who these candidates are, we've got to share our impressions -- and the candidates, for their part, have to be subjected to criticism. We can all be sure that the smear machine is waiting for them the other side of the primaries, and there's only one way to get ready for it. If you don't learn to fight back effectively, you're going to get rolled. And that can take time. Remember the Republican hand-wringing in 2000 when McCain fought Bush? Does anyone doubt it made Bush a better campaigner?
What's incumbent on us, and here I strongly agree with Atrios, is not to throw hissy fits if our preferred candidate loses. Sure, the eventual Dem nominee may not be as good a candidate as the one you wanted, but he or she's GOT to be better than Bush.
Eyes on the prize.
I am very angry that Dean opted out of Federal matching funds. This is a key principle of the Democratic party that Russ Feingold initiated. He is now Bush-lite not Lieberman.
Dave Cullen, I agree with your take on Kerry but I think there’s a difference between Clark and Dean in terms of what kind of mandate their election would produce. With Clark it’s more like a course correction and with Dean it’s more of a change of direction. A win by Dean also seems more like a reinvigoration of the party, with Clark it’s like calling in a pinch hitter.
Agree, Atrios. To be able to support your candidate without damaging the party or fellow Dems, to offer constructive criticism of the party's direction, to support whichever Dem wins the primary are all part being a leader and steward of your party.
This stuff has been going on for two hundred years, its part and parcel of the democratic process. But what makes it work is a sense of unity, shared vision and common purpose.
No candidate's effort in this primary will be for naught. All are making important contributions to the race and the party's message and all delegates will have a role in helping develop the party platform in '04.
Follow the example of the Trumans, Roosevelts, and Kennedys of our party. When the fighting is over and the decision is made, support the party's candidate, whoever they are and respect the choices of your fellow democrats. Show the same leadership qualities of previous generations of Democrats.
I am very angry that Dean opted out of Federal matching funds.
I see this as a result of the sorry state of campaign finance reform that made the decision all but inevitable. It’s important to have rules that govern all the candidates rather than letting one play dirty while the other plays clean.
My top ticket would be Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean but I'd pay real money to see a Kucinich/Lieberman campaign. Just for kicks.
Daryl hit it on the head up there when he talked about Republicans as brand name. Same reason Wal-Mart keeps getting business, even though every time I go in there the stores are slightly sticky. But I know where everything is and I don't feel out of place there.
This campaign is going to be about making people scared of things. Terrorism, gays running around prettifying things and converting your children to Wicca, gun control advocates making you take your dead deer head off the wall, big scary liberals forcing you to have an abortion on your front lawn, etc. Sometimes I just want to send out fliers: Liberals Are Normal People, Too.
I think a lot will depend for Dean on the team he puts together after the nomination, if he gets it. I vote McCain for Secretary of Defense, and Al Sharpton for Press Secretary.
A.
Dean is the front runner but what about the other 85% of Democrats? Most of them support othre candidates because they think Dean can't win.
If Dean is nominated a hell of a lot of those Democrats won't bother contributing money to his campaign, to their way of thinking it would be a waste.
That's something to worry about.
"I am very angry that Dean opted out of Federal matching funds. This is a key principle of the Democratic party that Russ Feingold initiated. He is now Bush-lite not Lieberman."
This shows why Dean is going to BEAT BUSH. Bush is raising $200 million or more to use to smear the Democratic candidate before the conventions. Dean is going to go to the publoic and ask 2 million people to each give $100, and raise $200 million to FIGHT BACK. He's not going to just take it without responding, like Gore did.
Can you imagine Kerry or Gephardt fighting back?
Already Dean has mobilized more than 130,000 people to attend meetups - before even the first primary. In the general election he will be mobiliazing millions. Other campaigns are relying on professional camnpaign consultants, and their careers are threatened by this kind of organizing, not to mention the commissions they get from runbning mamby-pamby TV ads... SO these consultants try to keep the people away from the campaigns. Look at what is happening to Clark's supporters now that Clark has brought in the pros.
The way that Dean is winning the nomination shows how he is going to beat Bush.
I will enthusiastically support (with my money, and my time if I can) whichever of the current candidates becomes the Democratic nominee. I'm not crazy about Leiberman, or Kucinich for that matter, but they're still a hell of a lot better than Bush and his cronies.
Onbe more thing. In the summer, Bush will be running his $200 million of smear ads against Dean. Dean will be able to go to the public each time one of those ads appears and ask for money to respond. Democrats will be angry, and will contribute. So Dean will respond, and this will be the news. The smear ads the Republicans run will be the news, and the way Dean calls on the public to respond will be the news.
Think about that if you are concerned about Dean opting out of the public finance system.
And tell me the truth - if Bush runs a smear ad, each of you reading this will contribute money for a response. Right?
That's something to worry about.
Kyle, I’d worry about taking advice from anyone that thinks they know what 85% of Democrats think.
Until the candidate is chosen, too much within-party "partisanship" is damaging.
Oh bullshit!
It gets the flaws into the open, and preps the potential nominee for what Republicans will use against them.
Look at the DLC pushed Confederate flag issue. Or that fucking idiot Kerry hunting them bitching about Dean being the "NRA" candidate.
I don't want to see candidates fawning all over each other. I want them to cut the shit out of each other now. Instead of later, when it will do more damage.
To think otherwise is just stupid.
Anybody but Bush, '04!
David (Austin Tx)
To correct you; Any Democrat but Bush.
Do you really think if, Oh let us say Ventura, had the chance to beat Bush that Dems would vote for him?
I'm not crazy about Leiberman, or Kucinich for that matter, but they're still a hell of a lot better than Bush and his cronies.
KH
Sorry but, Lieberman, Biden, Bayh, Hillary are as close to Bush cronies as one can get without being Republicans.
"And tell me the truth - if Bush runs a smear ad, each of you reading this will contribute money for a response. Right?"
Not if I don't think he can win the election. Nobody likes parting with their money especially giving it to politicians and that will hurt the nominee if most people think he is a long shot.
I like Dean.
I could vote for Kerry, Edwards, or Clark, in that order.
Any other nominee would be a wasted vote, as Kucinich, M-B, and Sharpton could never win.
Gephardt and Leiberman make me a little nervous sometimes, especially Joe. I suppose I could vote for gephardt, but i don;t see it happening.
Let's keep our eye on the ball, and don't let our debate start defaming the character of these people.
I believ kerry when he said that 'if the poresident lied about the intelligence, than he lied to me PERSONALLY". If the president comes, and tells you something, and your a sensator, you want to believe him.
If he lied, and your a leader AND a senator, you see that he is impeached for lying, right?
Clenis lied, and he was impeached. And that was over almost nothing at all, except for the lie itself.
Why hasn't the Congress asked the president ot come and address them with this evidence, even in closed session? I mean, are there communis.. i mean terrorists in the congress?
oh, becuase if you lie to congress directly it is a big deal, but if you lie to congressmen individually it's just a fib. everybody fibs after all.
lucky us, those senators who are candidates are clearly men of principle, who will, and have, brought this fight right to Bush's front door.
and that's why i like Dean.
oops, that was me
"Dean is the front runner but what about the other 85% of Democrats? Most of them support othre candidates because they think Dean can't win."
Right, you're psychic crystal democratic ball has shown you the will of the registered democratic voters? This is the type of bullshit that stinks all over dailykos. I like Dean but not much more than any other viable democratic candidate. And I think anyone of them is going to have a hard time winning but can do it. Except Lieberman. But that's not based on any magic connection with the collective unconscious of the Democratic party. Just based on my own personal dislike for most things from Connecticutt.
I support Dean more than the other guys, but absolutely I will vote for any Dem over Bush. No question. However, Kerry and Gephardt have really annoyed me of late. Kerry-- who politically I think has good positions-- really seems to think he is very cool, but he comes across as very prissy and smarmy to me. To top it off, his looks are just weird. This makes him unelectable in my book. Kerry even repeated the line about Gore inventing the internet at one point. That made me lose a lot of respect for him.
I get constant e-mails from Gephardt (apparently he got my address from Dem Underground since that was the only place I gave that e-mail address) and they are quite annoying-- they always try to be very upbeat but they have the whiff of desperation about them, and always pleading for money.
I will definitely vote dem, but I may be holding my nose when I finally pull the lever.
Funny how no one even talks about Lieberman anymore. He should just drop out, I think.
"Right, you're psychic crystal democratic ball has shown you the will of the registered democratic voters?"
Well if it isn't electability then it's even worse news for Dean because most of the other candidates are more MODERATE than Dean.If theyare getting support because they aren't as liberal how do you think that will play in November when it isn't only democrats voting?
I am very angry that Dean opted out of Federal matching funds. This is a key principle of the Democratic party that Russ Feingold initiated. He is now Bush-lite not Lieberman.
BM | Email | 11.08.03 - 2:33 pm | #
don't be angry BM . Russ Feingold initiated it, but it was supposed to evolve, and hasn't becuase Feingolds party doesn;t control the congress. If the dems did, then it likely would have evolved into a realistic financing system, but just now it isnt. I felt let down at first too.
then i got off my idealistic horse and looked at reality
We progressive liberals now have a 200+million dollar incumbent war-chest to go up against, and as I have been swayed to believe,
"you don't bring a knife to a gunfight"
we also have, in Dr. Dean, a candidate who clearly wants that finance system to work, but who recognises the harsh reality that it does not.
save the 'bush-lite' comments for those who deserve it. Like Zell.
forgot to sign my name.. again...
"If they are getting support because they aren't as liberal how do you think that will play in November when it isn't only democrats voting?"
does anyone, other than Kyle, believe the American public is stupid enough to believe that 4 more years of bush is going to make the situation better?
The first 3 years have been such a love-fest blow out with the rest of world after all.
I recon 2 arms contol, one judicial, one environmental treaties have beenm ripped up. The good-will we got after 9/11 has been squandered, and our relations with the worlds second largest economy (the EU) is seriously on the ropes. All Bush has to do now is launch a Naval Blockade of Cuba, and he'll hit the trifecta of bad policy.
i gotta turn cookies back on..
that Anonymous at 3:42 was me again
Always thought ole Pruneface Raygun was unfuckinbelievably sorry, but Smirky Dubyas got to be the worst in my 63 years.
Can any Dem beat the Bushites in Florida?
The "conventional wisdom" that the contest is about who can win the 20%in the middle is what has led the Democrats to lose all three branches of the government. What is important is to energize the base. The Dems will lose if a candidate(Lieberman?) fails to convince the rank and file to vote. That 40% that will vote Democratic has to vote. Gore lost in 2000 because too many Dems either stayed home or voted third party. Now you can badmouth them all you want but you won't get them to vote for the Dem candidate unless they really percieve him/her as offering a real alternative to Bush.
And as far as the 20% in the middle, they too will choose a real republican over republican lite. They want a candidate to stand for something, rather than some wimpy whiny guy without a spine who goes along with Bush, and then whines about how unfair it all is.
Maybe the Democratic Party should go the NCAA Tournament route: Let's say we cut to the chase and have a "Great Eight"--a higher seed will square off against a lower seed.
Informal polling of My Beautiful Mind indicates the following initial matchups:
#1 Dean vs. #8 Sharpton.
#2 Clark vs. #7 Kucinich
#3 Kerry vs. #6 Lieberman
#4 Edwards vs. #5 Gephardt
Apologies to Carol and company but all seedings are final.
Forecast for Round 1:
Dean beats Sharpton by a hair. Clark, in an upset, out-reasons Kucinich.
#3 Kerry--angry at the bizarre Boston Globe-inspired "Jewish Thing" meme, breaks bread with Lieberman: they both drop out of the race to work on a Kibbutz for a soul-satisfying year.
Edwards beats Gephardt or Gephardt beats Edwards. The fans will sit on their hands either way.
Clark and Dean agree to toss a coin on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to see who gets to drive.
The rest is opaque to my visionary ways...
***
maybe now would be a good time to focus on issues? i mean the policy kind, not the looks & personality kind.
that way we could have heated (even very heated) arguments, without attacking any of the candidates...
and it would make us better educated, more thoughtful citizens and voters.
i don't know, just an idea...?
Unlike 2000, all the front running Democrats are at least palatable. I favor Dean, followed slightly by Edwards and Clark. I think all of them would be a drastic improvement over Bush.
But even the less palatable options (machine politicians like Gephardt or Kerry) would be worth a vote to get Bush out. And I speak as a consistent third party voter.
Really, a cretin like Bush in office leaves no option but to remove him, even if it means voting for frigging Carrot Top.
"Dean is the front runner but what about the other 85% of Democrats? Most of them support othre candidates because they think Dean can't win."
Right, you're psychic crystal democratic ball has shown you the will of the registered democratic voters? This is the type of bullshit that stinks all over dailykos. I like Dean but not much more than any other viable democratic candidate. And I think anyone of them is going to have a hard time winning but can do it. Except Lieberman. But that's not based on any magic connection with the collective unconscious of the Democratic party. Just based on my own personal dislike for most things from Connecticutt.
And as far as the 20% in the middle, they too will choose a real republican over republican lite.
I'm not sure. Currently, we have a very right right-wing Republican in office who sold himself as a moderate. If the 20% in the middle are paying attention (and I'm not sure they ever will), the Bush agenda is too far right for them.
Ask some 20%ers (not Naderites - many would not have voted). Ask folks who swallowed the Bush/Rove propaganda about how smarmy and show-offy Gore "seemed" to be. They (like someone in an above post who doesn't like Kerry's looks) will not vote policy and issues - too much thinking. They're looking at who will "look Presidential".
Right now - Bush doesn't look too "Presidential" to those 20%ers. So ask them. I've found that Clark's name comes up as a positive and Dean's as a negative. That's just my current observation.
when i asked if we could discuss issues instead of personalities, i almost put the following plea in....
please, please, please???
i put it in now because - this is NOT a game! it is NOT my team vs your team. this the future of our country. could we please take is more seriously than a game, a personality contest, or worse yet at test of loyality (the ABB test).
please? issues? at some point? maybe just a little bit?
I support Dean, but I will vote for any Democrat over Bush. Atrios offers very sound advice and we need to remember that.
It appears that sometime in March we have a candidate. We MUST unite behind whoever that candidate is.
"Dean is the front runner but what about the other 85% of Democrats? Most of them support othre candidates because they think Dean can't win."
Right, you're psychic crystal democratic ball has shown you the will of the registered democratic voters? This is the type of bullshit that stinks all over dailykos. I like Dean but not much more than any other viable democratic candidate. And I think anyone of them is going to have a hard time winning but can do it. Except Lieberman. But that's not based on any magic connection with the collective unconscious of the Democratic party. Just based on my own personal dislike for most things from Connecticutt.
Sorry about that, forgot about the refresh thing. Sitting here at work, wanting to see more comments, kept refreshing.
Selise: I think the reason personalities are discussed rather than issues (at least on this particular thread) is that on the issues and policeies, the candidates are not very far apart. Most of us will vote for the Dem. - whoever.
But out there on the street, people are not as concerned with issues as personality. (More people can name who got kicked off the island on "Survivor" than who is running for the Dem. nomination. Wasn't there going to be a show: "Who wants to be President"?) Sigh!
At some point, we have to face reality and recognize that of the 9 remaining candidates, the one most able to win the White House will win it on personality and charisma. Sad but true.
on the issues and policeies, the candidates are not very far apart
huh?
bring our troops home vs increase the level of troops in iraq?
single payer health care or not?
patriot act or not?
nafta: keep it, modify it, or withdraw?
seem like pretty big differences to me. on the other hand, they all have the one quality in common - they are not bush.
Primaries are like the playoffs to get to the World Series or the Super Bowl, but the stakes are so much higher. It's essential to be tested and challenged and get the team working together. But it's also possible to suffer serious injuries. So long as the bickering doesn't get out of hand, the Democratic candidate will be more ready for the real fight than if the primary campaign had been a coronation.
Personally, I have my preferences, but will gladly and vigorously support the Democratic nominee.
Here's the way I think of it. On the upside, regardless of how they might have voted on the Resolution that gave President Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq, it's hard to imagine that any of the Democratic candidates would have asked for the same Resolution or would have pushed so hard for war had they been President under the same circumstances. On the downside, it's easy to imagine that some of them voted for it primarily for defensive reasons. That's not exactly compelling leadership. It's playing not to lose rather than playing to win. Nevertheless, none of the Democratic candidates seem near as careless with the lives and futures of young Americans as the President.
And here's the way I feel about it. Despite the news blackout, I don't have any trouble seeing the coffins come into Dover AFB. I see them in my mind's eye almost every day. They look just like the coffins that I carried back from VietNam when I was in the Air Force over 30 years ago.
For those who want to stand on principle and vote for a third party candidate as happened in 2002, please use your imaginations as well as your minds.
David (Austin TX):
You're right: there is some difference between the two parties--even their moderate wings.
They represent two wings of the corporate ruling class. Their constituencies are divided according to how internationalist and capital intensive they are, among other things. In concrete terms, the Demos can be symbolized by a farmer who thinks he can get more labor out of his livestock by treating them humanely and investing money in their health and welfare; and the Repugs by a farmer who thinks he'll come out ahead by working them to death and replacing them. The difference is that between Brave New World and 1984: being smothered by cradle-to-grave paternalism, vs. a boot stamping on your face.
That being said, I'm pretty near being one of the "anybody but Bush" people myself. As much as I hate both parties, I kind of like to stir things up so a thugocracy of one party can't consolidate its control over successive administrations. And the Bush mafia of Halliburton, the Iran-Contra people, etc., are more sinister than most.
My leaning now is to vote for whoever the Libertarian candidate is. Their vote comes disproportionately out of the petty bourgeois/populist section of the GOP mass base. And if the Libertarian vote is bigger than the Democratic margin of victory, it will mean big shake-ups in the GOP establishment. I suspect a lot of people from PNAC and the Weekly Standard will be hitting the breadlines, and the paleocons will be making a comeback.
Of course, if the Demos are lagging significantly behind, I'll probably hold my nose and vote for Dean or whoever. I'd REALLY hate to see Bush reelected--although I expect to see voter discontent over the economy and Iraq translate into substantial GOP losses in Congress, either way.
At some point, we have to face reality and recognize that of the 9 remaining candidates, the one most able to win the White House will win it on personality and charisma. Sad but true.
BS. if that were true, bush would never have beaten ann richards . winning will take connections, power, energy, money and possibly cheating.
BTW, the energy is we the people. and if our energy depends on personality and charisma then we are not democrats (the little "d") kind.
an image will be sold (via advertising and PR). the image doesn't require personality or charisma - not that they wouldn't help, its just they are not required. again, i cite bush as evidence.
i usually don't rant, but after reading the calpundit (who's blog i love) can't be bothered to learn about a third of the candidates before deciding to who to support... and steve gilliard(who's blog i love) argue that we don't have to be worried about our loss of civil liberties and that the rule of law no longer applies to our federal government.
i'm really worried about the state of our democracy when elections are treated like a game... i just don't think some Democrat superhero is going to save us. i think it is up to us - to determine the agenda and the issues.
ok... i feel better now... just really needed to get that off my chest.
i'll try hard to be more polite in the future....
Kevin,
I would certainly like to see a multi party system. One side, I feel, that must make itself felt, is the libertarians. In the industry taht I work there are a number of Libertarians, or people who think they are. These self-professed Libertarians somehow support the Republican agenda, with its corporate welfare, pandering to the religous right, and other interferences with personal choice, etc. My understanding of the Libertarian position on the role of a federal government is contrary to this. Under the Republican presidents of my memory, their agenda has been more of an antithesis of the Libertarian belief structure.
I have asked this question here before, and I will modify it slightly: where are the moderate Republicans, and the Libertarians, wrt this administration?
Is the mere fact that it is a Republican president blinding them to what is happening?
Sorry for diverging so far off topic, here.
Back to your regularly scheduled program.
I find it ironic that in this thread alone I have read some of the same sniping that Atrios was commenting on.
There is a difference between constructive criticism of one of the candidates platforms, and the excessive partisianship that has been occuring within the Democratic party. To adopt the position that we are "Toughening up the candidates" is at best disingenous. It is counterproductive, and does nothing to advance your candidates cause. It only serves to harden peoples position for or against a given position to the exclusion of all others.
Sorry but, Lieberman, Biden, Bayh, Hillary are as close to Bush cronies as one can get without being Republicans.
Huh, that's an interesting, if ridiculous, assertion. But since they are not actually Republican Bush cronies, my comment stands.
David (Austin Tx),
check out antiwar.com for a libertarian persective.
full disclosure: according to politicalcompass.org (via nathan newman) i am a socialist-libertarian.
I went to politicalcompass.org as well. I am a socialist-libertarian as well.
Which ultimately is where I would have placed myself in the quadrant graph that they use.
Wonderwoman-
I will first repeat that to win, the Dems must get their core constituency to vote. Now about the middle 20% - what used to called the Reagan Democrats - I know quite a few. I live in a rural rather conservative area. Bush is not particularly popular, but he, like Reagan, is considered by the folks here as someone who stands up for what he believes. Now they may not necessarilly buy everything he says (polls consistently showed that many Reagan supporters didn't agree with him on most of the issues), but he is perceived as being willing to take a stand. They regard the Democrats are wimpy, whiny and wishy-washy(somewhat alliterative). I believe that if the Democratic candidate makes a strong stand, based on issues that appeal to real Democrats, they will draw that middle group that seeks real leadership.
Inccidently, that seems to be why Dean is doing well. I agree with another poster who analysed Kerry's style. Here is a guy who seems to have everything going for him, intelligence, war hero status, etc, and he comes off as ....well...just like a politician. It hurts to watch him sometimes. John, take a strong stand! Be a real leader!
Right-on Atrios.
Slatsg: You must live in an area that has higher Fox News Channel ratings than I do. "Wimpy, whiny and wishy-washy" are statements right out of their playbook.
I wish I lived in a society where candidates get votes based on just the issues but I honestly don't think the Dems are going to chose their nominee based on troop levels,single payer healthcare, the Patriot Act or Nafta. It's got to be that elusive "electability" thing.
If Selise's statement (or the conventional wisdom)is true that winning the election "will take connections, power, energy, money and possibly cheating" then why do we bother?
AMEN ATRIOS!!!
As my conservative friend put it, "That's the problem with Democrats--you eat your own." (R)s have started to do that a bit lately, so if we could just stop we'd be ahead of the game.
wonderwoman,
and if you are right that winning the election will depend on "personality and charisma" then why bother?
if we want the issues to matter, then it is up to us to make them matter. providing excuses/rationalization on why we should ignore the issues just encourages us to act like sports fans instead of citizens.
I'm not saying that we should ignore the middle. I am saying the best way to reach that middle is to show some spine and some courage. Moving to right has not worked. The Repugs are a lot better at that whole Social Darwin thing than the Dems. Stand for something. It won't guarentee a win, but nominating a reublican lite candidate will guarentee a loss.
I don't think candidates taking a tough line against their primary opponents is a bad thing. The Dems need to get a taste of what the Repubs will throw against them next fall and learn how to counter the attacks.
And in the case of attacks on Dean, the tough line is necessary for the sake of Democratic chances in November.
Dean is a general election loser. His partisans say he can successfully advocate a tax hike for the middle class by saying its fiscally prudent and that it will free money for a national health plan. That's nonsense. Telling working class families you are going to raise their income taxes would be a disaster.
I'm a capitalist-type libertarian, and am an "anyone but Bush, in the absence of the actual Antichrist or someone like that showing up" guy at this point. I have real deep disagreements with all the Democratic candidates...but they all strike me as intelligent and honest people whose flaws are not as deep as Bush's and who each have some merits of their own. I registered Democratic this time around to take part in the primary, but expect to vote and to donate (perhaps time and effort as well as money, depending on who the nominee turns out to be) for whoever the Democratic candidate is.
It's possible to engage in firm criticism without making it a pissing match, I think. I can say, for instance, that while I find much to like in Dean's overall views on the operations of government, I think he's quite wrong on trade and would impair Americans' well-being as well as that of people in other lands with his protectionist policies...and yet that's the kind of issue one can address through lobbying, support of opposition to that particular policy in Congress, and the like, and I can still say that on the whole I think Dean would be a big improvement over Bush. Likewise with all the other candidates, even Lieberman, who comes closer than any other to falling outside my general "anyone but Bush" umbrella. (I work in one of the industries covered by his denunciations of violent entertainment and stuff, and while I'm willing to make some sacrifices for the general good, I'd prefer not to lose my job as the price of beating Bush.)
It's a matter of perspective. As much as specific policies, I'm looking for qualities of character, and even the most morally turpitudinous of the Democratic candidates comes out ahead of Bush there. And since I'm concerned with how decisions get made as well as what ones get made, that counts for a lot with me. I can live with some policies I'd rather not have in exchange for an administration that does not seem to me a harbinger of a new fascism and general ruin both for my country and the world.
Well said, Atrios.
I will vote for any Dem, but Howard Dean scares the hell out of me as our candidate. Fairly or not, my independent friends who are disgusted with Bush also feel Dean is a flake. And I'm concerned that my independent friends are the ones who the election will turn on.
The consequences of a second Bush term are too horrible to consider. I want the most electable candidate.
Democratic Underground has become one such forum. I go there considerably less often because of the candidate rivalry. At this point, I will vote for a soggy cigarette butt or a Chia Pet before I ever vote for Bush.
obviously BM is full of.......BM.
Good post.
In my view the problem that the Democrats have is that their base constituencies are very diverse, equal in strength within the party somewhat, and sometimes at odds with one another. The party itself has been hijacked by one advocacy or special interest group or another bit by bit. It is fractured. The Democratic party has now been bought and sold by the urban black minority in this country. If their massive 90%+ voting records for Democrats vanished the Democratic Party would be dead. The candidates recognize this and you can see it in their eyes. The nomination of Judge Brown to the DC court could be a big thorn in the Democrat's side. Al Sharpton is right on this issue. Let there be a vote. If she is approved, fine. If she is vigorously opposed by Democrats there could be some political head scratching going on in the suburbs and that could be a tilting point. The NACCP won't be running those nasty pickup truck ads again.
Every Democratic candidate has to pander more or less to the many vocal groups that make up his/her party in order to get the nomination and it makes them look like total slobbering fools at times. Most of the candidates aren't, but the campaign season started way too early and here the candidates are unhappily shooting themselves in the foot or wildly shooting at each other. The better the candidate is at pandering the better chance they have of being nominated.
Once the nomination is in hand the candidate can move to the center and hope that his base forgives him or overlooks it. A big chunk of Gore's base deserted him in 2000 and it is one of the reasons he lost. Bush, on the other hand, solidified his extreme right wing base before the election and came into the election able to do and say anything while campaigning in the center. Gore was left pathethicly begging the Greens to vote for him because he didn't see that he had a problem until it was too late. If one element of the Democratic base gets pissed and bails out or doesn't vote they lose. That doesn't give the candidate much political room to move around in. The radical/not so radical elements have him/her hemmed in. It would be nice if both parties could kick the extreme elements of their parties out the door but they can't and have to tolerate their BS (I hate Tom DeLay for example).
Clinton was a political genius in the fact he was able to master keeping his base intact and making liberal or moderate Republicans think he was not a liberal. To get elected in 1996 he essentially became a moderate Republican and pursued a moderate Republican agenda. His base didn't care. He put the Republicans out of business in 1996-2000. Pure liberals do not get elected in this country.
If people still smoked and smoking wasn't outlawed almost everywhere, it would be better if the final party candidate emerged from smoke filled rooms rather than the candidates going around acting like political whores.
I would bet that if
What I want to make damn sure of is that every one of those candidates -- AND their supporters, no matter how insulting they are to one another now -- gets out and BUSTS HIS or HER BUTT to get these bastards out of the White House. I don't want to hear or see any of this ``sitting out'' shit that losers are so fond of doing, sulking and going home to spend ``quality time'' with their families licking their wounds. They -- we all -- MUST get the job done this time or we are going to pay dearly and our children are going to pay even more dearly.
I've been following politics and government since the early '60s and I have NEVER seen a more pernicious, sinister bunch of thugs in the White House in that time. Frankly, Plamegate alone kicks the crap out of Watergate, and the Iraq fiasco knocks the stuffing out of Iran-Contra. And both those were eminently impeachable offenses.
My main guys are Clark and Kerry -- they and the rest had every right to bust Dean for his lame confederate flag sound bites. That vote is never going to come back, and he's a fool to pander to people who aren't listening.
And like it or not, the Democratic nominee simply has to be able to say he will go to war if necessary. That's where we are now as a country. You have to be able to say you're willing to fight as a way of legitimizing a critique of the war's conduct. Again, like it or not, that's where we are. This is not an antiwar country. The post 9/11 anger hasn't diminished in the least and it will destroy a pure antiwar candidate.
But I am encouraged by Dean's growing savvy and his ability to quickly knife through the Bush bullshit to the truth. He is the best of all of them staying on that message. If he can work his whole campaign out as sharply he's going to be a nasty foe for Bush.
But every goddamned last one of them better be OUT THERE before and after the convention, right up until the night before Election Day working their asses off for the Democratic nominee. Because even though I agree with Atrios about the circular firing squad, the quitters and whiners in 2004 are going to get squat from me in 2008.
Many swing voters want to be open-minded about race. Al Sharpton is the kind of man who, if he keeps moving his big mouth much longer, could cause many of these to question that resolution, and turn away from the Democrats. Get out now, Al. (Just as George Bush is the kind of man who confirms blacks' worst suspicions about whites).
far more important than fighting for your particular candidate is fighting to convince the country that Bush has to go.
An inadvertently elegant illustration of the political bankruptcy of the Democrat Party today.
David (Austin TX),
There's actually a sizeable "Libertarians for Dean" movement that's causing a lot of stife in the free market section of the blogosphere.
And despite the rise of hawkish "neo-libertarianism," I think most Americans who are aware of libertarianism at all still identify it with the anti-interventionism of Ron Paul and Harry Browne.
On corporate welfare, there is a big divide between the "vulgar libertarians" (especially mainstream Randroids and Chicago School types) who are little more than apologists for big business, and radicals like Georgists and Rothbardians who see big business as a creation of the State.
Damfacrats respectfully disagree. Dean is a lovable but dangerous choice when it comes to winning.
We think the RNC spin point is generally SILENCE when it comes to Howard Dean because the RNC wants Dean to be the nominee. How many times have Gillespie and others said Dean would be good because he offers the "most clear choice" to George Dubya? The Petrolicans want him to win now because he won't win later, in a shallow American electorate.
Clark in 04 if you don;t mind but by all means let's all back whoever wins.
Well, I'm sure the election staffs of the nominees look at this as their future. Imagine, if your candidate wins, you could be working in the White House. Pretty big incentive. And you need staff that dedicated.
Not that anyone could possibly care even the tiniest bit about this but The Atom Station attacked Damfacrats in regard to the subject matter posted here. Our response is posted at the URL provided.
P.S. Congratulations to Atrios on The New Yorker mention.
I can't vote for Dean...don't like Bush. He didn't figure out he was President until September 12, 2001.
I'm apparently not as partisan as some of you posting here, I only lean left, but if the democratic nominee can't provide an honest policy alternative to Bush, I'm staying home. Gephardt, Lieberman, Edwards, even Kerry are better than Dr. (pick a position, switch my position) Dean. Sharpton is much more presidential and has better leadership than Canned Dean! Dean is like Spam...way too salty and almost no nutritional content.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
