BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

The Democratic Candidate for '04

  
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
Hieronymus
22:49 / 20.01.04
All right. Since there doesn't seem to be a thread following the Democratic primaries and the only real hope of deseating Dubya from the White House, I thought now was as good a time as any.

And according to the Iowa causes, that candidate is Massachusetts Senator John Kerry.

Personally I couldn't be happier. Dean would be a real gamble and ultimately Kerry is far more qualified for the job. Not to mention his ability to bring in moderates from every side of the fence. I'm glad he's moved from relative obscurity to the limelight. Bring on November.
 
 
Jack Fear
00:00 / 21.01.04
Sad, innit, that we're more worried about who'd make a better candidate than who'd actually make a better President?

Kerry may be more electable than Dean--but he's a chilly, arrogant jerk who keeps two sets of advisors on his payroll and plays the one against the other, who keeps his staffers and underlings in constant paranoia, who supported the war in Iraq and then claimed to oppose it.

A note for conspiracy theorists: Kerry, like Dubya, is a Yalie and a Bonesman, so--meet the new boss, same as the old boss: the New World Order, brought to you by Skull and Bones.
 
 
LDones
00:27 / 21.01.04
I was an early Dean backer in the summer, but I've been very unimpressed with his transformation into 'candidate Dean'. His swaggering bravado has turned me and a number of people I know way off. He barely seems to mention the issues in debates anymore, it's all Bush=Evil, Democrats=Jealous of Dean.

A real letdown right now. I like Dean's politics, I just wish they were still in sight.

Kerry's a war veteran, and holds a strong visage behind a podium - it may help him win if the tables don't turn in New Hampshire. And I'm fairly confident they will.
 
 
Hieronymus
03:20 / 21.01.04
Interesting article on the Democratic's political front following the Iowa caucuses.

Personally, I'm not bothered by the fact that Kerry played the 'safe' route politically by supporting the Iraq war. The spin and propaganda coming out of the White House was so intense that even I was having my tiny doubts about Saddam not having weapons. It was meant to cover people's vision in a fog. For Dean to wave that around as his banner claim to fame is grand. But that's not the only thing I'm looking for.

And really, given the bickering, sniping and independent nature of the factions of the Left, I think it'll be a miracle if we do get a solid enough candidate to evict Dubya much less a solid president. Even Lieberman is a marked improvement over a Bush White House (I know, I said it. But it's true).

I read a bumper sticker last week that said "Anybody else for president" that just about sums it up for me. The presidency? Feh. We'll worry about that when or if we actually get a chance at it. Right now, it's anybody's game.
 
 
FinderWolf
15:16 / 23.01.04
For me, it's gotta be Wesley Clark in 2004. Read up on him, he's the best candidate by far and the only one with a real chance to beat Bush. He can get the Midwest and the South, something no other Democrat can. And he's a good guy - very intelligent with lots of military and foreign experience. That's my two cents.
 
 
+#'s, - names
16:26 / 23.01.04
Too bad Wesley Clark has lapses of memory when it comes to being for or against the Iraq war.
 
 
FinderWolf
20:15 / 23.01.04
Clark has said he had problems with not so much that it was done but the way it was done (alienating Europe, not looking for UN approval, lying to the American people about Saddam definitely having WMD as opposed to concealing weapons programs, rushing the war which distracted focus from the effort against al Qaeda & Bin Laden). Even if did change his mind on the subject would that really make you think he sucks if in every other way he was the best candidate to defeat Bush?

From all the research I've done, he said from the beginning (years ago) that Saddam was a menace who needed to be dealt with eventually. But as for the steps the Bush admin. took to wage war against him, and the way it was done, Clark has never been too keen on the way they did it, as far as I've seen. But I'm open-minded about this - I just haven't seen an article where Clark is quoted as saying "The Iraq war was a great idea and it was handled beautifully." He even wrote a book called WINNING MODERN WARS, which I'm reading now, where he basically says 'it might have been the right thing to do, but the timing was rushed and the way in which it was done was pretty horrible.'
 
 
FinderWolf
20:16 / 23.01.04
And Michael "Bowling for Columbine" Moore endorsed Clark recently with a long, thoughtful, point-by-pointed letter which can be found on Moore's website, for what it's worth.
 
 
raelianautopsy
09:40 / 25.01.04
Don't forget that Wesley Clark was also involved in Waco. I also don't see how the guy that ran the Yugoslavian war -a war over oil based on lies and killed thousands of civilians, sound familar?- is any sort of improvement over Bush.

Almost all of the Democratic candidates are hypocrite politicians that are no diffirent than any other Republicrat. Sharpton isn't but he is too nuts, Kucinich has integrity but I'm not a socialist so I wouldn't vote for him either. Most likely I will continue to vote for a third party just to make a point.

There is a possibility I could see myself voting for Dean though. As someone who hates big government liberals as much as big business conservatives, I could see Dean going centrist on some issues important to me that are more conservative than Bush's, such as gun rights and balancing budgets. But we'll see.
 
 
sleazenation
10:47 / 25.01.04
a bit thread rotty but

raelian - i don't recall Clark running a ' yugoslavian war' (sic) - I also fail to recall any significant role the supply or even existance of oil reserves played in the conflict. I do recall the former Yugoslavia falling into internal conflict that eventually saw it ripped apart in a bloody ethnic conflict - a conflict that the UN and eventually others intervened in.

Can you underline the logic of your claim about the guy that ran the Yugoslavian war -a war over oil based on lies and killed thousands of civilians?
 
 
Not Here Still
11:14 / 25.01.04
To paraphrase Bill Hicks, I think that Wesley Clark is the puppet on the left more to my choosing. And 'politician tells less than the whole truth' is hardly a shocker of a headline, is it?

As mentioned above, he has backing from the new priest of the popular left, Michael Moore:
"This is not about voting for who is more anti-war or who was anti-war first or who the media has already anointed. It is about backing a candidate that shares our values AND can communicate them to Middle America. I am convinced that the surest slam dunk to remove Bush is with a four-star-general-top-of-his-class- at-West-Point-Rhodes-Scholar-Medal-of-Freedom-winning-gun-owner-from-the-South -- who also, by chance, happens to be pro-choice, pro environment, and anti-war. You don't get handed a gift like this very often.

Not the best bet ever, perhaps, but when do you get such a candidate anyways?

Re Kosovo (one of the main Balkan wars, where Wesley Clark was, at the time, NATO commander, IIRC)

1: George Monbiot argues that the war did have an oil-relatd motive and was linked to a Caspian Sea oil pipeline plan in the area: "...The pipeline does not pass through the former Yugoslavia, but there's no question that it featured prominently in Balkan war politics. On 9th December 1998, the Albanian president attended a meeting about the scheme in Sofia, and linked it inextricably to Kosovo. "It is my personal opinion," he noted, "that no solution confined within Serbian borders will bring lasting peace." The message could scarcely have been blunter: if you want Albanian consent for the Trans-Balkan Pipeline, you had better wrest Kosovo out of the hands of the Serbs. "

Meanwhile, there is a page of critical links on Clark Here

Basically, he's dodgy, but he might beat Bush...
 
 
passer
14:20 / 25.01.04
I think this campaign has already boiled down to anyone but bush with a twist of who will attract the greatest number of fence sitters. Which is why Mr. Clark, closeted republican, is looking good to a great many people. Who better to beat an out there republic than a republican mild enough to pretend to be a democrat? However he's still not as good as Kerry who has brand name recognition and a strong political background.

On a side note, Dean is also from the same background as bush: wealthy family legacy, prep school educated, yale graduate. Funny how diffrent they sound now isn't it?
 
 
Hieronymus
16:01 / 25.01.04
Feh. Moore isn't my priest. His endorsement of Clark is just one reason I'm not voting for the guy. One of many.

Here's to hoping the division gets smoothed away into a single individual. We don't need a repeat of the Nader/Gore indecision/apathy. Not this time.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
16:22 / 25.01.04
Dean is also from the same background as bush: wealthy family legacy, prep school educated, yale graduate. Funny how diffrent they sound now isn't it?

Sorry what are you trying to say here? That the same financial background and a similar education immediately mean that you have the same beliefs or the same experiences? If you judge people on this level or indeed take these vague similarities to Bush as a valid criticism of Dean than you really need to think about the way you're reading information.
 
 
passer
19:04 / 25.01.04
This:
On a side note, Dean is also from the same background as bush: wealthy family legacy, prep school educated, yale graduate. Funny how diffrent they sound now isn't it?

Was a side note response to this:
A note for conspiracy theorists: Kerry, like Dubya, is a Yalie and a Bonesman, so--meet the new boss, same as the old boss: the New World Order, brought to you by Skull and Bones.

Which was acually a half hearted effort to make the very point you made. I'll try to remember to spell these things out a bit more next time.
 
 
raelianautopsy
20:53 / 25.01.04
Thank you Hot Me Again for providing the links that prove my point about the Yugoslavian War being over oil so I don't have to.

For some reason I seem to be able to forgive Dean for supporting unilateral action in the Balkans though. But he has become more sympathetic to me since the media declared him insane for yelling. What is wrong with the world when its considered good for politicians to be un-emotional robots and raising your voice makes you unfit for being a president. The media really, really skewered Dean over that, it doesn't make any sense. So that makes him more fit in my eyes.

It is also good for everyone that Gephardt droped out.
 
 
sleazenation
22:55 / 25.01.04
Really not wanting to rot this thread but i think this is relevant, even if only tangentally -

I've had a look at the links (thanks not me again) I was certainly unaware of the alleged connection between the trans-Balkan pipeline and NATO intervention in the northern borders of Macedonia, but as Monbiot himself states in the piece from the 15th Feb 2001 Guardian piece
I can't tell you that the war in the former Yugoslavia was fought solely in order to secure access to oil from new and biddable states in central Asia.

The pipeline deal might have been the tipping point that finally prompted NATO to intervene in the ongoing ethnic massacres in and around Kosovo, but I am not convinced that A) there is an equivelancy, moral or otherwise, between NATO's actions in Kosovo and the US led coalition's action against Iraq or that B) Gen. Clark had influence on the political decision to deploy a NATO force or consequently that C) the comparison raelian draws between two wars as both being over oil based on lies and killed thousands of civilians isn't much more than hyperbole.

Not me again's further links on General Clark's past history were also interesting. Some of the allegations about his past seemed more substantial than others. Particularly the precise role Clark played in the deployment of military equipment during the Waco siege bears closer scrutiny. The well-reported run-in between Clark and Gen. Sir Mike Jackson certainly doesn't bode well for Clark's judgement or handeling of international politics.




Passer also brings up an interesting point
I think this campaign has already boiled down to anyone but bush with a twist of who will attract the greatest number of fence sitters.

Are people willing to get behind *whoever* gets the Democrat nomination (over and above any independant candidate such as Ralph Nader) just to get rid of Bush?

I'm genuinely torn on the issue.

Are people convinced that the need to ensure Bush is not re-elected, outweighs all other considerations?
 
 
Jack Fear
01:09 / 26.01.04
Absolutely, Sleaze: the political discourse on the American Left (as exhibited on the Web, anyway) boils down to Anyone But Bush. Playwright Tony Kushner used those very words in a recent interview on TomPaine.com; witness also MoveOn.org's recent "Bush In 30 Seconds" contest, the entire aim of which was to create an advert that slammed Dubya as hard as possible.

What are you for? Who cares? It only matters what (and who) you're against. It's to the point now where many on the Left are heaping shame & blame on Ralph Nader (who many of them probably voted for in 2000) for "costing Gore the election."

I thought Nader's candidacy was a brave if quixotic attempt to show the inadequcies of a restrictive two-party system, myself, but his name is mud in the very progressive circles where he was once hailed as the future of politics--and now John Fucking Kerry is the Great White Hope of progressive politics? We're through the gaddam looking glass.

Oh, and by the way, all wars are about oil. Didn't you get the memo? Always oil. Never, ever reasons of simple human decency. Only ever oil. Or the Jews. Who control the oil. Have you forgotten? Do you not see? Have you been neglecting to wear your tinfoil hat to block the Zionist mind-control rays?

Passer: Kerry, Leiberman, and Dean all graduated from Yale, this is true--but only Kerry was a member of Skull & Bones.
 
 
raelianautopsy
10:40 / 26.01.04
Mr. sleazenation, the Yugoslavian War and the Iraq war were almost the exact same thing. The real diffirence that people seem to judge them by is that one president had a 'D' after his name and the other has an 'R' after his name.

I'll not vote for the lesser evil, either a Democrat with integrety is the candidate or I'll take my vote elsewhere. This twisted two-party/Republicrat system is very much a part of how we got into this mess. Anyone want to have a revolution to get a parliamentary government in play so that the politians can even margiannaly represent the people?
 
 
Ethan Hawke
12:31 / 26.01.04
Jack, I think, at this point, "Anyone but Bush" is certainly a legitimate position to take. No matter how unprogressive the eventually Democratic nominee will be, they're still MUCH more progressive (in different ways and to different degrees) than Bush, and given the rightward slant of the country, incrementalism is the best we can do, right now. What I'm trying to say is, Dennis Kucinich is NOT going to set the heartland on fire with his ideas. The "realm of the possible," the context within which operable policy discussions takes place, is much more constricted and conservative than I would like, though it's a good thing that Kucinich and even Sharpton are still in the debates to broaden the universe of all possible U.S. political positions. The center has to shift for progressive change to take place, and that won't happen radically, overnight. It will take someone like Kerry or an Edwards who is middle-of-the-road but is actually left-of-center of the dominant discourse in american politics, to incrementally shift what people are willing to consider.
 
 
FinderWolf
17:33 / 26.01.04
I'm glad to see a good discussion on both sides about Clark - and as much as I'm a supporter of the guy, I'm open to reasonably intelligent counter-arguments against him as well, for the sake of promoting healthy debate about it. I'm going to read Not Me Again's page of Clark criticism very carefully (thanks again, NMA!).

I do know that Clark was asked to quit his NATO leadership early because, among other clashes with top brass and command, he argued very strongly to deploy NATO forces to stop the ethnic cleansing that no one else wanted to stop. The oil connection that some have drawn here seems a bit dodgy and speculative at least (and it's the first I've heard of even the possibility of such a connection), as sleazenation has said, but I don't consider it entirely out of the realm of possibility.

I would seriously disagree with raelianautopsy's contention that the Iraq war and the military action to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo are remotely 'the same thing,' but hey, as someone famous once said, I will defend to the death your right to hold any view you like.

The race for the democratic nomination has become increasingly muddy, as Clark doesn't seem to be embraced by the public as the new-Clinton democratic savior he could be, and now we've got Kerry and Edwards, neither of whom I think has the remotest shot at beating Bush (but who both seem like decent guys and decent candidates), as front-runners (or at least getting the spotlight for now after their Iowa victories). I don't think Dean, Kerry or Edwards could really beat Bush. I think Clark's the only one who has a realistic chance, image-wise, security-issue-wise, and for many other reasons. (I also think that in order to have a Democrat win, the midwest and South bloks are gonna need a Democrat who sort of smells like a Republican at first glance. A right-leaning Democrat, if you will.)

One thing we all agree on is that we hate Bush and are sick of him, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rice, Rumsfeld, and even Colin Powell, who I used to have respect for but have pretty much lost almost all of it.

But Bush will probably win because most of us Americans are complacent, terrified sheep, and the "Anybody But Bush" sentiment, which I admit I feel as well, will probably help ensure Bush's victory. (I say this only because it seems like people are caring less about who the actual Democratic nominee is than that there is a Democratic candidate of some sort in 5 months). It's a very good statment passer made about 'anybody but bush, plus who will attract and potentially win over the most fence-sitters.' This is gonna be a weird election - it's already a weird nominating process for the Dems, that's for sure.

This is a very cool discussion on the subject.
 
 
Simplist
20:28 / 26.01.04
Too bad Wesley Clark has lapses of memory when it comes to being for or against the Iraq war.

Clark's problem re:Iraq isn't so much that he's been inconsistent; rather it's that his position over time was nuanced and somewhat ambivalent, which doesn't translate well into slogan/soundbite-driven election-speak. Unfortunately, most people aren't going to sit still for the time it would take to detail his actual position, with its various exceptions and qualifications, nor will news outlets print it in detail in any case, preferring to cherry-pick only the most potentially controversial sentences within, or those which can be used to support the prevalent Clark-narrative (ie. he flip-flops).

That said, I initially did see Clark as the most viable candidate--he looked great on paper--but have since concluded that this campaign will better serve as a practice run for the General so he can return as a stronger, more gaffe-free candidate the next time around, should Bush not be defeated this year.

(For the record, I don't even know much about Clark's actual positions, nor, all things considered, do I really care about them (I assume he's toeing some version of a basic centrist Dem line)--getting Bush out of office is beyond paramount at this point IMO, so my candidate considerations are focused pretty much exclusively on electability this year, specific issues be damned.)
 
 
passer
23:17 / 26.01.04
I'm eager to see what happens with New Hampshire, although I think South Carolina as the first southern state will be paticulary interesting. I think the midwest and the south will once again give the democratic party trouble. As much flack as they gave Dean for reaching out, and as poor a job as he did, the democrats need to do something. So far that something has simply been Edwards and Clark, neither of whom I see reaching high percentages. I have to wonder if they're being sized up for vice president slots.

As far as getting rid of bush, sadly I feel tht the casualty rate in iraq and the economy will have more to do with that than the qualifications of the democratic candidate.

To continue the moderate thread rot: Why don't the other secret socieites ever get the press that skull and bones gets? Because they understand the word secret.
 
 
raelianautopsy
01:15 / 27.01.04
This whole "anyone but Bush" thing that everyone is willing to sell out their ideals for is represenative of everything that is wrong with America. The two parties are almost exactly alike. I don't think any "centrist" Democrat would really have done anything that substationally diffirent than Bush. Now it has become chic to say your against the war but most of the candidates voted for it! I still will vote my conscience and Clark or Kerry are no diffirent then Bush so no one else should see any reason to vote for them.
 
 
Jack Fear
12:41 / 27.01.04
Astonishingly enough, I agree with raelianautopsy in this instance (rest assured, it'll never happen again )

Todd, I'm afraid that the "Anyone But Bush" strategy, looking at the long-term consequences, could put the final nail in the coffin of progressive politics in the American mainstream.

In the name of "electability," the Clintonistas spent the 90s marginalizing the progressive voices of the Democratic Party, and overseeing the Party's continuous rightward drift. And they won a lot of elections, but in substantive terms, they got fuck-all done.

Why? Because conservative voices continued to define the agenda--with the acquiescence of the Democrats.

So when I see Clark or Kerry or, G-d help us, Leiberman rabbiting on about Patriotism and Faith and Family Values, I just cringe: the conservatives own these issues. And by making them central to the Democratic identity, what the DNC (controlled now, of course, by the Clinton contingent) has done is to give conservatives control over both parties, by giving them, in effect, veto power over Democratic candidates.

So the conventional wisdom says that a cautious moderate like Howard Dean can't even get nominated, because he's "unelectable" (read: too "liberal").

So the Democratic Party continues to eviscerate itself from within--to paraphrase Nietszche, becoming a monster in order to fight monsters. And in the end, when the transformation is complete, it doesn't matter which side you're on: your candidate is still a monster, and even if the Democrats win, progressivism loses.

Dean (along with Kucinich and Sharpton, but they hardly count) is attempting to largely sidestep that, to get the Democratic Party to engage in a conversation with its constituents, to define the issues for itself instead of letting the other guys do it for them. They understand (although they've never clearly articulated) that fighting the other guy on his own chosen terms is a sucker's game: it might get you elected, but it cripples you in terms of actually Doing The Job.

The DNC, however, has decided that Winning is good enough in itself, and has moved steadily to destroy Dean, tomarginalize Kucnich and Sharpton. It saddens me to see so many progressives being lulled by the DNC's argument, which I think is ultimately self-destructive: and it saddens me to see so many progressives turning on Ralph Nader with such bitterness and fury.
 
 
FinderWolf
14:46 / 27.01.04
>> The two parties are almost exactly alike. I don't think any "centrist" Democrat would really have done anything that substationally diffirent than Bush.

I *strongly* disagree that a Democrat would have done pretty much all the same stupid, outrageous stuff that George W. has so far. Just look at Clinton's presdiency, for example, as compared to Bush's, even though obviously 9/11 didn't happen on Clinton's watch. Environment, financial policy, foreign relations, domestic issues, America's image in the world, domestic social causes... a world of difference. I'm sorry that some seem to have lost all faith that there is something positive to be gained from the form of gov't & elections we currently have in the US, but I respect your opinion.
 
 
FinderWolf
14:52 / 27.01.04
I really don't mean to sound snotty, as I reread my post and realize that it could be taken as such - I guess I'm just saying that I think there is something to be gained in the US gov't as it is now, with all its problems and corruption, and that I strongly disagree with the ideas that Democrats and Republicans are the same and that Clinton got 'fuck-all' done. But I think Jack Fear hits the nail on the head about the Democratic party's desperate, searching attempts to find itself and reclaim some of the issues as their own.
 
 
freespirit
15:10 / 27.01.04
How can anyone be dumb enough to be hoodwinked by US elections?

The self-appointed "leader of the Free World" is so undemocratic that you can't put a cigarette paper between the policies of the only 2 political parties!
 
 
Hieronymus
16:03 / 27.01.04
Well I'm certainly lost as to what the complaint is. To think that an opportunity for the left = death of progressivism is something I fail to understand. Was Clinton more right than left? You bet. But Clinton was a master at co-opting the populist values in an effort to slide in leftist legislation, populist values that the Republicans once claimed as their own. There's nothing new here.

The problem with the current election, in so far as the White House will have to battle, is that populist centrism can't be sung by the Bush administration anymore. It was used to propel him in his election campaign (examples being the voter confusion between Bush and Gore at the time of the debates) but it was hastily abandoned post 2000. So now you have a stark extreme, representing one constituency and one constituency alone. The rich paranoid Protestant.

So now an opportunity exists by the progressives to exploit that current track record. Fact is, the Democratic party is the only viable vehicle of arrival of a left agenda right now (I respect what Nader tried to do but he was the frickin' left answer to Ross Perot. Right place, wrong time. One more piece of evidence that the Progressive Left, when given half a chance, will endeavor to undermine itself).

Michael Lind wrote a fantastic book about how for the longest time Republicans since Nixon have used the tactic of centrism vs. extremism to gain advantage at the voting polls. The Quiet Majority, et al. That doesn't work anymore. When you light a match to overtime pay, even blue collar Republicans start to grumble.

And for chrissakes, the DNC doesn't marginalize Sharpton and Kucinich. Sharpton and Kucinich do well enough marginalizing themselves (Department of Peace? Good god. Somebody get the man off the stage). Save for those two and Joe Lieberman, I personally couldn't be happier with the stable of contenders right now. We've got a damn good chance this year.

So in my opinion, Jack, the progressive agenda isn't dead nor has it been marginalized. Far from it. Dean's proof positive that the people just needed to be energized, reminded. Unfortunately the spearhead of that progressive agenda at the moment is more or less multilateralism and moderation on the social issues and getting into the White House to make those changes. Kerry will probably end up as the final horse in the race and that's fine with me.

I say do whatever it takes. The only other option is another four years of Bush. And to me, that option is unacceptable.
 
 
Hieronymus
16:05 / 27.01.04
Well I'm certainly lost as to what the complaint is. To think that an opportunity for the left = death of progressivism is something I fail to understand. Was Clinton more right than left? You bet. But Clinton was a master at co-opting the populist values in an effort to slide in leftist legislation, populist values that the Republicans once claimed as their own. There's nothing new here.

The problem with the current election, in so far as the White House will have to battle, is that populist centrism can't be sung by the Bush administration anymore. It was used to propel him in his election campaign (examples being the voter confusion between Bush and Gore at the time of the debates) but it was hastily abandoned post 2000. So now you have a stark extreme, representing one constituency and one constituency alone. The rich paranoid Protestant.

So now an opportunity exists by the progressives to exploit that current track record. Fact is, the Democratic party is the only viable vehicle of arrival of a left agenda right now (I respect what Nader tried to do but he was the frickin' left answer to Ross Perot. Right place, wrong time. One more piece of evidence that the Progressive Left, when given half a chance, will endeavor to undermine itself).

Michael Lind wrote a fantastic book about how for the longest time Republicans since Nixon have used the tactic of centrism vs. extremism to gain advantage at the voting polls. The Quiet Majority, et al. That doesn't work anymore. When you light a match to overtime pay, even blue collar Republicans start to grumble.

And for chrissakes, the DNC doesn't marginalize Sharpton and Kucinich. Sharpton and Kucinich do well enough marginalizing themselves (Department of Peace? Good god. Somebody get the man off the stage). Save for those two and Joe Lieberman, I personally couldn't be happier with the stable of contenders right now. We've got a damn good chance this year.

So in my opinion, Jack, the progressive agenda isn't dead nor has it been marginalized. Far from it. Dean's proof positive that the people just needed to be energized, reminded. Unfortunately the spearhead of that progressive agenda at the moment is more or less multilateralism and moderation on the social issues and getting into the White House to make those changes. Kerry will probably end up as the final horse in the race and that's fine with me.

I say do whatever it takes. The only other option is another four years of Bush. And to me, that option is unacceptable.
 
 
bjacques
17:03 / 27.01.04
I voted for Nader last time, but I won't again. I really think he should have dropped out in the last few weeks, when he saw the way the numbers were going, and made a "thanks, and keep 'em honest"-type speech. I didn't like his disappearing act after the election. I supported his politics then and still do. If nothing else, Bush and his gang of thieves, thugs and fixers proved there are still differences between the Republicans and Democrats, even "New Democrats." We'll never know how Gore would have handled 11/9, but the Democrats didn't have any 5-year-old plan to dust Iraq, and they certainly wouldn't have had an Attorney General so scary and inept that he lost a Senate race to a dead man.

I want someone like Dean to get the nomination and in the meantime at least address the issues that Kucinich is raising. I'll even hold my nose and vote for Clark or *shudder* Lieberman if I have to. "Anyone but Bush" doesn't necessarily have to mean matching his political positions. It does mean being able to handle the worst Karl Rove can throw at them.

The GOP own most of the conservative values, but the one they lost long ago is honor. The "honor" of the Republicans is that of revenge and sanctimony. For all their talk of defending the US, they keep ripping off the country and the soldiers stationed overseas in its name. When a former ambassador undercut their fish story about Hussein buying uranium from Niger, they got revenge on his *wife*!

The Democratic Party is in dire need of soul-searching, true, but if they don't get in this year, it'll be mostly theoretical. "I would rather be right than President!" was said by politician Henry Clay, who helped us into a useless war against the British in 1812. The GOP is full of people who demand to be "right"--William Burroughs's very definition of "shits," vs. "Johnsons." That and power make a dangerous mix, but "rightness" without power is just masturbation. The Democrats being "right" is a loser either way.
 
 
Simplist
17:51 / 27.01.04
This whole "anyone but Bush" thing that everyone is willing to sell out their ideals for is represenative of everything that is wrong with America. The two parties are almost exactly alike. I don't think any "centrist" Democrat would really have done anything that substationally diffirent than Bush.

That's where you're wrong. Post-9/11, Gore would surely have invaded Afghanistan much as Bush did. However, there's no reason to think he would then have invaded Iraq. The Iraq war was a pet project of a number of top Bush advisers, publically advocated as early as 1998 in this letter sent to President Clinton, and signed by Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, and other now-familiar names. 9/11 was essentially used as cover for what this crowd had planned from the time Bush took office. Again, there's no evidence I'm aware of that Gore or anyone around him had similiar intentions.

Back in 2000 I also bought into the whole "parties are identical" nonsense, and "voted my conscience". Since then I've developed a considerably more nuanced view of what "voting your conscience" really consists of. What it specifically does not consist of IMO, is reflexively voting for a candidate who more or less represents my views, but has absolutely no chance of winning. With someone like Bush in office, that strategy just amounts to irresponsible lefty navel-gazing. No, this year my conscience tells me to vote for anyone who has a real chance of unseating Bush, period. There's no plausible candidate out there that wouldn't be a massive improvement in almost every way.
 
 
pachinko droog
19:18 / 27.01.04
I rather like the idea of the election becoming an in-house feud among members of a secret society (Skull & Bones). But realistically, its all just spokesmuppets from now on. (And has been for quite some time.)

Kerry is the "safe" candidate with appeal to moderates and independents alike, and even though a gifted 10-year old could out-debate Bush, Kerry has that "Presidential" look and sound to him. And money. Gobs of it. Connections too, no doubt.

But even if he were elected, I wouldn't expect any fundamental changes in what the US is doing to the world at large. NAFTA & GATT will stay in place. US troops will remain in Iraq and Afghanistan. Billions will still be sent to Israel. The oil and arms industry people will still be doing what they do best. And the US will continue to export jobs to the Third World, blue and white collar alike. And don't forget that growing rich/poor divide or the deteriorating enviroment. Or the deficit.

Feh.

Wake me when its over.
 
 
raelianautopsy
19:51 / 27.01.04
So no one agrees with, me? Too bad.

I know all about the Project for a New American Century imperialist plans, but I still say that most "centrist" Democrats would have invaded Iraq. Bill (and Hillary) Clinton totally support this war. The Clinton administration continued the previous Bush's administrations policies on Iraq with the sanctions and continuous bombings. Saddam was just saved around as a distraction when ever one was needed and Clinton just happened to bomb them in 1998 when he got in trouble and the impeachment proceedings were postponed. In order for the WMD lie to have worked Clinton must have been totally in on it all through the 90's.

The fact that John Kerry and Wesley Clark supported the war but now don't is common knowledge. What would they have done if they were president, start the war but now be against it?

And the war isn't the only issue in the world. Clinton signed us in to NAFTA. Bush is spending incredible amounts of money on non-defense funds selling out real Conservative values of limited government. How lucky we are to have a two-party system with so much diversity of political viewpoints.

So vote for your "electable" Democrat and maybe we'll get 10% less imperialism. God bless America.
 
 
FinderWolf
19:55 / 27.01.04
>> Kerry is the "safe" candidate with appeal to moderates and independents alike, and even though a gifted 10-year old could out-debate Bush, Kerry has that "Presidential" look and sound to him. And money. Gobs of it. Connections too, no doubt.

I think Kerry looks like a vertically-faced nerd who should be wearing a pocket protector, but that's just me. I don't think he looks very presidential at all. It seems like not many people did, until he won Iowa.
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply