2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

timber

It's not merely that the 'left' is playing to a dwindling audience, it's that sophistication and complexity is playing to a dwindling audience. I don't know, for example, if there are any soley classical music labels still viable. And there are echoes of this trend in publishing as well, evident on any newstand.

There seems to be a clear sense in which 'wallets' determine votes, but I think that is a less valuable observation than people commonly take it to be. First of all, it ignores much of what else is going on, as in the corporate control of media in the hands of fewer and fewer, and the increasing expertise and ability in using media as a marketing tool for political ideas. Last week, I talked with a couple of Vancouver families regarding the war in Iraq. Both offered up the notion that the war was a blow against international terrorism. When I dug in a bit, seeking their rationale for this conclusion, they acknowledged that they didn't really know of any clear connection, they'd just assumed it from what they'd been seeing on TV. As you know, in your clearer moments, it's no coincidence that this idea sits in a lot of noggins.

But my main beef with the notion that 'wallets' establish what appears on the horizon is that it's amoral, effectively equating market with what ought to be. But the entire rationale for ALL our institutions is to set up controls between IS and OUGHT. Our courts, to mitigate against horrid cruelties and injustices. Our building codes exist to protect our kids from being crushed because builders couldn't be trusted to do what they ought.

Your point is a good one in terms of acknowledging some realities about any effective political movement in this context, but a broader view of why what you say is true ought to have you burning your Republican membership card.

PD, interesting link...what do we know about the writer, David Swanson?

Wallets increasingly determine values, don't they. The spokesperson for the Baghdad museum talked about the horrible loss but also expressed it in terms of billions of dollars.

It's a fact of life that the bottom line is, of course, quite far from the brain and the heart.

"... it's that sophistication and complexity is playing to a dwindling audience." This is what makes it harder and harder to stay in this country. We are getting more boring -- by leaps and bounds. Much worse, our intolerance of complexity has created the protein fueling the move to the right.

Wallets have always determined values and it is romantic nonsense to pretend otherwise. In fact, the Democrats' best hope of regaining the White House is for Americans to vote their wallets next year, i.e., to worry more about the economy and the job market than about terrorism and the international scene. Bush is highly vulerable on the economy no matter how many countries he invades. People voted their wallets in 1992 which is how we got rid of Bush's father and ushered in Clinton.

David Swanson's website - which has some interesting stuff.

http://www.davidswanson.org/

Tartarin - the moussed hair is almost a symbol. It pervades the ranks. Trent Lott's hair never moved; neither did Kay Bailey Hutchison (big hair from Texas) till she got friendly with Hillary and had a make-over. Neither does Bush's. All this hair-in-place is an indication of the regimented mind sitting under the surface.

I'm not so convinced of the dwindling audience. I used to be, but I'm slowly changing my mind. We all talk about the sheep-like audience out there, but there are signs of growth among some literature now being written. Ballet is coming back; more performances this year in things like the NY State ballet, as well as smaller groups springing up. And the candidates the other night are not really a stupid group. They have tested the waters (via discussion groups, panels, mall surveys, etc) to see what they should talk about. We may say Dean is a straight talker, but he also has gone around listening to what people say, and tailoring a lot of his statements to that research. And what he's saying is not just to the wallet holders.

And, too, the wallets are getting thinner, and kept in pockets more. which is forcing thinking into other directions. Fear is a mighty weapon. And if there is growing fear over specifics such as cost of food, high-rent living, no health care available, fire houses closing, schools closing and offering less and less - these are the things that start hitting home, and greatly affect the wallet. An empty wallet sometimes is more important than waving a small flag.

Proof positive that power can be achieved by the hair impaired:

etcetera, etcetera, etcetera!

The trouble is, Mamajuana (I speak as one who has worked in arts organizations and as a fund raiser), wallets work their "magic" in the arts, too, looking for common denominators. The arts are vigorous but not as independent as they should be -- not by far. Still, "wallets" have not "always determined values," nor should they continue to. Just because something "was" doesn't mean it has to or should be. I don't mind at all if the walletless were to determine the outcome of the 2004 election! -- but will the walletless vote?

Blatham's values are the ones I'd like to see predominate: "...the entire rationale for ALL our institutions is to set up controls between IS and OUGHT.."

To clarify, I didn't intend to say that economic factors aren't important in peoples' choice. Those of us not in tune with this present administration (he euphemistically phrases) can hope folks suffer economically over the next year and a half.

But Larry's claim "Wallets have always determined values and it is romantic nonsense to pretend otherwise" and the more tempered version from timber simply omits too much else.

Obviously, this war will have costs to all. Yet look at the folks who are in support. That's not pocketbook they are thinking. The people doing PR for the war are playing on cultural mythology, and that's trumping pocketbook.

"The people doing PR for the war are playing on cultural mythology, and that's trumping pocketbook."

Wish I'd said that.

Tartarin

Feel free to steal anything I say and put your name on it. So long, that is, if you're willing to go dutch on the deal.

I do! I just mailed your entire paragraph about conservatives and hair etc. to a friend. But I gave you credit -- "a neat guy in Vancouver." I didn't mention the 1920's garb, nor your title.

Dazed and confused Democrats search for a spare spine:

New York Times

...Voters Support Kerry

"'I'm Bob Graham,' the Florida senator said, offering a business card to Karen Garriepy as she lunched with co-workers from a law firm in downtown Manchester (NH) ."

"'You're running for … ?' she asked. After Graham filled in the blank, Garriepy asked which political party he belonged to, and where he was from. Garriepy, who described herself as 'an independent with Democratic leanings,' said she wasn't very familiar with any of the candidates yet. 'I'll probably be checking him out online,' she said of the senator."

Which would currently be impossible because he has no campaign web site (ABC News' The Note)

The Boston Globe's Names column writes that Ohio state senator John Carey has been getting some of Senator Kerry's e-mail, ever since the "regime change" remark, and mostly negative e-mails at that ("'Look at the polls, understand that we get it, you do not and you are committing political suicide with your remarks'").

Despite John Carey's small flurry of largely hostile missives, "Kerry has received about 2,000 e-mail messages critical of his comments and about 4,000 'asking how they can help,' said Kelley Benander, a spokeswoman for Kerry's campaign....

The Boston Herald has checked out Senator Kerry's FEC report, and seems particularly interested in the "20 flights aboard his wife Teresa Heinz's corporate jet on the presidential campaign trail this year."

The Herald duo write that Senator Kerry paid a total of $39,781 for use of the jet, owned by Flying Squirrel Inc., which is owned in turn by... Teresa Heinz.

ABC News' The Note

Lost amid the end of the war and the Edwards/Kerry bailiwick has been a search for truth about why Senator Joe Lieberman appeared to some not to do terribly well in early fundraising. The Courant's man in Washington calls the $3 million sum "dismal" and he deftly wades through a tricky current: why many Jews are uncomfortable with Lieberman and don't automatically support him.

"Perhaps more troubling for his 2004 presidential bid, he has only $1.8 million left. That placed him fifth in the cash derby, behind former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who had $2 million."

Hartford Courant

It's an absolute necessity for the Democrats to drop the silly notion of the 2002 mid-term elections; that they will be able to set aside national security in favor of preferred Democratic domestic issues if they vote with Bush on foreign policy. Once again, they failed to appreciate that the Republicans will portray their opponents in whatever way suits their game plan regardless of their actual record or personal history or even factual accuracy. There is no margin in trying to appease them because they will only move the goalposts or lie outright if that's what it takes to stay on message.

Bush has a formidable advantage going into 2004 and it's not just because of incumbency and money but because many in this country are drawn to the nostalgic spirit of God and Country that is being marketed and sold by the Republicans like it was Classic Coke. Patriotic symbols of strength and superiority make them feel secure at a time when the world seems confusing and chaotic. Questioning authority is deemed unsafe for any number of reasons, not the least of which is the resulting harsh criticism by those in power.

George W. Bush will be marketed as a visionary foreign policy genius and battle-hardened commander who is the only man in the race seasoned and experienced enough to win the war on terror. He will be wrapped tightly in the flag with brass bands and yellow ribbons and allusions to the great victories of WWII. He will speak of high hopes and serious challenges and he will wield his great personal defeat of Saddam as a weapon against any little pissant who has the balls to suggest they should replace him before he's even begun to smite evil once and for all. (Oh yes, and we need more religion and tax cuts too. Cue "I'm Proud To Be An American.")

The media, having already learned that patriotism sells, will be signing on to the campaign not so much because of explicit political bias but because the image the Republicans are selling is an image that Americans want to buy. Mostly, that comes down to Good America, Strong America.

I believe that Democrats should give no ground on this. IMHO they represent real American values and have every right to use traditional language and symbols of patriotism to express it. They are the ones who stand for the Constitution and the American system of justice, which we should all hold so dear that even in times of war we do not waver. Democrats are the ones who believe in the values of liberty, equality, and opportunity and Democrats are the ones who work to ensure that every American, not just the privileged, share in them. Democrats are the ones who have faith that America is strong enough to survive any challenge without sacrificing those values. The flag and Sousa and apple pie and love of country are not the exclusive property of the Republican Party; they belong to all Americans. Democrats should take them back.

I believe that the best person to make the argument that Democrats are Americans too is someone who defies the phony liberal stereotype manufactured by GOP Inc. I think that many Americans could have their eyes opened to the true patriotism of the Democratic Party if that case were made by someone who spent more than 35 years maintaining American security. If that someone was so excellent that he began this career by graduating first in his class at West Point and ended it as the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, the Democrats would have the perfect symbol of patriotic leadership as well as someone who has the demonstrated ability to maneuver the political shoals of the Pentagon and Washington without the taint of partisan politics.

I want the Democrats to nominate the candidate who can beat George W. Bush. Standard stump speeches and stale rhetoric cannot compete with the spotlight conferred upon the flag-draped Commander-In-Chief who will be marketed as the Man Who Saved The World. That 200-million-dollar juggernaut will not be defeated with predictable Washington faces or, most sad to say, unknown iconoclasts without national security credentials.

This election is not business as usual.

I believe that Democrats can beat the Republicans at their own game if they can take back rightful ownership of patriotic symbolism and nominate someone who embodies those All-American virtues.

General Wesley Clark is as qualified to be President today as was Colin Powell in 1996 when he was seriously courted by the Republicans as the most serious threat to Clinton's re-election. He is far more qualified to be President than George W. Bush ever will be. He is a Democrat.

I sincerely hope that he throws his hat into the ring and if he does, I will support him.

To read more about General Clark, please visit the Draft Clark website.

Sign the petition even if you are not entirely persuaded but think that he could make a contribution to the primaries. Having a General on the stump would be helpful to the Democrats and he could very well be an attractive VP candidate if someone else emerges as a clear winner.

Democrats need him in the race.

PD,
I thought the Hartford Courant article spoke to why Jewish voters may be holding back on Liebermann.

Interesting presentation in your last posting...

PDiddie--
If pedigree alone gave someone the stature of Colin Powell, you would be on to something.
But, Clark is no Colin Powell. An example:

He was stopped in the street and asked a question about his campaign. He pulled out his cell phone and called CNN, telling the reporter he was unsure he was authorized to speak because of his contract with CNN... He would have to ask CNN's permission.

He was ridiculed about this. CNN said he couldn't speak. A significantly unprofessional, unPresidential, unPowell moment. Of course, this doesn't negate his chances, but it severely wounds them. IMO.