2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/30/politics/campaigns/30DEAN.html?hp

Tartarin
I think it is clear that a barber from Wisconsin doesn't have the influence on all manner of Washington policy that a rep from Halliburton or Shell will have. Jack up this principle to the level where a conglomoration of such reps actually form the sitting administration and 'a nation of, by and for the people' becomes a pathetic delusion.

fishin

Good to see you. I can't answer your question and will have to leave it for folks like Tartarin and PD and Gel who will better understand the intricacies of pre-nomination shennanigans. But I suspect Tart is correct to posit at least the possibility of a 'grass roots' movement (facilitated by the internet) undercutting the DNC. If not for Rove's 'win at any cost' immorality, your president now would very probably have been John McCain - populism doesn't have to be a bad thing.

scrat

I agree with the single caveat that the same would hold true from a Saudi citizen perspective. That is, that citizen would also have good reason to feel uncomfortable about his government's relationship to America.

And if it only could have been John McCain - even the lowly Repubs may be viewed with favorable eyes - and America would still be on a right tract; but <sigh> now we have sunk to the lowest mark in over 100 years, probably ever!

Further to Tar's observation - I have long thought that the DLC and the DNC helped lose the election for Gore. They had dominated the democratic party since Clintin in 1992, I think they tried to dictate too many courses of action, and downplay others, that did not take into account the mood of the nation nor the natural disposition of Gore. And more - I honest to God do not understand their publicly and often stated admonitions of doom and gloom. They warn that the party is in danger of embracing "far left" policies (which they don't define) as ensuring defeat. They talk about "centrist," wwhich they also don't define. This is exactly the sort of thing that perpetuates itself. Since politics is primarily about power - they are losing anything they may have had with Dean. The push for Lieberman is strange to me, since he is obviously not attracting all the democratic voters they think.

It's beginning to apear that populism may become popular again. Dean is tapping into segements of the people. He served four years in the Vermont legislature, five years as Lieutenant governor, and then became Governor in 1991 after the republican governor - Snelling died. So his political experience is greater than many think. And he's got a kind of slogan I think should be voiced more - he derides Bush as running a "borrow-and spend credit-card presidency." We should keep repeating that - sure beats the "tax and spend" thing the republicans say.

I started out a Kerry fan - bbut there are some things I'm beginning to look at. The emails I get from the Dean committee are informative, and also (because of the smarts and good writing) involve me. What I get from johnkerry.com is boiler plate slick - graphics are better, layout is better - but says nothing.

It's early days - but I also like the way Dean apparently regards his wife - as a person, as a professional, as an equal. This appeals to me as a female voter.

You've described it very well, Mamaj. That's one of the things that turned me off Kerry, too. I've tried to give some small support to Kucinich, but his staff is poorly organized and kind of pathetic. Uninspiring.

One has to remember that the hierarchy of the Dem party is plugged into the same machinery (including corporations) as the Reps -- major corporations hedge their bets by giving almost equally to both candidates. When I rattle on and on about campaign finance reform, that's why. Let the chips fall, etc. etc. The important thing is unplug the system from the money men and give it back to the individual voter. (I don't think that's simply a "populist" cry.) Tell you what, I'd love to sit down with Bill Clinton and a couple of beers and find out what he REALLY thinks about all this. Is he so wedded to the DLC that he doesn't see what's happening? I doubt it. He's smart.

I can't for the life of me guess what's going to happen, which is unusual for me. Not that I'm always (or even often) right, but I normally have a sense of these things.

For instance, is Dean the Dem's best hope (I think he is), or is he destined to be another McGovern? That's what the DLC is saying, but he really isn't that left of center. I skimmed today's NY Times article, and it reminded me of his views on gun control and the death penalty, neither of which would I call leftist.

It will be interesting...

You know? I don't give a damn WHAT may be the best hope is for the Dems as a party. What concerns me is what's best for the US or, more truthfully, the planet. The Democratic Party can turn into an inedible fungus, for all I'm concerned. They've done nothing in the past twenty years to make me think they are much more high-minded than the Republicans, and the Republicans have been the lowest of the low since Nixon days. I'll take an Independent Party, a Reform Party, over anything the Dems would like us to take.

I'm curious to know what independent or third party candidate you are currently considering and/or supporting.

Scrat -- You might want to read my posts! Should be obvious whom I'm supporting, so let's NOT get into a blah-blah about this ("Well, Dean's a Dem" etc. etc.) C'mon. Move on. Think. Enjoy.

Defying Labels Left or Right, Dean's '04 Run Makes Gains

By JODI WILGOREN with DAVID ROSENBAUM



THIS IS A FOUR PAGE ARTICLE, CLICK TITLE TO READ

Former Gov. Howard Dean, right, spoke to potential supporters in Albia, Iowa, on Thursday. Dr. Dean has spent 34 days campaigning in Iowa this year, preparing for the state's Democratic presidential caucuses
NYTimes

This is getting interesting. How many of you grey haired (or bald) folks remember Jimmy who? I'm athinking some Washington belt people are beginning to suffer from tight butt.

Well, I can't be so hard on the Dems, Tartarin. They have been a disappointment more often than not, but every once in a while they do the right thing. They're starting to show some spine vs. Bush and his thugs (e.g., questioning Wolfowitz yesterday).

Which is more than I can say about the GOP, with very few exceptions.

As of right now, USA is a two party country and only two party. We don't want the party of Satan to win again so, either, we go to the party or change the party.

I've never been a conformist - especially considering the elitest. And, the Dems have become elitest in tuxedos and tennis shoes. Just like the Repubs - who have tuxedos and patent leather shoes!

Tart - It was a genuine question based on your statements. If that's a problem for you, it is not my problem.

Okay -- Seems to me that I've been possibly boring in my posts about Dean, but I guess you missed that, Scrat!

Try a little civility, scrat, which you always seem to advocating for someone else. Tartarin's been perfectly plain to a lot of people for a long time, so isn't your question a wee bit........deliberate?

I think Bill, that may be why Dean is getting the response he's getting. A lot of people out there got tired of those conformist looks. We're not a two-party country (and I've gotten involved in some heated discussions about that on some other forums), but I sort of think that's another thing Dean can take care of - the Greens seem to like him. (They like Kucinich, too.)

Today Dean is addressing the plumbers and pipe-fitters union in the mid-west. Should be ineresting.

BTW, I sent an email to the DLC, outlining my concerns, asking for their definition of "centrist," etc. I got a response (you should love this, tart). If I'm having technical or other difficulties, they'll get back to me in a few days!

I will vote for anyone the dems put up to get Bush out simply because I don't believe anyone could be as bad for us as Bush, ANYONE!!!!!!, but I don't think there's a decent candidate out there except for Dean. I really like him based on what I've seen and heard so far. No other dem is worth a **** as far as I'm concerned, even though any dem is an improvement on Bush.

No time to sit at the table and talk about an Independent party when the table's on fire unfortunately.

mj - How was I anything less than civil? Jesus Christ, the double standard here is incredible! I understand quite well that Tart has expressed support for Dean, but she has also stated that she tried to lend some support to Kucinich as well. Clearly it isn't unreasonable for me to think she sees merit in more than one candidate, so when she then expressed interest in supporting an independent or third party candidate, I was genuinely curious whom she might find interesting. What the f#$% is wrong with that?

I am sitting happily at the table and enjoying my warm feet, Bi! There is never a right time for a third party, certainly not in the minds of those who stay with one of the two current choices. But it's the right time for me. Tired of lies and lessers of two evils...

mamaj, I speak of us being a two party system not because of ideology but from the control the Dems and Repubs have on the whole system. They, in effect, make it so that an alternative party is unable to obtain power enough to compete. A good example is the Perot attempt, his party got status as a centrist Republican entity and gained some minority power. Buchanan came along, stole the party, the power and the money while turning it into a far Right wingnut entity. I have read where some Repubs are trying to get on tickets as Green Party candidates because of the enroads already developed.

I am for multitudes of parties, 25 is none too few. Then government must be created by coalitions of these entities to create a majority. This process must be out in open when coalitions are built and supported by the constituents of the parties.

As it exists in America today, if you want to be in power - you must be in the mainstream; ie, Dem or Repub. Bill Clinton was never accepted by the Dem party and has had to fight the organization his entire life. It is funny the head of the DNC is a Clintonite - can't remember name at this time; but IMHO, he has been totally ineffective.

I want them (repubs) to be the ones to push America to a third, fourth, fifth ....nth party system. Because, the party that makes the attempt is the party that splinters.

I, BTW, claim no party - and do truly believe the desire and enactments necessary to acheiving 3+ party status is a noble cause, but fraught with disappointment.

d'art'

It's all about trying to 'define' Dean negatively for the American people
before he has a chance to define himself. defining your opponent is a time-honored political tactic but is often especially effective against someone who the majority of the public doesn't yet know.

The DLC, the other dem candidates, and the repubs (the latter have got to be getting nervous about Dean's appeal) are trying to 'define' him as some sort of leftist-liberal who is beyond the pale of 'acceptable' political thought.
It could work.
Just consider how, in 2000, the right wing propaganda machine turned Al Gore into a 'liar' in the minds of much of the public!

I've now read the rest of the Dean article in today's NY Times, and I think it's appalling that anyone in the DLC wants to define him as "far left". Wanting universal health care, for instance, should be a core value for any Democrat. Questioning our policy in Iraq, as well. Anything much to the right of that truly is "Bush Lite."