2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

yeap the dlc folks sure tipped their hand and ensured that even republicans start to define dean as a lib-rul.

this is the group which dissed al gore a year ago as too populist in his rhetoric in 2000.

they must have a reason. which is unlikely what they say it is. after all, the dlc is so close in policy positions to the republicans that they might as well be called the republican wing of the democratic party.

their policy positions are such that they promote the continuation of their political and economic power over and above that which the nation or the democratic party itself needs and attacks as anathema a grass roots populist movement promoted by both dean and gore that rejects special economic status for wealthy and powerful special interests.

they are attacking dean in a fight for control of the democratic party. their bleating about how their opponent is unfit as a presidential candidate for being a liberal is just rhetoric and their statements that the democratic party can not win in 2004 without turning more conservative is self-serving so they can run the democratic party.

its fairly clear that the dlc types are terrified that they will wake up one day and find themselves obsolete and having been replaced in influence by the results of a populist uprising of rank and file democrats who take back their party from them.

the fiercist political fights are usually intra-party, not inter-party.

What Kuvasz says.

Haven't read the Times yet, D'art, but they're sure doing a number on Dean. It would be interesting at this point, while Dean is riding high, to do a head count of Dems, asking them about the extent to which they support the leaders of the Democratic Party. Would be interesting to have those numbers. I wonder if the DNC/DLC will stick their collective toe in THAT water!!

There are a lot of reasons to embrace a multi-party system. Certainly one of them is the forming of coalitions pro or con specific issues. Dean breaks the hard party line. A lot of us have been uneasy about, say, gun control. (I'm sympathetic, marched for the Brady Bill, but have come to believe that we overdo bandaid legislation -- the way I feel about affirmative action, too.) An issues-oriented Congress, rather than your-party-vs.-my-party bitchin' would be a nice change.

Kuvasz wrote: its fairly clear that the dlc types are terrified that they will wake up one day and find themselves obsolete and having been replaced in influence by the results of a populist uprising of rank and file democrats who take back their party from them.
Exactly!!

Tart, those issues have caused many of us to question the reach of legislation into areas where it has no business. I have relatives in Colorado, ranchers, who consider a gun a tool and they use it as such. Both sides seem to demand total, unthinking loyalty to the cause du jour.

I hope Dean continues his rise in public perception. Finally we have someone who has all the qualifications and the character to put them to the best use.

I like the idea of multiple parties, but I'm not so sure how it would work in actuality. Mostly, we have a difficult time with many choices. Something as simple as buying clothes, for example. It's fun to go shopping (for some people), but, when faced with rack after rack, how many times do you walk out with nothing?

I think what we're seeing is a candidate walking into a national conscious - becoming known without the backing of any one particular group, and making himself into a comfortable figure. This hasn't happened for a long time - and it is undeniably making many large, organized groups nervous. And this liberal label is not proving to be such a bad thing. Dean, rather than distancing himself from it, instead claims it. When he says things like "If wanting all Americans to have health care makes me a liberal, then I am a liberal," he gets ovations.

I heard Edwards tonight expound upon his health care proposal. He said flat out he was aiming for a national health program. This is something Dean has done. Other candidates cannot sound vague, because Dean has positive statements, and a lot of the public is beginning to respond. He's not a McGovern figure to me - there's that extra bit there. And, if you like to look at the people a candidate brings with him, Dean's got some pretty good ones. His campaign manager has the smarts. Recognized the value of the internet, and is using it. Set up all those meets, which have grown. And then I look at Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and remember back when everyone was so happy that georgie had brought his uncles and all into the game, so we knew the country would be well run.

scrat - give it a rest. Most people here are trying to discuss things - information, opinions, and the like, and for the longest while all you've done is question, complain, or dig. What you wrote above is a whine, not exactly civil. If you have something to contribute that's real, go ahead. Most of us, I'm sure, will give it due consideration.

No, I don't have you confused with anybody.

A very similar thought is what got me wondering about the comments on Dean on this show I was listening to.

Dean can't win the nomination without pulling in some significant mainstream party support. As much as we all might like to think that a populist candidate will win the nod anyone that's been in politics for any time knows there are backroom deals to be made, palms to be greased, etc.. The cigar smoke filled backroom has been a staple of our politcal system pretty much since the start and that isn't going to die any time soon. This fund-raising campaign Tartarin has been keeping us up to date on is interesteing but it also shows what party connections can do for a candidate. Raising $400K over 4 or 5 days is interesting and fun to watch as the $20-$30 contributions come in but when you compare that to Chenny's ability to raise $250K for spending an hour at lunch the nickle-dime campaign starts to lose it's luster. Dean will need to be able to tap into that kind of fund-raising as things heat up and I'm not convicened the party elite are going to give him access to it.

Of course Dean could tell the DNC to go pee up a rope and run as an Independent but that is reminicent of both the Perrot and Nader campaigns of prior years. He seems to have captured the "activist" types out there (or at least more so than any of the others running..) but drawing enough people away for the 2 major parties to actually win in the open election is a pretty tough situation. There is an outside risk that many could end up looking at him 4 years from now just as many look at Nader right now.

Interesting times lay ahead!

Aside from the need to vote Dem this time to get Bush out, in terms of fostering a third party alternative in the long term (cause that was obviously what Tartarin meant, Scrat), the New Party sounds interesting - anyone have any experience with that party? They're non-existent on a national level, of course, but they seem to do well here and there on a local level?

Fishin' -- keep in mind that a single $2000 contribution to Cheney comes from a person with a single vote. Each of Dean's $2000 contains (at $54 average) close to 37 votes. Since the whole deal is sorted out in a voting booth -- and Dean's supporters are activists, excited enough to vote -- it's a phenomenon to be taken seriously and not dismissed. 38 to 1. Not a bad ratio!

But how significant is a 38-1 voter/donator lead at this stage? In general, funds only come in from a small percentage of the total voting public. The money raised is what is used to reach the remaining majority of voters. There also isn't any guarantee that someone that donates money to a candidate is going to vote for that that candidate. I can donate to each of them but I can only vote for one!

Well, if Dean wins 38 to 1 over Bush, that'd be good enough for me!

Fishin,

Dean is doing something like McCain did in 2000 he's motivating a lot of average people who don't have much money to make small contributions. If you think that's chump change, think again. Consider for a moment the success that the right -wing direct mail solicitors have had. they garner millions from average people to back their causes ranging from supporting gun owners rights to advocating stricter immigration policies etc.
Consider also the millions that Pat Robinson, Jerry Falwell et al extract on an on-going basis from THEIR true-believers.

Dean of course has little else in common with those right wing and fundamentalist types Except that he too has found a way to motivate a large number of small contributors. I am one of them. I haven't donated a lot thus far ($50. initially and then $25. earlier this week) but I'm not done yet. If Dean keeps in contention I'll keep on giving $50 here and $50 there. I may never get to the $2000 legal maximum, but the donations of large numbers of people like me can make a big difference.

There are a lot more of us little guys than there are the $2000 a plate dinner guys.

By the way, concerning your other point about donating to a candidate and voting for someone else.... I can't believe there are many people who behave that way. I'm donating to Dean because I want to see him get elected. Why wouldn't I vote for him?

I think you missed my point jjorge. Sure, Dean is managing to raise money. From some of the previous updates here it looks like he was pulling it in at about $100K/day or so. Chenney (and some of the other big players in current politics) can pull in $250K for a 2 hour luncheon. Throw in another $250K for a breakfast and $250K for a dinner and he's raised 7.5 times the money in the same 24 hour period and all he's done is eat.

Yes, what Dean is doing is very similar to what McCain did in 2000. Where is McCain today?



There are a lot of players in the political game that give money to multiple candidates. Some do it just to keep people in the races. Some see it as a way of hedging their bet. It can also work as a good political strategy for the candidate to encouage it themselves.

Just as a theoretical example here, Kerry and Dean are pretty much the front runners in NH according to polls right now but Kerry has a slight edge. If Dean's campaign decides that they can't draw any more supporters in NH but they think Leiberman could drain some from Kerry and they suggested that Dean's supports should donate some money to Leiberman to boost him up and give Dean the edge overall do you think Dean's supporters wouldn't do that? Would you give $20 to Leiberman's campaign if it meant that doing so would give the state to Dean?

I'm not belittling Dean here. I kinda like him. I do question his ability to raise enough cash to stay in the game using only the methods he's been using so far in the long run though. If he butts heads with the DNC and DLC (and he seems to be on that course for whatever reasons..) the DNC/DLC have all the control over the institutional donors and that could cripple him. How he handles all of that will be interesting to see.

And. as has been proven from time to time, as important as all that money is, it is not a sure guarantee of success. What brings in a candidate is the number of votes he/she gets. That's where the significance of many small donors comes in. Particularly when these same contributors contribute more than once. That indictates a certain conviction, and a countable contribution. Many of the big donors to the repubs are also big donors to the dems - safer to hedge the bet. And, since we don't yet have one name, that kind of donation hasn't appeared yet. Nobody smart enough to have made all that money is going to distribute it early among nine candidates. The repub donors have it easier and faster with Bush - he's their only choice. But if they smell a possible victory by democratic hopeful, they'll be very quick to throw some money that way. That's why it's still too early to say the big donors are giving only to Bush. And if it looks like Dean is a contender, money will come. The big donors are not in the least interested in the country, but they are very interested in seeing their particular interests protected.

One of the things happening is that Dean is breaking the rules (not really - when you look at a lot of previous patterns things have been done this way before). He has chosen to sound independent, and it looks like that appeals to a ot more people than was thought His national health care interest - only one I've heard so far that has called the HMOs what they are, which is felt by many people. Oh, I'd watch for Dean on many levels. And he does have smart, experienced people with him, which counts. Many small donors add up to many small voters, and if they care enough to make more contributions, many times they bring along their family and friends.

I somehow don't think SCOTUS would interfere again. And - an aside. James Baker, known as the fixer. The guy they called in to go and fix Florida for them. Refused the Iraqi make-over job. Why did he refuse?

As the election gets closer, I doubt that the DNC/DLC will, in effect, commit suicide just to go neener neener at Dean. With a network of 70,000 ACTIVE campaign workers nationally, and a huge following among younger Dems (male and female), for the Party hierarchy to be seen as deliberately scorching Dean would be to deliver a body blow to the Party. Take a look at what Al From did to Dean's fundraising and growth in activist supporters when he insulted Dean a while back. A few negative words from the official Party puts money in Dean's pocket and sends more people scurrying to work for him.

Institutional donors' -- corporate donors' -- money flows most generously to the candidates most likely to win. They're not donating out of political belief or sentimentality -- they just want their toes in the door of the White House, no matter who's there. They want to protect their interests, not those of the DNC/DLC.

Don't ignore evidence that Dean no longer stands alone. Other successful internet operations like MoveOn are on his side, ready to get petitions signed, officials telephoned, whatever it takes. From repealing the FCC's new rules to getting peace marchers out in the largest numbers this country (and the world) has ever seen, these internet organizations have shown their muscle, too.

And there's real anger out there. Positive, energetic, driving, relentless, indefatigable wrath.

This fit's Al baby to a "T"
Civil rights leaders show selective rage




The tragic murder of City Councilman James Davis brought great attention to his career. He is rightfully mourned, if only because of how far ahead of the civil rights establishment this highly principled man was. He was willing to face the epidemic of urban violence, push for better alliances between the police and communities and bring together hip-hop writers and entertainers opposed to the oppression of those communities by murderous thugs. Given Davis' example, you might ask what the civil rights leaders and black elected officials who represent terrorized urban neighborhoods are doing about this problem. Largely nothing, from what I can tell.Let us say that Davis was just another hardworking black man who was highly regarded by his friends. Let us say that he was gunned down in a public place in East Harlem or inner Brooklyn or the South Bronx. Let us add that he, like a recent Brooklyn victim, was killed by a member of the Bloods because he was going to testify against a gang member in a murder trial.Would the civil rights establishment or local black elected officials or the Rev. Al Sharpton have made much of his murder? I don't think so, because there is no substantial record of their showing any overt concern about such issues, which is why Davis' sustained campaign against violence was unique.If you recall, last year, when the Los Angeles Police Department showed its skills at arresting a suspect by beating a young black man's head on the hood of a car, the civil rights crowd started hopping up and down about police brutality, which it should have. But on that very night, seven black people were murdered in Inglewood, a suburb of Los Angeles that has been overrun by violent gangs and is ruled by black thugs. Did the supposedly concerned civil rights establishment have anything to say about those killings or about the gang murders of 10,000 people in Los Angeles over the last 20 years? Mum, as usual, was the word.Had Amadou Diallo been shot down by black knuckleheads in the South Bronx instead of by NYPD officers, would he have been made into a martyr by Sharpton and the rest? Had James Byrd, who was murdered by two Texas rednecks, been dragged to death by some Texas Crips or Bloods, do you think the usual suspects would have flown down there and spoken about gang violence with the same enraged spirit they brought to the history of lynching and racism and all that? Don't laugh too loudly.The truth is very obvious: The lives of murdered black people are important to the civil rights establishment only when racial oppression can be either proven or loudly asserted.As historian Leon Litwack observes, 4,742 black people were lynched between 1882 and 1968, a period of 86 years. Thugs in Los Angeles have more than doubled that number in just 20 years. Had the Los Angeles culprits been white gangs, they would not have been allowed to kill even 100 people. Therein lies the sin of silence on the part of the civil rights establishment. Think about it.

Originally published on July 30, 2003 Author Stanley Crouch NY daily news.
There was a picture of the right reverend with the article. leaving no doubt who it was aiming at. Before the race card is brought up Mr Crouch is Afro-American

Tartarin,

You make a number of good points.

IMO however, many others continue to underestimate Dean, his staying power, and the strength of his appeal, not just to young idealists, but also to party faithful like myself.

Fishin,

You say look what happened to McCain.

My answer: The McCain Movement was strongest with independents. Ironically, it was weakest (in most states) with the Republican base.
I think we are seeing --and will continue to see-- the democratic base is liking Dean more and more.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030730/pl_afp/us_politics_vote_gore_030730220822

It never goes away, I for one, believe Gore can beat Bush a second time! But, Dean still impresses me the most, right now.

1) If you can't recognize when I'm discussing the topic, that's not my problem.

2) Show me ANYWHERE where I have EVER mentioned Heinlein in A2K. You can't, because I haven't done so. Not once, not ever. So you are either confused, or simply making things up. At this point I could not care less which.

Boy O Boy



1,035 times and counting!