kathyodat, thank you for your comments. I understand what you're saying about Kucinich running as an independent in the event he is not nominated, however, I was addressing those who are suggesting that someone like Gore or Kucinich should only get the progressive vote if they abandon the Democratic Party.

Suppose, for example, that Al Gore and Guilliani win the primary, and the polls are close. Then Kucinich runs as an independent. Who will our next President be?

If it comes down to Guilliani and Hillary, I would say the two sides are the same. Such was not the case in 2000.

If our next election plays out as did 2000 there is really no hope for America. It is absolutely crucial that those who want peace, environmental protection, conservation, etc. employ a well-reasoned strategy. I know what a well-reasoned Republican strategy might look like:
----Promote in-fighting among the Democrats
----Heavily fund and encourage third party
candidates like Nader
----Squash the biggest threat to your own
Party's cohesiveness--Ron Paul
-----Make sure someone who represents real reform
like Al Gore is picked apart by his own Party.
(take the world's most eco-friendly politician
and point out that when he was travelling
around with his slideshow, he actually put
some carbon into the air.
-----Promote Hillary. So many people despise her,
that she would be a desirable opponent. If she
did manage to win, she wouldn't threaten
business as usual anyway.

The other side realizes that liberals have some idealistic notions. They are using those idealistic notions to their advantage, by promoting the idea that any departure from perfection by a candidate must not be tolerated.

What does a revolution look like? It doesn't look like 3 or 4 percentage points for Ralph Nader that results in a right wing win.
The American Revolution was a notable exception, but many revolutions occur when people feel they have nothing left to lose, when conditions are unbearable. Currently, Americans are too comfortable for radical reform.

On a separate note: erma and KTDavenport's comments above and elsewhere make me think they are the same person.

How about this for a quick, simple solution to end the U. S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan?

Mandate that all individual and corporate tax cuts since Chimpy and his buddies invaded the White House in January, 2001 be rolled back to December, 2000 levels, and additionally, specify that these rollbacks will continue, at a very minimum, until the United States has completely vacated Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anyone think this might bring about some change?

If it isn't clear now that the Democrats have abandoned their constituency and totally caved to Bush and his policies, then all is lost. Wake up! If we want or expect change, we must stop depending upon those who have repeatedly betrayed our trust. A second (We only have one at this time.) party has possiblities. It could be kicked off by a general strike. The Democrats have rolled over, but we do not have to follow them. This much is clear - if we don't act with vigor and force now, not later, we will get what we deserve.

The Democratic party needs to understand that the end of the Iraq war and expenditures of keeping massive forces in the middle east prevents any improvement in domestic policies. All candidates that hold to the above positions when elected will fail as president.

Rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will be necessary just to cushion the economic damage already caused by Bu$h the inferior's spend-a-thon.

The basic corruption in government is at a very high point. It would be difficult to name very many policies that are in agreement with the wishes of the majority of the people.

This article failed to give Dennis Kucinich's position.

It doesn't matter how long we stay, there will be trouble when we leave. But for us to put that off just means that more of OUR people will die in the meantime.

There is NO way that our presence helps a thing. We never should have been there in the first place, and now it's past time for us to get out.

Here is what I think needs to happen. We need to leave. Period. We need to pull our people out of the country, and get them back here. The Iraqis know who belongs in their country and who doesn't FAR better than we do. They will take care of Al Queda, seeing as how they aren't a whole lot more popular there than we are, and once the common enemy, US, is gone, they will take care of cleaning up their own country.

It's NOT our place to mediate in a civil war. Sorry, but that is a fool's errand, and thank God that at least ONE candidate can see that and isn't afraid to say so. And isn't it interesting that he is really the ONLY one with experience in the diplomatic field?

It was time to leave BEFORE we went there. This is a fool's game, and a fool's war. It belongs to W, and the dems are fools for Not standing up and saying so. This is NOT going to help them win by the landslide they will need to overcome the Diebold effect, and the rest of the republican dirty tricks.

The sooner we ge out the better for Iraqi's. I hope Kucinich will run as an idependant because I won't vote for any those other creeps.

Look what you get when you vote Democrat.

They'll lie to you and hint and talk like they want out. Then when pressed for specifics, every Democrat proposal keeps troops in Iraq for years to come. The huge loophole is "fight terrorism." Ask the Pentagon what they are doing in Iraq today, and they'll say they are fighting terrorism. They already talk like every Iraq insurgent group, certainly any Sunni insurgence, are all Al-Qaida. They already refer to ever single person they kill as "terrorists".

So, what difference does it make if a Democratic President or Democratic Congress says we can only stay to fight terrorists? The likely response from the Pentagon to that would to ask for an increase in troops so they can kill more 'terrorists.'

Stupid, lying, no-good, deceiving Democrats. Face it, Democrats have supported this war from the beginning. The ones who had to cast a vote like Edwards and Hillary voted YES. The Democratic Congress just fully funded the war for this year, and they'll do the same again in September. Oh, maybe they'll be brave and pass something that says withdraw troops that aren't "fighting terrorists, training Iraqis, or protecting US property and interests." That's the loophole that was in their last bill and it so big you can drive an army of occupation through it.

The Democrats support this war. They are just looking for a way to trick and fool the American people into continuing it in a different context. The Democrats have no intention of getting all of our troops out of Iraq. At least they actually said it this time if you look close enough at what they really say.

If you want out of Iraq, DO NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT in 2008.

I still like the old Vietnam Q&A. How do you get out of Iraq? On planes and boats.

Run Ralph run. Speak truth to power.

Kucinich needs to leave the Democrats and run as an independent.

I'm getting to the point though where I find the Kucinichnistas to be almost comical. Of course the article doesn't mention Kucinich's position. I keep saying that Kucinich in the Democrats is a rigged game that he just can't win. And that comment just confirms it. Of course the mainstream media doesn't report on Kucinich's position. What, do you think they want people to know about it.

There's this silly notion that somehow with the corporate media does this that its just a mistake. Maybe if we all write a letter to the editor they'll go "oh, wow, we weren't covering Kucinich? We'll correct that immediately." Or if they just whine about what the mainstream media is doing then somehow it will change.

No, this is a part about how the game is rigged in the Democratic party. The rules the Democrats use for campaign finance and the primary calendar MAKE the corporate media a gatekeeper for who can win and who can't. The rules the Democrats create themselves deliberately cripple a grassroots candidate and favor a candidate that gets media coverage. And of course the media give coverage to the candidates that are a)going to spend $50 million on advertising on TV, and b) support pro-corporate policies that favor the corporations that run the TV stations.

No, the answer is to build our own movement. We build our own political party with rules that don't favor money and candidates that get corporate media coverage. We build our own communications systems, maybe as simple as email, so our candidates and our campaigns and our primary contests all can occur in an environment where all candidates can speak to all members of the movement\party.

That's what we need to be building. Ever dollar, every minute of time, every joule of personal energy that goes to the Kucinich campaign instead is just a complete waste. Kucinich can't win. That's not being defeatist. That's just a realistic look at the rigged game he's trying to play in. Spend your efforts on something that builds for the future instead.

If a genocide occurs after American troops leave, for domestic purposes in America itself, you can safely blame Republicans. In fact, you can safely blame Republicans for 95% for all of America's problems. This is not a way of 'politicizing', it is a simple fact and I really don't think that Democrats should be left alone to govern the country. After the Republicans disappear from the scene, and the grown-ups are left to clear things up, that is when you can start debating what to do about Iraq.
If Barack Obama wants to leave 'personnel' in Iraq, you have to wonder who and why. An embassy ? Blackwater ? Permanent bases ? Oil companies ? What makes him think that America has ANY credibility in Iraq left and what makes him think that America should be rewarded with any of the loot ? What has America ever done for Iraq that makes him think that Iraqis want to keep Americans in their company ? What did Democrats do for Iraqis in the nineties ?
Iraq is a lost cause and it should disappear entirely from the American agenda except when it comes to repenting and self-reflection for a new generation of young Americans.
Iraq should be made the theme that makes Americans cringe for generations to come, like 'the war' was for the Germans. It is always there, it is the past, there is nothing you can do about it any more, and you will have to learn to love yourself again while cleaning up the mess in your own country.

Yup, even Richardson get attention.

But Kucinich? The NYT, the paper of record, neatly drops him down Winston Smith's memory hole.

Oh, how I dearly hate the corporate media. They are, above any politician, even Bush, The Enemy.

genocide doesn't just break-out overnight....the US gov't has been killing innocent Iraqis for nearly two decades, another ten years and the mission truly will be accomplished.....

US citizens of the democratic stripe are being softened up for the inevitable cave on Iraq......pre-September (non)progreess report

these pathetic politcial soundbites are pure BS that can't stand even the slightlest deconstruction.....

yeah, let's hear from someone other than the "top" three, people like Kucinich, and see if they make any sense........

It seems the NYT is getting us used to the occupation! Telling us "we will be there for a long time". Not if I can change things!

Any presence of U.S. military will be a target and once we are attacked we will be right back beginning with air strikes against suspected parties.

We would pull everything out of Iraq and we would still reserve the right to drop bombs on whomever we want! All this rhetoric in the news never mentions all the other functions; only "bring the troops home" (to redeploy).

It's the money party at it's finest!!!

COMarc i totally agree with you. Kucinich should run as an independant or just shut the f~!@k up and go away coz he sounds extremely hypocritical running with the hounds and claiming he is different. What we need is a radical grassroots movement that wrenches the political system out of its current state of complete failure.

What I don't understand is why campaigning for the presidency has begun fully eighteen months before the election. It's ridiculous, expensive, and ultimately a distraction (especially for those who are supposed to be carrying out their duties as Senators and governors) from addressing real issues.

Therefore, I am not about to decide who will receive my vote based on anything they are saying NOW. By November 2008, a lot of things will probably look very different, and those who would be leaders can best show their mettle by demonstrating that they can adapt to change. This is one of Bush's biggest weaknesses. His strategy has been 100% the same since before he took office, no matter what public opinion or facts on the ground might indicate. His response to public pressure is to manipulate opinion and squelch dissent; his response to facts on the ground that indicate his strategy is working poorly are to fire anybody who says so and keep on truckin'. (By "Bush," of course I mean the many-headed hydra of administrative policy, including Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc)

While advocating a complete pullout from Iraq makes good, simple sense, I would like to think that the candidates who have mentioned keeping residual forces there are mainly concerned about the mess we have made of Iraq and the fact that we are responsible for it. If I come to your house and start ripping things up and throwing filth around, the first thing you want to do is get me out of your house, yes--but eventually you will want to hold me responsible for cleaning up. Maybe that means making me pay for cleanup and repairs, or maybe it means making me come back and clean it myself. Which means I'm back (or still) in your house.

I don't know if this is what Clinton, Edwards or Obama are thinking; I'm just saying it's possible. What I do know is that all of these calls to vote against the Democrats and start third parties are NOT GOING TO WORK and will probably result in more Republicans getting elected if enough people do that. I believe that the 2000 election was stolen; but it is also the case that had the 90,000 Florida votes for Nader gone to Gore, he would be in the White House right now, the Iraq war would never have happened, 9/11 would be just another date on the calendar, and we would be light-years down the road toward addressing climate change.

Al Gore, let me remind you, is a Democrat.

COMarc wrote:

"Ever dollar, every minute of time, every joule of personal energy that goes to the Kucinich campaign instead is just a complete waste. Kucinich can't win. That's not being defeatist. That's just a realistic look at the rigged game he's trying to play in. Spend your efforts on something that builds for the future instead."

Here's the funny thing about building for the future: you don't actually know how the future is going to develop. i'm pretty sure that Dennis Kucinich is NOT going to be nominated by the Democratic Party to run for President. That does not mean that working on his campaign is "a complete waste". You may think you know what is the "correct" way for people to build for the future. i am certain i can find people who will denounce your efforts and call them a waste of time.

If you look back at history, you will find that surprises happen all the time. Countries go in directions "no one could have predicted". "Pointless" efforts blossom into sudden shifts in public consciousness.

Of course, history is also full of nasty surprises, more nasty ones than good ones, but as far as i'm concerned every honest effort to build for a positive future should be praised, not belittled. If Kucinich loses the primaries, that will not mean all the work is "a complete waste". Time keeps rolling into the future, and seeds planted on this campaign could bear other fruit in years to come.

i'm also going to write a letter to the NYT, pointing out their ridiculous erasure of candidates that don't fit their profile. "All the news we print to fit."

right on curmudgeon. i said from the beginning that we would all be dead before the u.s. left iraq. it's all about PNAC and the oil. the msm are cowards, and it is looking more and more that there is nowhere to turn. this is not looking good.

The fighting in Iraq will NEVER end, until all of our troops AND the mercenaries are out of the Gulf region.___ And we won't live long enough to see it.

PJD, that is exactly correct, our news media since the Vietnam years have totally reversed. They are owned by the neo-cons which now is the same as saying owned by the Nazis'. We could be out of there in three days if that was the intent.

"Wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation's gross domestic product since the government began recording data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960s." -NYT

The Bush tax cuts which favor the massively wealthy and which he said would create more "good" paying jobs was just another lie. While we are seeing the wages of Corporate CEOs climb into the hundred million range, "a federal survey of employers found that average worker compensation has risen only 2.8 percent. That's 1.35 percent below inflation in 2006."

So, while Bush insisted that the tax breaks to the wealthy would be re-invested to create more "good paying" jobs, we now realize that those tax breaks during a so-called "war on terror" have been used to increase their own wealth through on/off-shore investments and not re-invest it to create jobs in this country.

Rescind the the tax breaks to pay for this Republican-led, never ending occupation!

That's why our only two real choices are:

Dennis Kucinich or Dr. Ron Paul.

The rest are bought, paid for, and have been brainwashed into hating our Constitution.

"Mr. Edwards, who has suggested that he would intervene in a genocide,..."

The Iraqi Holocaust is already a reality. The article is further proof that the Death Party is bi-partisan; and the blackout of Kucinich is further proof that the NY Times is pro-war/pro-death 24/7/365.

I believe Kucinich remains a Democrat because that status gives him more exposure than if he bolted and became an independent at this juncture. I also highly recommend he be drafted as the Green Party's presidential candidate regardless of his status within the Democrats at that time. There is much to fight against, the media blackout of Kucinich being one of several, which leads me to say we ought to spend our energy "broadcasting" Kucinich instead of bickering/demanding he leave the Dems ASAP.

In spite of the fact that Dennis Kucinich has once again been blatantly ignored by a member of the MSM, the great thing, now, is that anyone reading the above article and all these comments will be alerted to that fact, and put straight. In past years this didn't happen. Might this make an important difference ? If not this time around, perhaps next time (if we survive that long!)

THERE ARE 3689 U.S. MILITARY PERSONNEL DEAD.
THE NUMBERS OF IRAQI PEOPLE DEAD ARE A MYSTERY BUT YOU CAN BET THE COUNT IS NEAR 1,000,000 BY THIS TIME.

These Democrats are a 4 PLUS DISGRACE. They make me sick dancing around the issue. They need to;
1. STOP FUNDING THIS NIGHTMARE NOW
2. ALLOT ONLY ENOUGH MONEY TO BRING ALL U.S. CITIZENS OUT OF IRAQ SAFELY
3. BRING ALL IRAQI PEOPLE ANAD THEIR FAMILIES WHO HAVE HELPED THE U.S. OUT WITH THEM
4. ALLOT THE MONEY NECESSARY TO MEND THE LAND OF IRAQ AND THAT MEANS REMOVING ALL THE WEAPONERY THAT IS LEFT OVER AND BURIED IN THE LAND.
5. MONITOR THE EXPENDITURE OF THAT MONEY AND HOLD THOSE THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SPENDING ACCOUNTABLE
6. VOTE FOR REP. KUCINICH.

Why stick in the Big Muddy with the Edwardsians, Billary bombos and the Obamanation? Switch to Kucinich.

Those who are supporting candidates other than Kucinich are supporting dirty rats who are pro-occupation & pro US world domination.

The bastards have been using the largest chunk of our tax money for the horribly corrupt military industrial complex for so long now, that any other route is unthinkable.

--------------

Send an email to the authors of this piece - fuss at them for keeping Kucinich off the public radar!

Their names at the top of the article are also links - for contactingthem via a nyt webform.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us/politics/12dems.html?hp

"THE NUMBERS OF IRAQI PEOPLE DEAD ARE A MYSTERY BUT YOU CAN BET THE COUNT IS NEAR 1,000,000 BY THIS TIME."

The Lancet's most recent estimate is about 1 million. The absurdity of the 'keep-the-troops-to-prevent' notion depends on the delusion that the troops were there to prevent one, rather than foment one, oi the first place. That was John Negroponte's job, in distributing weapons, munitions, and money -- all mysteriously 'missing' -- to groups that would agree to use them to deflect the insurgency away from the occupiers and towards each other.

""Mr. Edwards, who has suggested that he would intervene in a genocide,…"

The Iraqi Holocaust is already a reality. The article is further proof that the Death Party is bi-partisan; and the blackout of Kucinich is further proof that the NY Times is pro-war/pro-death 24/7/365.

I believe Kucinich remains a Democrat because that status gives him more exposure than if he bolted and became an independent at this juncture. I also highly recommend he be drafted as the Green Party's presidential candidate regardless of his status within the Democrats at that time. There is much to fight against, the media blackout of Kucinich being one of several, which leads me to say we ought to spend our energy "broadcasting" Kucinich instead of bickering/demanding he leave the Dems ASAP."

He would immediately be attacked by the DLC & the NYT/Post etc. as a "spoiler" whose candidacy would only "give the Republicans the White House", just as the same bunch endlessly repeats the same about Nader.

Plus, it's the "president-is-the-leader" mindset that helps propel the machine anyway; the fuhrer-prinzip, in its american version, transforms an executive from a mere executor into a political entrepreneur to whom power & decision gravitate. It would take an enormous effort to put Kucinich in, an effort which would be worth it; but he would face senators & representatives funded by those hostile to any such project for removing US bases & occupiers. He needs a party to help him carry out this, as well as other, changes.

Democrats support this war; they made it possible - don't tell me Bush could have started this war without the complicity of the Dems.

Make no mistake

DEMOCRATS = BUSH ENABLER

I saw that headline last night and thought:

That's news?

It's a given.

All of the leading Bush-Enabling Dem candidates are pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-imperalistic and pro-Bush despite their occasional charades to the contrary.

Kucinich is the only candidate out there for a true progressive. Granted, the reality is that he doesn't have a chance in hell of getting the "YES Bush" Dems' nomination. They are not going to put that man up there as their nominee when most of them run as far away from him as they can. Hopefully he won't sell out his principles again to give a little speech at the Dems waste-of-time convention when the annointed one, neocon Bush-Enabler Hillary, is crowned the nominee. UGH.

This nation will not leave Iraq until the very last drop of oil is extracted from the ground. The same is true for the rest of the Middle East.

See the Project for the New American Century document to which Cheney is a signatory.

It's a great point so many noticed here: that the Times story left out Dennis Kucinich. That's unsconscionable, revelatory of weakness of character-- no surprise there. As Gore Vidal said long ago, "The Times never yet met a well it didn't want to poison."

The Times, Hillary, Obama, Biden, others--weakness of character in every case. To say that Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc. lack character is to invite criticism from all sides for uttering truisms and being overly mild of manner.

It's true, though. The main characteristic that unites American politicians these days is lack of character. And isn't it a hoot the way they dress it up as something else: The Democrat who bought the Bush-Rove line, "We're fightin em over there so we don't have to fight em here."

Oh sure, they're coming over in paddleboats and are going to explode boy scout troops with roadside bombs.

If they have enough money for plane tickets and have the intelligence of a frog they can beat airport security and BLOW US ALL UP whether we're still fighting in Iraq or not.

So GET BLOWN UP WITH GRACE, like Mrs. Miniver, and learn from French history, too-- their experience of mostly outlasting Algerian terrorism.

Do we ever get over anything? American politicians are hysterical and paranoid.
Very few are therefore qualified to be president.

Those who want to "take care of the mess we created" had their chance. Too many years went by. Time-- past time-- to get out.

If you still want to take care of somebody overseas, POLITICIAN, let it be someone in depressed Africa or an orphan from the Ukraine.

You'd free up so much money that you would actually become a real politician, in position to take care of bridges, public education, the post offices, hurricanes, a centralized health system, renewable energy sources, etc.-- vital American things.

Kucinich, can win. He is the ONLY AMERICA FIRST candidate. I belive that he truly cares about America AND Americans. Well Ron Paul cares too, but I think all rePUBicans should hang them selves for what they've done. Shame on them. But don't get me wrong, the DemRats aren't far behind. Dennis Kucinich will get my support. I will find a way to spread his name. I too wish he'd run as an independent. I will never vote democrat,ever agian, unless its for Dennis. Don't be fooled by the Holy Trinity, you know, the only DumRats that get media attention.They are full of shit and deep in the pocket of the corporations.The Revoultion Starts NOW! By the way, is Tom Delay in jail yet?

Why can't we face up to what we have done? We have destroyed this country and lost the war. Iraq can't be put back together again. It doesn't exist any more. We must leave now with our tail between our legs.

Forget about getting this collapsing government to sign an agreement to give their oil away. If the politicians weren't hiding in the Green Zone and voted for this they would deservedly be assassinated. Forget about the Green Zone and its electricity and swimming pools in the centre of a destroyed Baghdad. LEAVE. Set up a plan to make this happen within a few months and look to Iraq's neighbours and the UN to manage a plan to minimise the bloodshed and attempt to achieve at best a loose Federal system. America has killed too many people, turned much of the country into rubble and destroyed any hope for a future for too many lives to have any credibility in this process of reconstruction.

Our intervention has created three distinct societies: Shiites who essentially want a conservative Muslim society with the return of ancient Shira laws, a Sunni population who under Saddam practiced a more secular society giving rights to women, and a Kurd population who simply want to separate and set up their own state and eventually join with Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Syria. The Shiites and Sunnis share their hatred for the invading army and want us out now so they can fight out their differences. The Kurds will cooperate with anyone who will help them to set up a separate Kurdistan. Iranians,Syrians,Turks and Saudis will inevitably intervene and we should let them get on with it, hopefully under a UN umbrella. As fellow Muslims I can't believe they will handle this as bady as we have

The Democrats are gutless. They worry that their constituents don't want to hear the bad news so with some hang wringing the war will continue and more people will uselessly die and the military complex will prosper - and fund the politicians.

Crotchety ol' USA has fallen...and it can't get up.

QUOTE:

canquest August 12th, 2007 3:09 pm

The Democrats are gutless.

END QUOTE

People keep saying that but it's not true. As I and others have pointed out repeatedly the Bush-Enabling Dems have displayed a spine of steel for "YES Bush" since 2000. They have been his strongest allies. That's not "gutless."

The Dems are not who you still think they are and want them to be.

The don't worry about "their constituents." They don't give a damn what we think and they have demonstrated that repeatedly.

To me, you sound like you are still drinking the Dems' koolaid...after all this time. Isn't it time to give it up?

Bobbi Dykema Katsanis wrote:

"What I do know is that all of these calls to vote against the Democrats and start third parties are NOT GOING TO WORK and will probably result in more Republicans getting elected if enough people do that."

You're right. Third parties are never going to work in this country. On the other hand, it's also clear that the Democratic Party is never going to be a real political alternative as long as it's dominated by Republicrats like Hillary, Lieberman, Biden, Reid, etc.

Obviously the only solution to this dilemma - within the context of the two-party system - is for progressives to support Republicans - yes, REPUBLICANS! - over Repubicrats and thereby rid the Democratic Party of its ideological impurities. This is just simple logic, and the only question is why progressives - who purportedly are more intelligent than conservatives - keep beating around the bush about it.

"I believe that the 2000 election was stolen; but it is also the case that had the 90,000 Florida votes for Nader gone to Gore, he would be in the White House right now, the Iraq war would never have happened, 9/11 would be just another date on the calendar, and we would be light-years down the road toward addressing climate change."

Global warming has been an issue since the 80s, and if Al Gore was going to try and do anything about it, he would've done so while he was VP and Clinton's point-man on the environment. He didn't, and in fact, wouldn't even talk about the environment during his own 2000 campaign.

It's obvious Gore is nothing but a phony, not the hip progressive portrayed by the media, and it's absurd that some people on the left have allowed themselves to get caught up in this cult of personality. Anyone with a memory beyond yesterday (which most Americans unfortunately don't have) ought to know that Al Gore is not some white knight who's going to come in and save the day. The instant he entered the race, his outrage over global warming and Iraq would immediately be replaced by the same *Americans are never going to give up their gas guzzlers* and *we can't just pull out* statements we hear from other Democrats - no doubt about it.

Democrats are not gutless. They do what they need to and want to do, which is to enable Bush.

The problem is not of the Democrates', it is a problem of the clueless Americans, who don't realize the true nature of the Democratic party.

Don't be fooled by labels (patriot act, no child left behind, secretary of defense, Democratic Party,...) - the label has nothing to do with the content.

Don't be folled - Dems = Bush enabler.

I would gladly vote for Kucinich if he would, like Cindy Sheehan, leave the Democratic Party! Kucinich, along with his proposals, were rejected by the corporate controlled Democratic Party in 2004. Kucinich and his supporters refuse to learn from this history and are now wanting us to repeat IN 2008 this purely symbolic act.

Kucinich's role is forever to be a spoiler for any real hope to end the corporate dictatorship facilitated by the REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRATIC party coalition.

To end the corporate dictatorship of this country we must have a PARTY THAT REJECTS CORPORATE FUNDING. We need a party that will STOP THE LOOTING AND PLUNDER (PRIVATIZATION) OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

MOST IMPORTANT: The new party must organize and mobilize the MILLIONS OF PEOPLE who have marched, protested, signed petitions, trying to influence the incumbent politicians. THIS HAS PROVEN TO BE UTTERLY FUTILE. WE NEED A NEW STRATEGY NOW IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT CHANGE.

NO ONE INDIVIDUAL, ESPECIALLY ONE RUNNING IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, CAN POSSIBLY EFFECT THE CHANGES THAT ARE NEEDED!

WE NEED A NEW PARTY THAT RECRUITS AND RUNS CANDIDATES FOR ALL POSITIONS OF ELECTED OFFICE AT THE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT.

WE ESPECIALLY NEED A NEW PARTY THAT REPRESENTS THE INTERESTS OF WORKING PEOPLE AND THE ORGANIZED LABOR MOVEMENT. THE DESPERATE SURVIVAL NEEDS OF WORKING PEOPLE TODAY ARE NOW VIRTUALLY IGNORED BY THE CORPORATE TWO PARTY DICTATORSHIP.

-----------------------------------------------------

DUMP THE DEMOCRATS!
UNITE INTO A NEW THIRD PARTY NOW!

We the people, opposed to the destruction of the planet and it's peoples, now atomized and powerless in "grass roots" and "special interest" groups, must unite our efforts and resources into a new party to replace the corrupt Democratic Party! A new party that rejects corporate funding in order to end the corporate plunder of the federal government.

A new party explicitly opposed to the Project for the New American Century. Opposed to unending war for profit and power. Cut the military budget by 50%, shut down the 700 military bases around the world. Re-instate taxes cut by Bush gang.

A new party that commits the entire resources of the country to end global warming, end imperialist wars, implements true non-profit universal health care. promotes mass transportation, develops renewaable energy, and produces the essentials for human survival.

A new party that promotes an economy that works towards fulfilling the economic needs of all the people, not just to profit a tiny minority of super wealthy. No more people living on the streets! No more hospitalized people being dumped into the streets when they have no money or health insurance! (See the film SICKO)

A new party to unite all of the oppressed people of this country. A new party that cuts across all the false social and cultural divisions that keep us forever powerless (racial, ethnic, age, language, etc.). A new party to unite us against the unending destruction of peoples and planet.

A SOCIALIST PARTY to promote the end of gangster capitalism, run-amok capitalism, which is supported by both Democratic and Republican parties.

A new party to support the labor movement and all working people. We urge the labor movement to stop supporting the Democratic Party (already besotted by corporate money), and to focus its precious resources to fund a new national radio and television network. By being on the air 24 hours a day the labor movement can provide the latest news, information, education and current affairs analysis desperately needed by all working people. This effort, combined with the formation of the new party, will be a bold step towards reviving the organized labor movement.

For years we have listened to radio programs like DEMOCRACY NOW! that has discussed with numerous "grass roots" groups desperately struggling to make a positive change in society. Anti-war protest groups, civil rights groups, union struggles, affordable housing groups, teachers unions, health care access, seniors about Social Security, have involved millions of people. Now is the time to unite the energy and resources of the people into a new party.

The new party provides a means of uniting the "special interest" agendas of each group into the platform of the new party. The new party candidates, selected from the various individuals and groups, would become the candidates representing their cause and the new party. The new party will contest for office at every level of government in order to take power. The new party will provide the new leadership and new programs this country desperately needs.

There is still time before November 2008 elections to start this process. Even the announcement and preparation for a founding convention of such a new party will shock both Democrats and Republican incumbents. They will know that their days are numbered!

The needs of all previous "minority" and "special interests" people now become the platform of the new party representing the vast majority of people. Can the existing activists of so-called "minority" and "special interest" groups overcome their existing powerlessness, and link up with each other to start this new party?

This all-inclusive struggle will attract millions of atomized working people, often non-voters and uninvolved people, who have been atomized, exploited, brain-washed by corporate media and ultimately destroyed by gangster capitalism.

Also relevant:

-- Clinton, Edwards and Obama have all said they would not rule out attacking Iran.

-- Polls are consistently showing that Edwards is the only Democrat who can win in November, 2008.

-- The presidential race is also about shaping the federal judiciary. Do we want more folks such as Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas on the federal bench?

You can't just be a little EVIL, Evil is and EVIL does and EVIL follows. There is no such thing as a good way of shoting and bombing your people and calling your family death, collaterial damage. Not by real christians,Jews an Pagens yes can do.

As several discussants have noted, Kucinich is absent from this article. So is Gravel, whose position against the war seems to be forgotten even by commondreams readers.

Let us assume that genuinely anti-war candidates will continue to be marginalized by the mainstream press and their own party. In that case, I have a question.

Here it is. Ready?

Which mainstream party will nominate for President a candidate who promises to keep the US in Iraq for years?

You have five minutes. Remember to support your answer.

Dichterfreund,

Point taken, Kucinich would need "party" support to start the long overdue rollback of the US Empire, and any leftovers from the bipartisan Death Party would surely try to stop any such humanitarian/commonsense actions.

So we enter elective politics to challenge Death Party politicos and provide just such a party base. The party's name isn't as important as its primary driving force, and the general public is more radicalized than at any time in a generation.

As I've said before, much can be learned from history; in this case, Lawrence Goodwyn's "The Populist Moment" offers many important lessons regarding organizing and educating the electorate while describing the disaster of "alignment" with the Democrat Party. Similarly, discovering why Henry Wallace's 1948 campaign failed provides insight. Last, understanding the implosion of the Democrat Party prior to the 1860 election provides a lesson in exploiting a polarized country in order to gain power as a third/fourth party as the Republican's did.

Alienation is rampant, which is why voter turnout is so low, and has proven this proverb: "If God had wanted us to vote, She would have given us candidates." Alienation can be turned to motivation. Future wellbeing hangs in the balance now more than ever, and ought to be seen as a critical crisis that will go unsolved by voting for the lesser of two evils, as the crisis will become more critical if any "mainstream" candidate from either faction of the Death Party becomes president.

When evil leads, evil follows. There is no good way to bomb people,the only leader to vote for is Bill Richardson. Leave Iraq to do what the Iraq people want Mot force them to be in our image,

Paying for it will take even longer.

The military industrial complex wins again.

I see no way out with these Democrats at the helm.

I like Kucinich.

Well, missing from this discussion here is...

What makes anyone think that cheney/bush are even leaving in 2009? And there's no one to make them leave should they cook up reasons why they must stay.

bush uses language such as "I'm the decider" and "MY government" in his speeches.

Does that sound like someone who has any intention of leaving to you?...after they have installed a dictatorship with the help of the bush-Enabler Dems.

Also, regardless of this shit candidate and that shit candidate, assuming there is a 2008 election, most people seem to be living under the illusion that we have a legitimate and honest election system, when we don't, as was demonstrated particularly in the last two presidential so-called "elections." What will it matter in the end when those who do vote cast ballots on a corrupt, fraudulent voting system which in the last 2 presidential "elections" "chose" the candidate with an R behind their name? (An official Repug candidate versus an unofficial Repug candidate like Hillary.)

No one is talking about our corrupt, fraudulent voting machines and these easily-hackable electronic voting machines owned by repugs (and pushed by the dems) are all over the nation.

"Four years after the last presidential race featured early signs of war protest, particularly in the candidacy of Howard Dean, a new phase of the debate seems to be unfolding, with antiwar groups giving the Democrats latitude to take positions short of a full and immediate withdrawal."

This says it all. When the peace movement reconciles itself to pretending that War Lite is "antiwar", then our troops our going to be there for a long, long time.

HEY Jeff Zeleny & Marc Santora...Are you out there reading this???!!! WHY THE FUCK IS THERE NO MENTION OF DENNIS KUCINICH IN THIS ARTICLE??? Are you pushing for the war to continue? Arew you two in the pockets of your corporate bosses? It's omissions of the ONLY TRUE anti-war candidate that wants me to call on a neo-revolution against you media puppets, corporate lobbyists, and the government in general.

Your bullshit omissions like this is determined to keep us in chains! Your tunnel vision proliferates a feeling of hopelessness through the struggling masses who NEED the hope D.K. offers.

Damn you and all your ilk!!!

QUOTE:

VAGreen August 12th, 2007 4:36 pm

"Four years after the last presidential race featured early signs of war protest, particularly in the candidacy of Howard Dean, a new phase of the debate seems to be unfolding, with antiwar groups giving the Democrats latitude to take positions short of a full and immediate withdrawal."

This says it all. When the peace movement reconciles itself to pretending that War Lite is "antiwar", then our troops our going to be there for a long, long time.

END QUOTE

You know, I will probably get slammed for saying this but I don't give a damn.

About a week ago I was saying to a friend, "most so-called progressives/liberals are useless just like the scum in congress they support." He agreed. He said, "they (most progressives) don't belong in politics because they cave and cave and cave."

Uh huh. True.

We have seen it over and over. Cave into this. Cave into that. They will accept this. They will accept that from the bush-Enabling dems.

It makes one feel like SCREAMING!

You don't see the regressive right-wing trash caving and caving and accepting this and accepting that. No, it's just the so-called "liberals/progressives" who back down repeatedly. Can't seem to stand for anything. Except the dem-Enablers who stand strongly FOR bush.

I'm talking about the bush-Enabler Dem supporters/voters (or the Dem koolaid drinkers as I call them).

Those who are STILL supporting the useless bush-Enabler dems seem to accept anything from the Enablers. These so-called "progressives" keep adjusting and accommodating and weaking their positions in order to hold their support for this party of bush-Enablers.

I don't weaken my positions at all, but many people do. It's an outrage. And some of these people are the same ones who will make tired excuse after excuse for the bush-Enablers because these supporters are so tied to that "D" party-line nonsense.

It's enough to make you SCREAM.

seriousprofessor,

Clearly, the Republican faction of the Death Party will run a candidate whose goal will be to maintain and expand the Empire, which implicitly means consumating the Iraqi Holocaust. Will the Democrat faction do the same? If the Imperial publications--NY Times, WA Post, Wall Street Journal--get their way, Clinton is the "chosen" candidate, and her position on the Empire is no different from her husband who escalated the Holocaust and primed Iraq for Bush.

Erma,

There are very few "liberals" or "progressives" or humanitarians or "real" law and order types wanting ALL the laws enforced in Congress; most are supporters/enablers of the Corporate/Imperialist Death Party, which is fascist in its essense. Clearly, if we want candidates to vote for, we must run for office ourselves.

PJD observes:

But Kucinich? The NYT, the paper of record, neatly drops him down Winston Smith's memory hole.

Oh, how I dearly hate the corporate media. They are, above any politician, even Bush, The Enemy.

********************

Let's just hope that Dennis is not the analog to Goldstein (or was it Goldberg?) in 1984--the non-existant leader of the opposition used by BB to draw out those whose minds were bent towards "thought crime" so that they could be "cleansed".

***************

Anybody going to DC on 09/15/07 for the impeachment rally?

An article from the New York Times about the Democrats' views on what to do with the USian occupation of Iraq that manages not to mention Kucinich and his position on the matter -- what a fine instance of "balanced and objective" reporting! Hypocritical scum!

In all seriousness, the Times tells us that three challenges face the next president in Iraq. Let's take a look at these alleged three challenges.

1. "What to do if there is a genocide?"

If the Lancet report is correct about the US's having already massacred one million Iraqis, then we are already well on the way to a genocide, perpetrated by the US and its main flunky, the English military. The longer the US stays, the more thousands upon thousands of Iraqis it will kill.

Also, the longer the US stays, the more Iraqis will join the resistance, and the tougher the resistance will become. The resistance in Ireland lasted four decades, there is no reason wby the resistance in Iraq will not last at least as long. ('Where there is oppression, there is resistance' is a basic axiom of sound political theory.)

2. "What to do if chaos in Iraq threatens to engulf the region in a wider war?"

The chaos in Iraq is already destabilizing the region, as Israel's savaging of Lebanon amply demonstrated last summer. Turkey is stationing troops along its border with Iraq and is ready to invade the Kurdish territories at the slightest act of provocation. The US is constantly taunting and threatening Iran, amassing more and more navy buildings off its territorial waters and conducting stealthy operations from Iraq across the Iranian border, not to mention its arming the Saudis, the Egyptians, and the Israelis to the teeth.

3. "What to do if Iraq descends into further lawlessness and becomes the staging ground for terrorist attacks elsewhere, including in the United States?"

Was Iraq a lawless land before the US invaded it in 2003 and started murdering its population by the hundreds of thousands? Was there any presence of terrorists and suicide bombers there before the US invasion? Anyone not completely brainwashed by BushCo's litany of lies and fabrications knows that the answer to these questions is negative.

Since the lawlessness and the terrorism were caused by the US invasion and occupation, the lawlessness and the terrorist activities will continue as long as the US occupies Iraq and murders its citizens.

So much for the NY Times's and the Democrats' phony concerns.