Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA friend of mine, talking about the Democratic presidential candidates, tossed out a wonderful mixed metaphor: "This is awfully weak tea to have to hang your hat on."
The notion that Bush & Co. had fouled things up so badly for Republicans that just about any Democrat could romp to victory in 2008 was never realistic. What's interesting now, with the first contests just weeks away, is the extent to which Democratic voters are worried about the possibility that none of their candidates have the stuff to take the White House.
This election, the most important in decades, cries out for strong leadership. The electorate is upset, anxious and hungry for change. But "weak tea" is as good a term as any to describe what the Democrats are offering.
Hillary Clinton is the cautious, rigidly programmed candidate who, in the view of most voters, will say whatever the moment demands. Spontaneous she ain't. You can just picture her cross-examining advisers and prowling through polling data to determine whether she's for or against driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants.
Barack Obama has the incandescent smile, and the personality to go with it. Oprah loves him, and a lot of campuses are wild for him. But you still wonder if there's any there there.
His is the make-nice candidacy, no sharp edges. But it's one thing to offer yourself as the agent of change, and quite another to answer the obvious question, "Change to what?"
John Edwards has been the most forceful of the so-called top-tier candidates. But his plan from the beginning was to move to the left of Senator Clinton, never expecting to find Senator Obama happily patrolling that progressive, antiwar region.
Mr. Obama had barely stenciled his name on his Senate office door before grabbing his hat and announcing he was running for president. That was faster than even Mr. Edwards's first, lightning-quick decision to seek the highest office in the land.
The problem for voters is that very little leadership has emerged from the many months of frenetic Democratic fund-raising and politicking.
For all the noise and incessant posturing, we still don't have a clear sense of where Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or any of the others would take the country.
Bush-bashing is not enough. Unless one of the Democratic candidates finds the courage to step up and offer a vision of an American future so compelling that voters head to the polls with a sense of excitement and great expectation, the Republican Party could once again capture the White House (despite its awful performance over the past eight years) with its patented mixture of snake oil and demagoguery.
The G.O.P. game plan is already being pieced together. The White House hopes to inoculate Republican candidates on the Iraq war issue by bringing home a significant number of combat troops in the middle of the general election. And the demagogic issue of choice for 2008 is immigration.
The Willie Horton ugliness of 1988 will be like nothing compared with the concerted attack to be unleashed by the G.O.P. on illegal immigrants next year.
The Democrats will have to figure out a way to counter that with an appeal to the better angels of our nature, and that will require courage.
The need to offer an honest vision that is almost electric in its intensity is especially important for Senators Clinton and Obama. Both have to rally enough voters to overcome deep wells of prejudice in this society. That can't be done by referencing a résumé, or in a nine-second response to a question from Wolf Blitzer.
The American public, tired of war and economically insecure, longs for a leader who will tell the truth and offer a way out of the current morass.
A Democrat can win with a realistic plan for exiting Iraq and, more important, a full-blown economic strategy that addresses the growing anxiety over the fading American dream.
This debilitating anxiety is fed by an uncertain job market; by the housing crisis and the humongous debt that is smothering the middle class; by the long-term erosion of health and pension benefits; by the increasing cost of higher education; and so forth.
It is this spreading anxiety that makes it so easy for the demagogues to gin up the rage against foreigners.
A Democrat who makes a believable case that these problems can be dealt with effectively - and who asks the public to roll up its sleeves and join in such an effort - can win.
But that's not what we're getting. Not so far. And maybe it's not necessary. Maybe the economy will be so bad next year that a Democrat will win in any event. But that's not the kind of tea you want to hang your hat on.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
73 Comments so far
Show AllDo Some Research First.
It looks like the New York Times dosn't let Bab Herbert go outside anymore. Did you ever here of Dennis Kucinich, Bob? He is running for president. He is the most important candidate that the Democrats have to offer. I guess you don't see to much of him on television, or here is name mentioned to often around the New York Times. Next time you do an article on political candidates, do some research first.
nodozejose, you are so right. I haven't voted for a Democrat or Republican since I was young and gullible. It's been occurring to me that many of those posting here are outraged and won't vote again for the lesser evil will probably cave in come election time. Certainly my progressive friends are planning to do just that. And so we will go on wallowing in this disaster that our country has become, with increasing loss of personal freedom and income. And for those who wimped out instead of voting for who they want, they helped it happen. They just can't get it that voting for the lesser evil is why it's happening. When you're on a track to Hell, does it really matter how fast the train is going?
I can understand why Dennis Kucinich is friends with Ron Paul. Their solutions to our problems are polar opposites, but they do share one rare trait. Integrity. There's no doublespeak coming out of either of them.
MARTHA A: Good points!
"A Democrat can win with a realistic plan for exiting Iraq and..."
The Republicans have already won when the opposition is reduced to debating the "realistic" nature of their antiwar stance.
It is a truism that USAmericans most fatal disease is "political amnesia". The posts in response to Herbert´s article above display this clearly. There is a "system" and that system works wonders every four years, blinding people to the results of the previous "system"´s annointing of "the next big thing".
Every four years the Dems offer up someone "of principle" to pull disaffected progressives in who ends up folding and supporting the nominess, who will "lead us to of the wilderness" and "restore hope." It´s amazing that 90% of the people here fall for it too. Remember Jerry Brown? Jesse Jackson? Eugene McCarthy? Shirley Chisholm? So what happens when they (inevitably) don´t get the Dem nomination? They support the nominee (remember Kucinich and that wonderful speech he made at the last Dem convention against Kerry´s war-mongering? And how he rallied his delegates to pull out of the Dems? NOT.)
There is a system in place. It will NOT elect Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. That system can barely stomach the "populist" rants of Edwards, a true blue Dem and full blown member of the system. You WILL get a Pres. Clinton, or a Pres. Giuliani...or a Pres. Romney...or a Pres. Obama...and folks, nothing will change. The economy is tanking, the empire is overstretched and more people follow who will finally win the latest "Survivor" than the next election. And...about 50% of USAmericans will not even vote next year. (Mark all these predictions down.)
You cannot get the system you want by voting for people who don´t want that system.
Reps and Dems will not expand democracy so that we have a multi-party system. Reps and Dems will not end imperial adventurism. Reps and Dems will not provide what every other industrialized Western nation (and many other poorer ones) has: a single payer health care system. (And partly because of that, I live in what is now considered the "best place to live"--Iceland) Reps and Dems will not end USAmerica´s addiction to oil and cheap coffee which keeps a stranglehold on you and citizens in South America. Reps and Dems will not pass an end to Taft-Hartley and enable people to successfully unionize.
If you want a new system you have to vote for those outside the Reps and Dems and stop arguing with yourselves or Mr. Herbert or any other MSM apologist.
It´s that simple.
It's quite creepy that anyone who is authentic and fights the corporate corruption is considered a "fringe" candidate. If American lets this stand, than America deserves what's coming to it: fascism and bad karma for kicking those who are down.
LeeAnnG November 28th, 2007 1:45 pm
The nearly total absence of Kucinich in the MSM is an indication to me that he is a threat to corporate interests.
Yes, you are totally correct. He is a threat to the facist corporate whores who adore Clinton. The NYT is a big corporate player, they don't want democracy. More reason to vote for Dennis. I switched away from him in 2004 because everyone told me I was wasting my vote. But no more. If all of us that believe in Dennis supported him we really could throw the whores out of power.
Remember all the sappy movies you've watched where the underdog wins despite all odds? Well here's your last chance to rid our once powerful democracy from facists.
You get the government you deserve. Turn off the tv and vote your convictions. I know I will.
I'm with you, LeeAnnG. And I had the same response to the article. Gandhi said first the ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. The press is in the ridicule stage with Dennis.
And yes, St John, many years ago I held my nose and voted for George McGovern after he betrayed Thomas Eagleton. I felt so lousy afterwards that I swore I would never ever again hold my nose to vote. A good friend of mine suggested it's better to hold it for a few minutes than for four years. But I don't see it that way. When I vote for who I want I'm doing my job. If others can't do their job and vote for who they want, that's their problem. And if we get stuck with their nose-holding lousy choices, well, maybe sometime, people will come to their senses. But while we still have the freedom to vote for who we want, that is what I will do. I wonder what this country would look like if everyone voted for who they want?
The nearly total absence of Kucinich in the MSM is an indication to me that he is a threat to corporate interests. The amazing thing is that he's not on the fringe, but represents the real views of so many people. The very few times he's been mentioned in any mainstream publication - like coverage in the Washington Post of his attempts to impeach - responses from bloggers have been overwhelmingly similar to what I see on CD, Alternet, and other progressive sites. And this response is that Kucinich is the only candidate with integrity, intelligence, and the welfare of the average citizen at the basis of his platform.
Kucinich is marginalized both by being ignored by the media and by being cast as a nutjob, as evidenced by the absurd question in the debat eabout his seeing a UFO while visiting Shirley McClain. He is also depicted as uncharismatic, lacking in passion, and somehow inarticulate. Of course, none of this is true. When given the time to present his views without interruption, he is logical, very passionate, and well-spoken.
We need to continue to spread the word about Kucinich. There are still an amazing number of people who have no idea who he is or what he stands for.
The insistence of journalists like Herbert on debating the merits of the "top three" contenders is frustrating, but perhaps there really is room left in this country for We the People to make our voices heard. The whole time I was reading this article, a voice in my head kept screaming "What about Kucinich?" Let's scream it out loud and keep on screaming it until we can no longer be ignored.
I used to think that electing someone who had some "similar" positions on "some" issues with me was the way to go. At least I had a voice in electing that person and could somewhat go along with him(men only so far, are placed in nomination)was my rationalization. I voted for Kerry in 2004 because I was encouraged by someone I trusted that he would be more electable than Kucinich, whom I was going to write-in. I feel I wasted my vote because I did not vote my heart. I will not make the same mistake. Most here seem to feel strongly in favor of DK, but many will not vote for him simply because they think a vote for him is a waste and gives the Republican candidate an advantage. My favorite quote and what I live my life from is: You must be the change you wish to see in the world. Mahatma Gandhi. He was a man who did not cave to the popular or powerful in his society. And, he was willing to die for his cause...and did. But, what he accomplished was the defeat and expulsion of, at the time, the most powerful nation on the planet, the British Empire, from India. He also set the precedent, in modern times, for the use of non-violent activism to challenge the oppresive violence of the poweful. Interestingly, the most well-known practitioner of this method is Jesus. Unfortuantely, "christians" have forgotten this core teaching of their Master, and corrupted it to their own egoic ends. But, I digress. My point is, a vote from your heart or conscience, is a vote for the common good of all, including not just the USA, but the planet. To fail to stand on principle, regardless of the short-term consequences, is to surrender to the tribal pressure and send a message that your principles are for sale.
I won't do it. And, I am not perfect. I still have many areas of my life that fear still runs me, but on this I stand firm. If enough of us vote our conscience, even if we "lose" this round, in the long run we will deliver our message and we can feel that our message will be heard.
peace,
st john
Has anybody really asked why the focus is on Hillary and Obama? Who controls the press and pulls the strings? Much as many people like these two candidates, there are many more who do not. If either of these candidates makes it through the primary, they will be easy to destroy....... follow the trail and you will find a great deal of the support for them coming from the far right for this reason...... stealth support..... a Rovian strategy if ever there was one.
Kucinich would be an excellent choice for the presidency....... however he is too far out on the fringe to easily gain the needed support from all sectors of the electorate. Edwards has a solid, and realistic platform that can appeal to the majority of Americans, and probably is the single most credible candidate by a large margin from either side. Rather than allowing the passions of a few to drive Hillary, Obama, or Kucinich to the forefront, we need to put up a candidate that is pallatible to a much larger sector of the American population....... and that man is Edwards realistically.
I wonder if we will even have an '08 general election....... or if a manufactured crisis will be used to justifiy suspension until a "more convenient time"?
H.W.
www.ronpaul2008.com
Anniesee---We'll see.
Risky for him--extremely risky for the Democrats.
If it looks for certain like he is heading there they will Gravelize him.
What a democracy! We can vote NO or HELL NO!
Vern - Kucinich (kind of) answered your question in the last TV debate.
The candidates were asked if they would support whoever becomes the Democratic nominee. The other 6 said an uniequivocal "Yes", but Kucinch put a proviso into his reply - I think, from memory it was "providing the nominee pledges to end the war/occupation in Iraq.
Talk about weak tea: that is the corporately cautious, toothless New York Times. And frankly, the media, instead of reporting, has been busy framing candidates. And yes, dismissing Kucinich because it believes he won't win. I am embarrassed to admit I was actually watching Larry King one night. He had Bill Cosby on, and when Cosby spoke of his admiration for Kucinich, Larry said patronizingly: "Oh, he's a nice little man!" How dare he?
Any candidate who does have a strong vision for drastic change (and considered a threat by the corporate leaders) would be quickly attacked and marketed as whatever the media felt would garner the most ratings, or worse, anyone who demands accountability from the media would be absolutely savaged, ruined and dismissed. I think this article by Bob Herbert is absolutely duplicitous.
Always pass over the ra ra Kucinich posts. They are devoid of content.
Sometimes Kucinich contributes to making himself a fringe-like character--not that I mind personally, but as a politician it gives him less credibility--and sometimes he is sullen. I know this is bound to offend many of his true belivers, what I am most interested in re Kucinich is seeing whether he lines up behind the pre-ordained nominee--or whether he will truly stand on principle. We will see what takes priority--pulling in his supporters to the D tent--or standing tall in speaking truth to power even when he will be forced to risk all. I am sure he dreads the day.
Does anyone even think Bob Herbert actually reads any of these comments? He could at least respond once, but probably doesn't care about commondreams. He is no being paid by CD, is he? I also heard the DK interview on NPR today. He was asked about immigration, but his cell cut out and his answer was missed. What he has to say on this is also very humanitarian.
Anyone written the NYT to comment on this article? I don't read it or any of the MSM, so only know what I get here and Salon.com and occasionally, BBC.
peace,
st john
The Republicans plan to use immigration as an issue next year? But will the voters buy that we are being invaded by Muslim Mexican gay Communist evolution welfare-cheating terrorists?
Jimmy Kimmel rerun: Makes fun of Kucinich as the "kid's candidate". I know that Jimmy is just a piece of Las Vegas filth but the campaign to get rid of Kucinich and and his unpleasant truths is pretty amazing.
The fact that Dennis Kucinich didn't even receive notable mention, disqualifies you from being an impartial writer. Kucinich not only has a vision, but he represents the majority of Americans on an entire range of issues from immediate and complete withdrawal of all troops from Iraq to a universal health plan for ALL Americans. Instead you only mentioned the "corporate choices" for the Democratic nomination which obviously have nothing new to report.
Shame on you Bob Herbert for leaving the only TRUE Democrat out of your article!
Bob Herbert is clearly a corporate douche bag for not writing about Kucinich. I heard Dennis today on National Pasteurized Radio and he was visionary on every topic of policy that was thrown at him. It nearly brought me to tears that he is being surgically removed by the MSM to ensure he/we do not see the light of day in their goal for total darkness.
Dennis Kucinich?
Talking about seeing a UFO seems like a brilliant political move to me. I don't understand why everybody isn't cheering for the only candidate who can put us in touch with higher life-forms.
Uh, Bob, I know you're a bought and paid for whore of the MSM, but you're actually perplexed about the state of affairs in this so-called democracy? Let's get it straight. The two Democratic "candidates" are both unelectable. On the other hand, they're being funded by Rupert Murdoch. Do the math. Or do they know how to do math at the NYT.
The New York Times is for wrappinig fish. Ignore the swine.
Not one word has been said about the REPUBLICAN lobbyist led DLC TAKEOVER of the Democratic Party that has been the catalyst for all the political problems of the LEFT since the DLC's inception during Reagan's REPUBLICAN administration.
Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson are all members of the DLC, Democratic Leadership Council, a corporate organization. NO MEMBER OF THE DLC IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING FOR WE THE PEOPLE of the greater majority. Besides pushing war, members of the DLC push the two-class society trade agreements, N.A.F.T.A., C.A.F.T.A. and the Peru Trade Agreement.
Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are not for continued and endless war or for the two class trade agreements.
Since all the media is run by Right Wing Republicans there is no chance the people will get to hear about Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. WE THE PEOPLE are going to have to be smarter this election and not vote for those the Right Wing Media is pushing, but vote for the candidates the Right Wing Media is doing their best to kick out.
My vote will go to Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich, and if they are not on the Democratic Ticket, I will vote GREEN. I will not give my vote to a DLC member and if Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel can't win, they must not allow what votes they have received to be given to a member of the DLC, as all members of the DLC are incognito Republicans anyway.
McKinney/Kucinich
Gore/Kucinich
McKinney/Lee :-)
Kucinich/Gravel
in my dreams, yeah.
agree, the reason DK is 'unelectable' is because the lapdog press has been instructed to label him unelectable, which makes him unelectable.
voting in the US has become a game of Prisoner's Dilemma.
Bob Herbert is full of it. Has he looked at the polls lately? Obama is going to run away with this election. Barack has the brains, the guts, and the nerve to do the job. First time in a long time we've seen that in the White House. The world will be a better place the instant Barack is sworn in.
Hello? Kucinich.. Where have you been?
NONE of the establishment politicians can save your country. You are all doomed unless you... the common people... rise up and DEMAND true democracy. Do your homework people... NONE of these people, democrat or republican will do anything to address the core problem... And what is the core problem? Why it's the Federal Reserve system and the role of money in your government. Really, events are controlled behind the scenes by, in the words of President Wilson, "a small group of ruthless men". Your democracy is a sham... the parties are two sides of the same coin.
Gore/Kucinich has a nice ring to it for me - somehow we must make him (Al) run.
Forget all this other stuff, although it's important - right now our main concern has to be the climate.
Oh, brother.
All I can do is yawn. Nothing but wasted words from the world's most overrated newsrag. While they editorialize about the hopelessness of the Democratic candidates, they virtually ignore the two who do offer something, Dennis and Mike.
To hell with US media.
"The Democrats will have to figure out a way to counter that with an appeal to the better angels of our nature, and that will require courage."
What you're really saying is that the Democrats will have to amp up the lies to the public. Remember, Democrats are one head of the two-headed capitalist monster. Keep in mind, they belong to the monster, not to us. And that head isn't going to chop itself off anytime soon.
Remember when we thought the Democrats would come to the aid of their country once they secured a majority? Ha! Weren't we naive? Fooled again! And again! And again, until our rights are gone, our jobs are gone, our rivers are gone, our trees are gone, and it's too late to get them back.
NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL GOOD MEN AND WOMEN TO COME TO THE AID OF THEIR COUNTRY!
The real truth is not that we have weak candidates but canned questions and canned questioners i.e alphabetical talking heads. The debates have become too scripted and narrow. Our elections have been dumbed down. I think more energy goes into the height of the podiums, makeup artists and being able to see the questions before their asked rather than having genuine debate. That piece of writing was dubious. Mr.Herbert failed to mention the above,
criticized the candidates despite of this mess then told the truth in the end though failing to mention the one man who embodies the issues Americans care about. Such as ending the war and relieving economic insecurities. The man he failed to mention is Dennis Kucinich.
If Dennis Kucinich has the ideas that you agree with, put your money where your talk is. Go to http://www.dennis4president.com/ and contribute. (If you get it in before the quarterly deadline, it will be doubled by presidential campaign matching funds. So do it now! No more wimpy... "well maybe he can't win" whining out there.)
"THE EMPEROR IS NAKED, BUT STILL CARRIES A BIG STICK"
Or, the Danger in Counting the Republican Imperialists out
Many Progressives and Liberals are gleefully pointing to evidence suggesting a truly deserved disintegration of the Republican Party. I'm not so sanguine however.
Regardless of the disarray their titular headless horseman delivers, he and his Neocons are not the only Republicans. After all, . . .
Who owns or controls most of the ever decreasing number of mainstream media news outlets? (It doesn't matter what the reporters find or want to say if they are not allowed to say it or can't get a paycheck.)
Who not only admitts to secretly spying on Americans, but thinks it is a good idea? And, how likely it is they wouldn't also use it to find potential blackmail of opposition candidates? (If someone thinks the other side is traitorous, then it is but a short step to believing that justifies any means to stop them.)
Who builds and supplies most of the electronic voting machines and won't allow inspection of the software codes or encourage paper duplicates of the ballots? (It doesn't matter if you get the votes if they are not counted or reassigned.)
Who currently appoints the investigators and prosecutors looking into voter fraud? (If potential voters or candidates can be intimidated, it matters little who they favor.)
Who seeks out for appointment the most partisan possible judges, the ones who seem to care more for electing their fellow party members than honoring their oath of office? (If protecting those who put them in power seems more important than abstract principles, kiss the Constitution and its safeguards goodby. The number of them is going to increase between now and the election, not decrease.)
Who had control of most of the legislatures after the last census which allowed new gerrymandering to take place? (With the next census still years away, a close to majority of seats in Congress still may be unassailable. And, the "coalition" of elected Democrats remains what only could be described as fragile given the diversity of opinions within that party. Anything less than a veto proof, filabuster proof, legislature means gridlock.)
Who is master at exploiting the gullibility and irrationality of voters? (If lies or re-labeling are shouted loud enough, long enough and with a straight face, belief or at least confusion ensues. The fact that one person out of every four still is stating Bush is doing a good job and that one out of every two thinks Saddam had something to do with 9/11 speaks for itself.)
Who still insists that "terrorism" or other diversions can only be handled by a dictator permanently in charge? (For most people, if theyare kept scared, they tend to be willing give up all to be safe even if the safety is an illusion, especially if there is no inference with their shopping or tv schedules. Too bad, the track records are never closely examined or compared against the rhetoric.)
Who has been the prime beneficiary of the transfer of trillions of dollars from the lower and middle classes to the ultra rich over the past few decades? (Money still buys elections and the fact that some Democrats allegedly are drawing more openly disclosed campaign contributions prior to primaries reveals little about what can be tapped by Republicans once the post convention battle begins.)
Who controls the stock market, the banks, and most of the means of production still remaining in this country? Who can impoverish traditional Democrat workers and their families simply by changing interest rates or moving factories or money overseas? (It used to be that there were penalties attached to such things. Now there are profits to be made and as a "bonus" organized opposition is crippled.)
Am I paranoid? Yeah. Why aren't you? (It doesn't even matter if the above results were unintentional. The consequences are the same.)
Combine all that with the unending incompetency and fearfulness of the Democrat "leaders" selected. If you need any further evidence, merely re-examine the results of the last two presidential elections and how different the outcome seemed at the time given the demographics. The Republicans probably cannot be blamed for the abysmal choices Democratic Party members made on who to run, but they do get a large share of the responsibility for resolutely shifting the arguments from the issues to unrelenting and unfair personal attacks. Maybe no voter bothers to listen to the issues anyway, but it is still depressing.
In any event, the current crop of Democrats in office astonishingly seem to have positioned themselves for getting tagged with both "losing" the Iraq fiasco and, if the coming recession doesn't happen quick enough, that too. How is that even possible when Bush and his boys controlled every choice along the way? Doesn't anyone remember anything? Yet, here we are.
Worse yet, some of the Democratic contenders seem to harbor envy of the exercise of unconstitutional, even criminal, powers exercised by the current occupants of the White House.
[more thoughts at resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com]
Looks like this indy voter will have to either write-in Ralph or vote for Ron Paul. At least he's not gonna continue murdering Iraqis, which we all know will continue under the "progessive"arm of Wall Street.
Democrats are not an option for me anymore -- whatsoever, at least this bunch of nitwits.
those 3 are weak. KUCINICH is STRONG! Large in stature. Who else has brought Impeachment bills into Congress? Who else stands strong against Big Pharma with a workable Single-payer Universal Health CARE plan (not health insurance no one can afford). Who else has the spiritual and moral vision to save our country from corporate greed and shopping-itis disease("Prayer for America")? ETC ETC.
He represents so many of us ordinary people.
ron paul is courageous and principled. he is also wrong on every single social issue out there. he in office would be a disaster.
This just in on Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. They are good friends.
Maybe this will be our Independent Third Party dream ticket?
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/MSNBC_KucinichPicksPaul.mov
bob herbert often raises a lone voice on important issues. i thought he was better informed than someone who would pretend there are only three democrats running for the presidency.
here in michigan we are close to getting a primary on january 15th. what we may get, though, is a truncated list of candidates. contact howard dean and tell him we need to choose from ALL the democratic candidates!
my favorites in this order are dennis kucinich, bill richardson, and john edwards.
Check out this interview with Dennis Kucinich and his beautiful and intelligent wife Elizabeth:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FHpnLV1gUZY
She actually praises Ron Paul and answers questions about a new 9/11 Investigation, mentioning that Dennis has a group within his campaign looking into it now. She said that if he were to be elected President he would definitely launch a new investigation.
This is worth watching and passing on.
Forget the Dems already - not a one could lead a scout troop, no less a country on the brink of multiple catastrophes.
Dr. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a true leader, a man of real integrity who has never wavered on the issues. He's delivered over 4,000 babies, holds the record for being the single "No" vote in House votes that went All Yea, One No Way. He's vowed to withdraw our troops from Iraq and the other 700+ bases around the world, restore the Constitution and Bill of Rights, hold all corporate criminals to public account, end torture, close Gitmo, and sweep the neocons into the woodchipper.
Sure, we may not agree with everything he stands for, but he ain't no loony right-wing kill em all steal everything screw the people GOPathological, nor is he a loyalbushieDem who speaks with pretty fork tongue while pocketing the dirty millions from the same anti-Americans who put us in this hellhole position in the first place.
If it's truly about the best PERSON for the job, then stop the party bullsh*t and vote Dr. Ron Paul.
Adele,
Why don't all you dumb, slavic, pope-or bearded-icon loving, east-european bohunks and polacks all go home and quit stealing our jobs in the coal mines and steel mills.
And take all those dagos and micks with you!
- common remark, in my home town, circa 1920's
"The top tier Dems must not have any staffers reading Common Dreams."
Well, we have Daniel David - but he must have been sent here by Rahm Emmanual after doing something bad...
Bob Herbert, a so-called liberal, writes, "The Willie Horton ugliness of 1988 will be nothing compared with the concerted attack ... by the G.O.P. on illegal immigrants next year. The Democrats will have to figure out a way to counter that with an appeal to the better angels of our nature, and that will require courage." No, that will require SELLING OUT tens of millions of working Americans and LEGAL immigrants whose wages are being held down by this appalling surplus of unskilled, undereducated labor who have no right to work here! It's particularly dire when a recession is approaching.
If the Dems don't stand up for working families in EVERY way, who will? There's no need for inflammatory rhetoric about illegals. But I'd like to see the party call for serious economic reform in Mexico and the Central American countries, which would provide economic opportunities for their citizens. If there was a future for them at home, don't you think the illegals would prefer to be back with their families?
"You have the f-ing nerve to write this article and not mention Dennis Kucinich? Who the hell is paying you??"
The corporate NYTimes is paying him - as they are their star-pundit, billionarire Tom Friedman. W'dya expect?
I agree with those who protest the continued exclusion of Kucinich. Bob Herbert likes to come off as a champion of the downtrodden and the innocent but has fallen in love with his own voice and the power brokers. Kucinich's plight is the result of his unusual appearance; it's pathetic that Herbert, an African American, cannot understand that. This is more of the shill politics that doomed previous Democratic candidates.
@Daniel David
Bullcrap. Hillary, for one, is bought and paid for by the same people Bush works for: The elite.
All voters! Think for yourselves! Decide your vote on the issues!
If you like what Dennis Kucinich stands for, ignore the corporate brainwash and vote for him!
Here is a parable I will be sharing at a forum where I will be representing Congressman Kucinich in a couple of weeks:
One day I went outside work to buy lunch from the catering truck that is there every day. A new truck was on our route, and it only had three items on the menu:
1. Real shit
2. "Deodorized" shit
3. Celery and carrot salad
The truck was covered with signs advertising "Deodorized" shit. Yes, that deodorized shit was said to be the only good choice for lunch and the greatest thing since sliced bread. Loudspeakers were announcing that "nearly everyone" was going to each deodorized shit for lunch.
I was considering the choices and I knew right away I didn't want to eat regular shit for lunch.
I like to think for myself, so I decided to pick one of the baggies of deodorized shit off the pile and take a whiff of it's contents. ARGHHHHH! Wheeoooh! Let me tell you something - there is no such thing as deodorized shit!
Off to the side there was a self serve glass case with the salad item sealed in plastic containers inside sealed shrink wrap. The cooler was mysteriously labeled "No corporate funding."
With a menu like that, it occurred to me that I could understand why half the people stay home, but I decided to try one of the salads.
Now the only reason I didn't eat refried homemade shit for lunch is that I THINK FOR MYSELF - AND YOU SHOULD TOO!!!
Two thoughts:
The top tier Dems must not have any staffers reading Common Dreams.
With friends like Bob Hebert, who needs enemies?
Oh, ya, and what "willybill" said.
Why do all you simpletons get caught up in this shell game? You don't strike me as stupid.
Just another discouraging piece of nonsense from the third best newspaper in New York City with an agenda of its own. There is no Republican game plan. All that has to happen is people have to turn up and vote, and the votes have to be counted fairly (and I'm concerned about that). A harsh economic wind is going to blow through the world for about 6-9 months, and the GOP is going to get the arse-kicking it so richly deserves. Unless, this kind of old-style Pravda propaganda is taken to be the truth.
The name of the person you are describing that could be president is DENNIS KUCINICH. But the media wants the status quo so the DK name is never mentioned and nothing he says is ever comverd.
This article is typical horseshit coming from what is supposed to be a a respected part of the media. The media today - if it were truly free - would be anti-government without a doubt. Politicians would be afraid of the media, instead of being partners with them. If it actually the voice of the American people it would be saying IMPEACH!
Hoa binh
Ooh, good call tejasgole! I don't remember much about that, but it is best for people (even DK supporters!) to identify and question DK's discrepencies.
Of course, now that I think about it, the best protest agaist the Gravel exclusion would be for DK to leave the debate, when he's trying so hard to get into them and a leave would be fodder for further DK exclusions... Or mentioning it during his 5 minutes at the debate, of course that is not enough time even to address his vision, much less address debate unfairness.
So what's the answer here (I don't have one)
Thanks Bob and the New York Times for watering down the "appointed 3" while not even answering your own question! Yes Kucinich (and even Biden and Richardson) has a VISION. And when you talk about his vision (without mentioning his name) the majority will agree with it.
Bob... can I call you Schmuck? How would you have phrased a DK mention? It would have answered your call for vision, thus making DK the focus of your article... not on your life right? Or would you sidle him "unelectable" and imply that voting is a waste of time anyway? Or are you working the sly angle, calling for vision while hoping that people will think of DK on their own?
Will the CD editors challenge the NYT?
Dennis Kucinich did not have the nerve to protest Gravel being left out of the debates. Why are you upset that Bob H. left out Kucinich?
Are you all talking about voting FOR someone/thing rather than against someone/thing? Imagine that!
Am I the only that is seeing the stage set for a strong "father" figure to step forward and take care of his "children" for their benefit and safety. Pretty Scary times.
Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.
It's either "Hillary's turn" or Obama's shirking of the issues while pursuing a non-confrontational image like he was playing a role rather than dealing with the deperation of the hour.
They both take up space.
If we are waiting for one of the candidates to "step up and offer a vision" in order to support liberalism and progressivism, why don't we just shoot ourselves? We're useless if that's how we think.
We need to be electing our agenda in this country, not a personality. Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Clinton, any of them would be just fine.
We need the progressive writers trumping the issues, not making book on the candidates. Supreme Court, Social Security, Medicare, falling dollar, education, re-tooling drug policy, ending cable domination of citizens by "package", corporate personhood, deficits due to tax cuts.
Losing on Iraq, gays, illegal immigrants and abortion again is just STUPID, and it will be the voters to blame, not the candidates. Do something today to help.
The coverage is designed to leave out Kucinich. I constantly ask American friends why they don't mention him as an electoral choice for them. "Oh," they say, "he's unelectable. Otherwise we would vote for him." He's unelectable because he has been labelled it. Staggering. The corporatists who really run our countries will be hugging themselves with delight. He's the only real threat to them. And it's a real disappointment to see Herbert is also peddling the "unelectable" line by default.
"This election, the most important in decades, cries out for strong leadership"
What about Joe Biden?? He isn't even mentioned in this article. I agree with st john above, about Kucinich. There is something wrong with the coverage.
And 'peace' to you also.
"The American public, tired of war and economically insecure, longs for a leader who will tell the truth and offer a way out of the current morass."
We also long for a newspaper that will tell the truth. The POTUS is a war criminal and the New York Times has never noticed that? What a group of idiots.
willybill, Anniesee and st john – I too am furious that Bob Herbert totally ignores Dennis Kucinich. In doing so he makes himself an accomplice in the conspiracy to silence the most courageous of all the candidates. Just last night (Monday, Nov. 26) Dennis spoke on the impeachment of Cheney AND Bush at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H.
Bob Herbert is supposed to be a liberal and a man with political acumen? Bob Herbert is just a loser betting on a horse race. In American presidential politics we put our money on a winner. Hillary Clinton is a winner because she has the most money. She has the most money because she is a winner. It's as simple as circular reasoning - a dog chasing its tail round and round in a circle. Bob Herbert is a dog!
The powers that be have all of US going round and round in circles. Straight reasoning tells us that Clinton has tons of money because she is a corporate candidate. Kucinich is anathema to the corporations. Clinton is pushed front and center by the corporate media. Dennis is made marginal (literally!) by the corporate media. They ignore him and belittle him as much as they can. Bob Herbert is doing his shitty part. Get a doggy bag!
Impeachment will never happen now because that would mean a woman president without the corporations getting to certify Hillary.
Amazing. Every word Bob Herbert wrote was about Dennis Kucinich. A name that will never cross corporate lips. Does that include you, Mr. Herbert?
The other night after watching the Democratic "debate" my wife and I agreed that any one of them would be a cut above any of the republican candidates - forget about the current president.
Richardson and Kucinich are incredibly able and have great ideas. It really pisses me off when people dismiss them.
Forget about immigration - that just became a "problem" when it was decided it should be an issue of division.
The real issue should be the declining dollar. One Euro is now valued as $1.50 or so and nobody is talking about it.
Dennis Kucinich: Why is his name left out of this article? He is a candidate and he has clearly stated positions on every issue faced in this election. Whether he is electable is not at issue; he likely will not be elected or win the nomination, but he raises all the issues and is ignored by everyone with an ax to grind. Once again, the American people and the world will get a "Leader" who is incompetent and unwilling to face reality. What Dennis is calling for is radical and transformational change: the end of war as a solution to conflict with a Dept of Peace; universal single-payer healtcare for all; trade policies that serve all the people of the world, not just the corporations and Americans; and, an educational system that teaches critical thinking, not how to take a government-mandated test.
In a society that only seems to value "winning" those considered not in the race as possible winners are ignored. Most of the truly "great" people of history were underdogs and had huge impediments to achieving greatness, but through their belief and commitment to their ideals, they impacted all of us in one way or another. Please include Dennis Kucinich in future discussions of the presidency of the United States. It may require some research and deep thinking, but I think we are all capable of that.
peace,
st john
The tea will continue to be weak and your hat will be trampled underfoot, Mr. Herbert, because you and and your ilk in the media refuse to acknowledge the talent residing in candidates other than the "big 3".
Kucinich and Biden both offer far more than the stale trio upon whom your article is based.
You have the f-ing nerve to write this article and not mention Dennis Kucinich? Who the hell is paying you??
Wow.
The Democratic choices for presidential candidates are: A stealth Republican corporate whore in a skirt, a corporate Oreo, and a WASP milquetoast.
All of whom sat by idly while Bushco committed crimes against humanity.