I could see in 2004 that John Edwards was extremely electable. At the time I thought that if he had been at the top of the ticket they would have won. Now I know that only a landslide would have stopped the theft of the election. This time around I'm not sure even that will stop the theft of the 2008 election.

I agree that Edwards is the most electable of the three "top polling" candidates. I'm sure the corporate media will fight tooth and nail to keep him off the ballot. It's hilarious hypocrisy for them to cry foul when he talks about fighting for the working class. What do they think the elite have been up to? Playing nice in the sandbox?

I see a lot of talk about working within the Dem Party or going to a third party. Here in Iowa, Green made a momentary appearance in 2000 and it is gone. I just don't see the third party route as a realistic option.

The progressive community has generally acknowledge public campaign financing is the way to minimize the incumbent grip on power.
No one is talking about Edwards is the only Dem candidate taking public financing. That alone deserves my support and I will be caucusing for him come January 3.

Great article Paul. Edwards is the man. If he wants the progressive vote, he has to put an end to the theo-corporate War on Drugs and poor mostly young people of color here and overseas to take the profits from the drug mafias and their pharmaceutical counterparts and end the drug/private prison/industrial complex.

If Edwards continues to support the criminalization of marihuana, a harmless medicinal herb and the only one that is detectable in fascist urine tests, he can't be trusted. Progressives are the best educated among us. We won't be fooled again.

Krugman has come his closest to an endorsement of Edwards and frankly, he´d be right.

Clinton has more baggage than an airport luggage carousel. Oh, she might win the election if she gets the Democratic nomination, but she´ll divide the Dems so badly, they will lose their majorities in both Houses of Congress. Just like her husband did. Her regard for the "soul" of the Party (if it still exists) is nil. She, like her husband, is out for number 1, and most people sense it.

Obama, on the other hand, has that beautifully stentorian voice and enough charm to mask what a centrist/conservative Democrat he really is. Perhaps, "corporate" Democrat is better. but then, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, "they´re all corporate Democrats now." If he got the nomination, he too just might win a general election. But his majority would go down in flames too, once Breszinski and other neo-cons get Cabinet positions.

Which leaves Edwards. At present, he talks the talk. Recent CNN and FOX polls show that he beats EVERY Republican, and with bigger margins, than any other Dem.

Beats every Republican. More than every other Dem.

Why? It´s simple. Because he has decided to take the mantle of Left opposition to establlishment Dems (and despite Oprah, Obama is a corporate Dem). Edwards knows that people are worried and anxious, that without fighting for a better country, the corporate Dems will pass their plate to their corporate sponsors and working folks will be excluded, yet again. Edwards has that quality tha tthe Dems are looking for as well--"electability." Oh, he is no Kucinich--but Kucinich is no President. It won´t happen and those who threaten to bolt from the Dems or voting altogether if DK doesn´t get the nod should leave now. History hurts and he, just like Jerry Brown, Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Eugene McCarthy, etc., will, in the end, fold back all those "progressives" who flocked to him believing a new future was headed.

I am not a Democrat. I will not vote for a Democrat for President. (Havent since 1992 and that was a clear mistake.) But if teh Dems want to take back the White House AND keep a mojority in both Houses then they have to take someone who can win in the South, draw in working folks and take on corporate domination of our political sphere. Can he do it? Maybe. With the push from all those who write and talk politics and who care enough to get involved, yes, it´s possible. But if one merely pushes a lever and then goes back to watching TV or reading too many online articles, then no.

It certainly is up to us to force a Presedent´s hand. Think FDR who once turned to a group of "supporters" whose ranks included Socialists, "Look, I believe in what you say. Now go out there and make me do it." He knew that without pressure from below he´d have no mandate.

Neither Clinton (who flees challenging the status quo as fast as her husband flees marital fidelity) nor Obama (who will take equivocation and make a virtue of it) can challenge the status quo enough to rally the Dems and maybe progressives and hold onto a majority to get things done. It ain´t perfect (I personally would prefer Nader) but it could work. Think about it.

KUCINICH!!

Imagine that, the NYT actually making a clear distinction between candidates! Calling Obama "naive" is extremely kind. It speaks either (or both) to his inexperience and to his ability to say one thing while meaning another. He uses Republican code as well as they do (e.g. "protecting our national interests" in Iraq--meaning let's get their oil). If we have any hope of advancing a progressive agenda, Edwards is it. The corporate interests have been running this county for too long; to carry the metaphor, they have catered, served and gorged at the table. It's time to end the buffet for them, and let Middle America enjoy more than the scraps tossed to us.

Obama talks about the Audacity of Hope. There is nothing audacious about hoping. We all hope for a better world. Bringing one about requires fighting the good fight. Yes fighting.

If you want to be accomodating and bipartisan that won't do it. We all know that to the Dems bipartisanship equals surrender.

The reasons so many of us on the left will not support either Hillary or Obama is that Hillary IS the enemy and Obama wants to sit down with enemy and make nice.We want to FIGHT the enemy.

Someone once told me the trouble with liberals is they are too fair minded and nice to take even their own side in an argument.

We don't want to be offered hope. We want action. We want the ones who have trashed our country and our constitution to be held accountable.That is step one toward a future we all HOPE for.

Ezeflyer: I also favor decriminalizing pot, but good grief -- if Edwards doesn't agree that's a REALLY minor point on which to withhold your vote for him! He's the only electable Dem who's not in bed with Corporate America. What's more, the latest polls show him beating every single one of the Republican candidates in a head-to-head matchup!

Nodozejoze: You say "I will not vote for a Democrat..." So what are you gonna do, stay home and be part of the problem? Besides, there are Dems like the late Paul Wellstone, and there are Dems like Holy Joe. Why not admit to the enormous gulf between Edwards and Hillary? She's beholden to big money and corporate power and he is NOT. He also knows we have a long fight on our hands to wrest our country back from the plutocrats who run everything now, and he's ready to do battle.

In 2004 Edwards floundered in the debates when it came to foreign policy. But he's smart enough to have gotten a broad education in the meantime. Did you hear him on Charlie Rose? This time he's really informed.

What makes these candidates "serious?" How can you possibly consider your self academically serious, Professor Krugman, if you do not include Congressman Dennis Kucinich in your list?

You definition of serious appears to be "endorsed by the corporate media" and "sold out to corporate contributions."

The fact is, Dennis Kucinich is the most serious of all the candidates. Listen to the passion in which he proposes the 21st century equivalent of the New Deal.

While John Edwards is waxing serious and knitting his brow over correct labeling on medicine bottles, Dennis Kucinich is calling for Medicare for All.

While Hillary Clinton is getting serious about what posture to take in general, Dennis Kucinich is calling for an immediate orderly withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq and an international peace conference.

And so on.

Dennis Kucnich has laid out a complete program for energy conversion and transportation conversion. A solartopia green future that is the only serious choice for a survivable culture.

Please get serious Professor Krugman.

heavyrunner,

I think Mr. Krugman was using the modifier "serious" to indicate some plausible scenario exists for a candidate in which the candidate could win the primary and the general election. I like Kucinich, but actually I would prefer someone to the left of Kucinich. But we never hear about those far left candidates because they poll under one-tenth of one percent. And we do not hear much about Kucinich, because he polls under two percent. At some point, we all compromise or we delude ourselves.

Healthcare will be a tough problem to solve. For a historical note, universal (socialist, if you like) healthcare in Great Britain was very difficult to achieve. Even though the system had been largelynationalised at the start of World War II, to co-ordinate the care of the expected massive civilian casualties that would result from German bombing raids, the post-war Labour government still faced a massive obstacle in the form of senior hospital doctors, who made a handsome living from private patients. In the memorable phrase of the Health Minister, Aneurin Bevan, he "stuffed their mouths with gold" - allowed them to work both privately and within the nationalised system.

It seems to me the drug companies in the USA have already been stuffed with gold, and your problem is how to get them to give some of it up.

Funny how most of the people I talk to like Kucinich, yet he is still considered unelectable. It's the media, stupid. (Not meant literally for anyone here!)

The media has decided not to acknowledge Kucinich because he really is a threat to corporations. I used to say "corporate America," but corporations are no more America than the big name toys on the market for our children. Or the cars on American car lots, our TVs, video games, or most of the products we consume.

America is essentially owned by large, multinational corporations who continue to thrive in part by appealing to American patriotism. How bizarre is that?

Kucinich is definitely the only candidate with whom I agree on all the issues, but at least Edwards has identified the problems with big business, the super-wealthy, the increasing divide between the haves and havenots and the dwindling middle class.

I'd surely prefer a Kucinich candidacy, but Edwards is a close second. I suppose no one is quite perfect, although I haven't found anything Kucinich has said with which I disagree.

It's too bad Kucinich is being ignored or denigrated by so much of the media. Fortunately, Edwards is a strong enough contender that he cannot be totally ignored. It's been my belief for some time that he will be the candidate.

Perhaps America is ready for a woman or a black man as president, but Clinton is not the woman, and I don't think Obama is the man. Edwards is still part of the American "norm" - a good looking, well spoken, up-from-poverty white male. He also holds many of the ideals of the average citizen, and he is saying many of the right things.

Adele,
I dote vote for Democrats--that should be clear, no? I vote for Greens, or Socialists, or Independents, but I don´t waste my vote with a corporate party. My comments are directed to those who do vote Dem,the best choice at this point, i.e., the most practical solution, is probably Edwards. As I said, he´s no Kucinich re: positions, but Kucinich will never get closer to the White House than a photo op or a tourist pass.

Are we all pretty much in agreement that Edwards/Kucinich or even Kucinich/Edwards would be the dream ticket?

I don't get it! Will someone explain to me how a Green, Socialist or Independent President will carry out an agenda with a Congress that composed of Democrats and Republicans? In Europe where these minorities are regularly voted into the legislative bodies it make sense but here we are stuck with an archaic system with voters who only understand this system where "Green" and "Socialist" are dirty words.

I don't understand how Krugman, who is primarily an economic writer, could leave out the 800 pound gorilla in the corner - the "institutional investors" - insurance comapanies and pension plans - who keep the Ponzi scheme called Wall Street afloat. They will NEVER give up this slush fund voluntarily and Obama has revealed himself as just another whore.

Paul S.: I like it! What would be really cool is if, in states like Iowa, folks in the caucus that are for Kucinish would throw their second ballots to Edwards. That could tip the scales. I wish more states had caucuses. It's more like IRV voting than anything else we have.

Further, I would like ALL the candidates to understand that the American people DO NOT need universal health insurance. What we need and want is universal access to medical care. As in single payor. We don't want the government doling out healthcare. We just want them to PAY for it equally for every man, woman, and child in the whole country. This is not socialized medicine. This is socialized insurance! I hope everyone understands the difference.

P.S. About that FDR thing - "At the opposite extreme, John Edwards blames the power of the wealthy and corporate interests for our problems, and says, in effect, that America needs another F.D.R. - a polarizing figure, the object of much hatred from the right, who nonetheless succeeded in making big changes."

Thought you might enjoy this FDR quote when he was running for a second term in 1936:

"For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace -- business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master."

Great stuff!

No one elected as President could do much without Congressional support. Especially if they also oppose the sort of non-democratic governing that Bush has done with regard to basically writing his own laws and using signing statements to ignore what Congress says is the law.

So, tell me this about Kucinich ... why is it that he's not leading a full slate of candidates that are challenging the corporate candidates across the whole spectrum of the Democratic Party? Why isn't there a 'Kucinich candidate" in every Democratic primary for Representative or Senator.

There's only a handful of progressives in the House right now. I think there's a caucus that numbers in the 60's, but on some votes it drops down to numbers that can be counted on both hands. Certainly nothing that a President Kucinich could use to pass an agenda. So, where's the campaign from the Kucinich forces inside the Democratic Party to run a primary challenge for every House seat and for ever US Senate seat?

The Green's probably won't be up to doing it in all the races either, but if I look realistically, they are a lot closer to running this sort of slate of candidates than what I see from the Kucinich-istas in the Democratic Party.

I like Dennis from what I see of him. But, whenever I stop and think about some of these practical aspects, I really don't see him as being serious. After all, this is the second time he's run for Prez, and you'd think after 5 or 6 years he'd have this movement to the point where it really is not just his campaign but also the lead of an overall movement within the Democratic Party. And I just don't see it. All of which leaves me with the impression that his campaign is just a distraction and not really serious about gaining or holding power.

The Green Party has its faults, and its not up to the level of being able to really fight for power ... yet. But at least its building the right structures. Its building a party and a movement. It builds at least some party struture that persists beyond a single campaign, and its building up the strength to run congressional and senate candidates across the nation. All I ever see from Kucinich is just his campaigns ... which fade to black when he always endorses the Dem candidate the corporations have chosen. Shouldn't all this effort into Kucinich's campaign's build something other than having a few delegates at a convention where no one cares what they think anyways?

Vote NADER, a person who has fought "The Good Fight" and who would radically change politics in this country for generations to come. He speaks more truth in one minute, than most of these "scripted" candidates will in their entire political career. Go RALPH!

P.S. I hope you run as a Green Party Candidate

COMarc - Great questions. And I think that the progressives out there that were thinking that the Dem party could be changed from within has changed radically since the last election. And the grassroots is in fact fielding progressive candidates to go up against incumbant Dems in both the House and the Senate. It is already happening. Dems are rejecting the DLC, DSCC, DCCC and all the other established organizations within the party. They are refusing to feed the status quo, corporate fed monster with their contributions. Many will now only support individual candidates, not the "party". This also seems to be happening on the Repug side as well.

So, I think it is good that Kucinish is running and has a platform to at least wake up a few folks. It would be great if he got elected because he would have a veto pen, the ability to make appointments, and be able to at least advance an agenda. I do wish he would join the Green party though if he doesn't get the nomination or a VP slot.

AdeleTheCzech: Ezeflyer: I also favor decriminalizing pot, but good grief — if Edwards doesn't agree that's a REALLY minor point on which to withhold your vote for him!

Yes - thanks for pointing that out. But then, Ezeflyer & co. will probably forget to show up anyway :-)

The conclusion is inescapable: Edwards is the only candidate who we can be confidant to win and attempt to govern in any sort of progressive/populist manner. What if he picked Kucinich as his running mate? I think it would be great!

Krugman seems to be the one being naive here, taking Edwards' and Obama's rhetoric at face value instead of thinking about what each candidate is trying to achieve.

Edwards whines on about corporate power and how he's going to fight for the little guy. He just never explains how, other than that he did so as a trial lawyer. Did he do so as a senator? How will he do it as president? Not explained.

Well, Edwards is running behind and trying to appeal to the Democratic base, trying to claim the progressive vote with Kucinich sidelined. If he should win the nomination, or the No. 2 spot, he'll change his tune as quickly as he can flash that phoney smile of his.

Obama, meanwhile, is now the front-runner. He clearly outclasses both Edwards and Clinton. He's got something, and what have they got? So, he's sitting pretty. Acting presidential. Doesn't need to pander to the base. He's using the rhetoric that's worked for him up to now, the rhetoric of uniting the country and bringing everyone together, yes, including the evil corporations Edwards toothlessly prattles about. This will serve him well not only in the general election, but when he is in the White House.

Yes, Prof. Krugman, meaningful health care reform will require cutting into the profits of the drug and health insurance industries, and single-payer would require essentially abolishing the latter. No, they're not going to come to the table and play nice. But does anybody seriously believe anything can happen without at least calling them to the table and attempting to compromise? Or that the political will needed to collar and domesticate them will be mustered by the rhetoric of division and class conflict rather than by the rhetoric of uniting (to cover the reality of class conflict)?

Go back and listen to the speeches of FDR. He spoke like Obama, not like Edwards.

re COMarc's comments:

It's true that, like Nader, Kucinich is not building a movement behind himself. That's probably a good thing; it's not so good, for example, that Howard Dean left behind a mass organization which is too much controlled by the DNC.

The Green Party claims to be building structures and a movement. That is the right idea, but I don't see them making much headway, and that is a good thing, because the Green Party represents movement in the wrong direction, away from effective engagement with the political process in this country.

The right movement is that represented by Progressive Democrats of America and other non-party political organizations that work through the Democratic Party. It will be a great day when PDA absorbs DFA and Green Party activists come to their senses.

Well, really good stuff here. I thought I'd offer my two cents.

To Paul Smith: You mention an Edwards/Kucinich or K/E ticket. Honestly, I think there'd be no chance. First, I think there's no chance K will be nominated. And if Edwards did get it, he would do what 90% of the time Dems do—get an ideological or regional "opposite" for "balance." Kennedy/Johnson, Gore/Lieberman, Kerry/Edwards, for ex.

Barn Burner: You mention Europe. Well I live in Europe and the only reason they have a multi-party system is because people voted in other parties! It´s really quite simple.

You can´t get the system you want by voting for people who don´t want that system.

So voting for Dems—who don´t want proportional representation, or IRV, for ex. will never, ever get you a Green or a Socialist or a Libertarian. Why? Because politics is about competition. The debates are rigged by the two major parties. The ballots are created by the two party systems in each state. They don't want other parties getting their votes (and money.) So, they (the Dems, for ex.) talk Left, move Right (Bill Clinton's classic "triangulation" strategy) and piss off everybody. That's why Clinton lost a Dem majority in both House and Senate by the end of his first term—he lost his core and his Rep opponents hated him anyway. You have to continually vote Dems out. Regularly. Every time you have a local or state seat up for grabs, put as much energy into defeating the Dem as you put writing here. Beat the Dems and get Greens in. Or Socialists. Or whomever you like. But the battered wife syndrome progressives suffer from will kill us all.

Rich M: Re: Edwards as "phony." Well...of course. He´s a politician! Here in Europe I have met no one who trusts pols. I don't understand why USAmericans think who they vote for is virtuous. They are not. And who cares anyway? They are your employees, get them to work for you and who cares if they like you or not, or are like you or not. Edwards doesn't fool socialists but he doesn't need to. He's a Dem. But, at this point, he's a Dem who has caught a good virus and knows which way the public wind is moving: progressive Left.

CoMarc: You are so fabulously spot on I hope you repeat this everywhere: where is that "Kucinich slate"? He´s had 4 years to build a following, to rally progressives, to put out an agenda for the future. Edwards has been doing it. And we can't say its just about money. Ron Paul does it. Truth is, Kucinich is another in a long line of "progressive" Dems whose purpose is to keep us in line. Great observation!

Rebel Farmer: Your second choice example is excellent. That's practical thinking and will help us all alot more than crying over Kucinich. As for VP, my statement to Paul Smith stands. If Edwards gets it his first choice will be Clinton. (This way he gets the best of everything—keeps Bill close, Hillary closer and neutralizes her ambition for 8 years). His 2nd choice will be Obama. And down the line (though most of them will keep Biden as their hoped for Sec of State.) But who really cares? If progressives can get Edwards to get the Dem nomination—we own him. His winning the election and then a re-election will depend on him working for us. He has David Bonior with him and that's a plus. But really, we have alot to gain if we push this guy with no illusions about anything.

And Nader2000. Wow. You are defintely the kool-aid man. Getting us progressives to drink from that cup is the stupid moves that keep the same system in place year after year in the US. The PDA is just another alphabet soup for progressives to go die in. You need to get out more. Come visit Europe and see what multi-party democracies look like and how they work.

They didn´t get this way by thinking in the box of staying with the only games in town. They pushed the edges and won crusial victories in labor, economics and a social system that provides everybody with health care and 4-6 weeks paid vacation per year. Stick with PDA or the Dems and you can keep your USAmerican 10 days with no pay and no health care, and no paid maternity/paternity leave. (I am not even a citizen here and they give me the right to vote in local elections, paid paternity leave and free health care for me and my family.) That´s right, drink the kool-aid. It´ll always stay the same that way...

KUCINICH/EDWARDS!

nodozejoze - You are the one selling Kool-Aid. European countries have a variety of constitutional and electoral formulas that are more or less friendly to multiparty systems. In the USA we have first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections and a constitution that basically does not leave room for anything else. This structure dictates a two-party system.

Accordingly, political parties do not have quite the same meaning here. The parties are very weak, loose structures, formalized by law, and are open to competing constituencies vying for influence. Anyone can run as a Democrat or as a Republican and win the party's nomination in a primary election.

We have had the same two nominal parties since the Civil War and they have undergone a complete transformation. The Republican Party of Lincoln became the party of big business and entrenched wealth. The Democratic Party of the slaveholding South became the party of FDR and LBJ and Jimmy Carter.

Here in America, third party Kool-Aid offers the satisfaction of declaring yourself a "Green" or a "Socialist" or whatever else you fancy, and washing your hands of the evil deeds the corporate Democrats do or acquiesce to. However, it wastes your political energies in an ineffectual, quixotic crusade. It does not stop the evil, it does not move things in a positive direction. It just feels good, it doesn't actually do good.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Kucinich support went to Edwards in the 2004 Iowa caucuses. I hope it happens again this time. If they throw their support to either Clinton or Obama, it will be a sad day for progressives.

Why do so many middle class people who work and draw a salary vote for Republicans who are dedicated to destroying their way of life? The answer, to a great degree, is fear - the eternal emotional bull in the human race's china shop. The Democrats have almost no capacity to inspire Americans to vote their hopes and not their fears. They have become cowards and pussies, bantamweights in a political world of super heavyweight thugs, thieves and killers. People who identify themselves as Democrats won't support a Kucinich or a Richardson or a Gravel. Instead, they support Clinton or Obama who have no chance of winning against the Republican Toilet Squad who will bury them in tons of the foulest political shit money can buy. And if by some fluke (because this is real life and not a movie or a novel) a Clinton or Obama wins . . . it won't make any difference because they don't really stand for anything of a populist nature anyway. Post-Kennedy assassination, post-Vietnam, it seems that big government, whether it's run by Republicans or Democrats, is only good for stealing your money and getting you killed. So perhaps it is time to vote for someone like Ron Paul who is dedicated to ridding us of what has now become the hopeless mercantile tyranny that is the federal government.

This will be my last post tonight--its near midnight and there´s a windstorm brewing in Iceland.

Nader2000, you wrote:
"European countries have a variety of constitutional and electoral formulas that are more or less friendly to multiparty systems. In the USA we have first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections and a constitution that basically does not leave room for anything else. This structure dictates a two-party system."

Well my friend, you must be new here. Those countries got their systems by voting them in. Regularly (and despite huge infusions of CIA money funding fascists, just read William Blum´s Killing Hope)and against many odds they broke open dead systems (like ours) and created a mix of capitalism and socialism that by US standards is considered "Left."

And Iceland (where I live) just got rated the best place to live i nthe world. Why? Because it has a reponsive government, is a free society, no one goes hungry, schools are all well-funded, no one is denied health care and, as I mentioned, paid paternity and maternity leave on top of 4 weeks paid vacation (the range in Europe is 4-6).

Things didn´t magically happen. People stopped voting for idiots who favor the status quo and voted in visionaries and smaller parties that eventually became part of the government and part of the regular political scene.

So the "structure" you write about is not written in stone. It weakens every time we vote for those who want a new and better one.

And some of us have seen what a better system looks like and know you can do it over there.

If you avoid the kool-aid.

RichM....good post, as usual.

I remember reading somewhere that early on in the 1932 campaign FDR asked one of his aides what he had to do in order to win. The Answer: Stay alive until election day!
When a victory is that obvious a candidate really doesn't have to be specific.

I think the New Deal evolved after victory was won. That was good but also bad because it seems to me many liberals see campaigns as a way to get elected and then the real progressive/populist agenda can be revealed.

That really worked well with those two Southern Populist/Progressives Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton didn't it. I see the same dynamic at work here with Edwards and to an even greater extent with Obama. They are what they are, not what we would like them to be. There is no delusion like liberal self-delusion.

Where is today's Huey Long?

nodozejoze -

Either you completely failed to comprehend the realities I was talking about, or else you are suggesting that Americans "vote in" a completely new constitutional and electoral structure.

There is no way for the latter to happen. It would be extremely dangerous if you could even open that door, and there is little reason to believe the outcome would be positive. I shudder to think of what would come out of a new American Constitutional Convention.

If, on the other hand, you had the people organized and mobilized to such a degree that you could contemplate replacing the US Constitution, there would be no need to do so, because the same organized and mobilized populace could just as well work through the present structures to effect the real-world changes we want, forgetting political formalities.

The point is, the problem here is NOT the two-party system. There is NOTHING that prevents progressives as much as any other constituency from acting within the system, through the Democratic Party, to effect at least some of what we want, as much as our numbers and strength permit. No way could we get more, or actually, anything, by any other supposed route to power.

The idea that the problem is that the Democrats are not progressive enough is an illusion, because identification with the Party is an illusion. In a two-party system, you have to form a coalition with half the electorate. You can be as far Left a member of that coalition as you like, and you can work to move it in your direction, but if you are at the Left end there is not much likelihood that you are going to hold the leadership. But you can still organize independently of the Party, talk issues and be as far Left as you like.

You can do that as a third party, too, but in that case you will always just lose at election time and you will not have any influence on the actual politicians and policy.

Good post nodozejoe and others here.

daveg said:

"AdeleTheCzech: Ezeflyer: I also favor decriminalizing pot, but good grief — if Edwards doesn't agree that's a REALLY minor point on which to withhold your vote for him!

Yes - thanks for pointing that out. But then, Ezeflyer & co. will probably forget to show up anyway :-)"

Very funny daveg.

Adele:

It's no minor point when marijuana is lumped in with hard drugs and used as an excuse to invade other countries, poison their environment with herbicides and kill their crops and people in a WOD like we have done in Panama and are doing in Columbia, Afghanistan and others.

If we were serious about defunding narco-trafficking guerillas, the clear response would be to legalize the drugs they profit from. So marijuana is another excuse our fascists use to take away your constitutional rights and establish fascist dictatorships for corporations. The same corporations Edwards rails against.

Edwards is the only candidate that is talking the talk to progressives concerning the corporate state. That is a big plus. But how seriously can we take him and how sound is his judgment? This can be measured by his stand on this top progressive issue, marijuana legalization. ALL his Dem running mates said on the second debate that it should be legalized.

Concerning marijuana, Edwards is either uninformed, misinformed, or wants to keep this club over our heads. Judging by his contradictory position on the issue of marijuana and corporations that use the WOD for imperialist purposes, Edwards is simply telling progressives what we want to hear to get progressive's support.

I like Edwards too...but did anyone watch what happened this weekend with Ron Paul? He's got a huge, bottom up force of folks raising money like crazy--and he's one of the few politicians willing to discuss the Fed (private banking cartel that is holding a gun to all our heads) and putting corporations back where they belong.

Today, no President will be the solution--because a corporatized America that requires massive consumption doesn't change from the top down...it has to come from the bottom up. If we change our actions and beliefs, then we can elect a president that works for us--instead of the corporations.

Check out www.realwealtheconomy and www.rianeeisler.com

Krugman rarely disappoints. He's pointed out, very concretely, a primary flaw in Obama. He is naive, and by allowing big business at the table he assumes the validity of the term 'corporate citizen' which Edwards rejects.

Isn't the idea of 'corporate citizen' a contradiction in terms? Isn't it destroying the republic? Has it already?

I must say both candidates register higher than others on the apparent sincerity meter (note how I qualify that). Edwards says some of what I want to hear but not as much as Kucinich or Gravel say.

Too bad the MSM have narrowed our choice of nominee so drastically.

RichM wrote:

> "I've heard your theory about the "first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections" necessarily leading to a 2-party system many times now. Your theory is all form and no substance."

Yes, I know that you've heard the substance over and over, and you haven't responded to it, so I'm not going to bother to try to restate everything right now. Anyway, it's not my "theory." It's common understanding among those with some political experience and sophistication who don't willfully refuse to understand it (because one must not understand in order to rationalize the third-party game with all its personal payoffs).

> "entire institutional structure of the Dem Party, and its whole roster of elected officials, consultants, strategists, donors, apparatchiks, & media voices, as well as its own history & internal party culture — this entire structure has been set up, and honed for decades, to function as an impregnable barrier against any possibility of progressives"

And the thing is, you can sweep that all away by just getting in and winning elections.

First you win the primary. They can't stop you from doing that, at least not any more than they can stop you from winning the general, and in fact it is easier for you to win the primary, since the Democratic electorate is to the left of the general electorate, and Democratic primary voters tend to be even more progressive.

Then you win the general election. They'll help you, or at least not fight against you. And even if they fought against you, which they wouldn't, you already beat them once, so why wouldn't you beat them again, particularly if you think you would have beat them running as a third party anyway?

Then you hold power, and you will take over the DNC. Sound like a pipe dream? Well, it is a pipe dream. It's just that it would take a whole lot less for this one to come true than it would for your third party pipe dream to come true.

And the realistic dream is that you organize a cohesive bloc of progressive voters, who can deliver more voters, money and volunteer power on election day, and then you have some real bargaining power within the Party and a real voice on who the candidates are, on what the positions are, and on policy.

> "The party is a ruling class party."

And you show your hand here. You do not propose a realistic strategy for effecting progressive change through electoral action because you do not believe this is possible. Instead, you fantasize about overthrowing the entire "American political system" [from another of your posts]. I think you must be a member of some little Red revolution cult.

> "You're trying to convince people that the way to fight the evils of corporate capitalism is "to work within""

No, work THROUGH. The Democratic Party is our gateway to power. We have to work ON it as much as IN it and we work THROUGH it to have as much influence as we can on national policy. That doesn't mean blindly support "the Democrats."

RichM, excellent response to Nader2000's fantasy that progressives could "work within" the structure of the Democratic party. You said everything I wanted to say and put it much better than I would have.

Progressives have been trying to work within the party for years and have been getting shafted. Nader2000 is either delusional, ignoring outcomes, or a DLC shill. Which is it, Nader2000? How much longer will you keep coming back for more of the same? I think our country is filled with slow learners.

By the way, in the 2000 "debates" (which of course aren't debates at all), 70% of Americans wanted to hear Nader in the debates. Those ruling America didn't want him in. Guess who won that argument. Oh, I forgot, this is only a pretend democracy.

Ron Paul was rated as voting for liberal values 56% of the time and conservative values 44% of the time. I read his voting record, and it was always completely consistent with his philosophy and from my progressive point of view, it's not all bad. I can understand the excitement he generates. He stands up for want he believes and doesn't back down. He despises corporate control of America, the loss of our civil liberties, NAFTA, the Iraq war. He didn't seek the money pouring in, this has been a bottom up, grassroots endeavor. I would rather see him president than Hillary. I don't agree with his strong state's rights philosophy since so many states are so regressive (including his own Texas), but I can understand his philosophy and his votes show him to have compassion. Before you judge him, check out his record at the following website, it's quite informative. What I like very much about him is he's honest and has integrity. I can understand why Dennis Kucinich is friends with him (I actually have some Republican friends myself). I think a Ron Paul presidency and a progressive Congress would be an interesting experience. Of course, the Democrats would fight tooth and nail to prevent a progressive Congress. Follow the money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

Nader2000, you're the one drinking koolaid if you think the Democratic party structure isn't preventing progressives from winning primaries. The DCCC is mandated to keep hands off primaries, but they aren't. They are interfering with and torpedoing progressive campaigns. Wake up!

It's true that some people have caught on and are donating directly to progressive candidates, bypassing the party. But it's a David vs Goliath fight, and Goliath has all the ammunition. Why can't you get it through your head that the Democratic party doesn't care about you at all? They don't need your money, they have no intention of passing legislation in your interest. They need your vote, but they make sure you have nowhere else to go and they play on your fear to get that vote. There is no way in Hell you can vote for them and then try to tell them what to do. That just has them laughing all the way to the bank. The only power you have is to refuse them your vote.

BeForKids - The DCCC has in at least some few instances acted against progressives and in support of "centrist" candidates. - Cegelis-Duckworth is the only actual example that I've seen mentioned, and that happened under Rahm Emanuel, who no longer heads DCCC. The DCCC is supposed to stay out of choosing winners in primaries, and Dean has pledged that kind of thing won't happen again (we'll see).

The main point is, and you are willfully ignoring it, that sure, the corporate forces, whether acting improperly through the DNC and its organs, or acting independently through PACS, 527s, under the table, through their ownership of the media or otherwise, can pummel, smash and trash you. They can do that when you run in the Democratic primary and they can do that when you run in the general election as a Green.

So, if you can beat them running as a Green, you can beat them running in the Democratic primary. In fact, it is MUCH easier to do the latter. We have more than two dozen members of the Progressive Caucus. We have no Greens.

Yes, it is a battle within the Democratic Party. But that is where the real battle is taking place. You don't win it by going to some other field and pretending to fight.

Interesting comments! Even more interesting is that, while Krugman has Edwards saying we can't have the powerful lobbies at the planning table, Himmelstein and Woolhandler in their op ed (see today's Newswire "Why Are Clinton, Obama, and Edwards Backing Nixon's Health Plan?") have Edwards inviting them to the table: "Nixon's plan, though never passed, refuses to stay dead. Now Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama all propose Nixon-like reforms. Their plans resemble measures that were passed and then failed in several states over the past two decades."

What's going on?

24+ members of the progressive caucus out of 233. Actually there are 72 official members, but only about a dozen consistently vote progressive. Most of these members have been around long before the DLC took control of the Democratic party and turned it into a corporate food fest.

Chris Van Hollen might be OK as DCCC Chair. I'm not taking anyone at their word, I want to see results, due to many disappointments. I consider it no accident that Nancy picked Raum Emanuel to keep antiwar candidates from winning 2006 primaries. She had her game plan worked out. And she lied to us about impeachment, among other things.

Nader2000, up until now, progressives have had to fight against the corporate forces and the Democrats (being, after all, one and the same) no matter what label they run under.

REBEL FARMER -- You're so correct that "America needs another F.D.R", which is well worth considering also in light of:

COMarc's -- comment that "No one elected as President could do much without Congressional support."

Let's replay the relevant history of those equally challenging days, for many of the same reasons:
• Following on the heals of economic disaster and incompetent leadership, and despondent citizens demanding massive changes.

• Hidden deals of Congressional leaderships (i.e. bankers) to not hang as traitors those responsible for the failed coup, per The McCormack-Dickstein Committee (in 1934).

• (coupled with) Smedley Butler's (dbl Cong Medal Honor) hugely respected and credible proof of Prescott Bush's and Geo. Herbert Walker's direct complicity in attempts to assassinate FDR.

Well one out of three is almost than half way there.

Does our illustrious military have a suitably honorable general with the insider scoop, along with a few battalions of constitutionally inspired Marines, to leverage a new NEW DEAL?

Americans today are ~ 99.44% clueless of the 75 year old relevance, and basically superfluous to the massive power plays needed to thwart the current Nazi takeover, unless we can get 10 million of so motivated.
Which is more likely?

Namaste … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … … … … … … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »

"WASHINGTON, DC - December 17 --
"Himmelstein and Woolhandler are professors of medicine at Harvard University and the co-founders of Physicians for a National Health Program. They just had an oped in the New York Times in which they write: 'In 1971, President Nixon sought to forestall single-payer national health insurance by proposing an alternative. He wanted to combine a mandate, which would require that employers cover their workers, with a Medicaid-like program for poor families, which all Americans would be able to join by paying sliding-scale premiums based on their income.

'Nixon's plan, though never passed, refuses to stay dead. Now Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama all propose Nixon-like reforms. Their plans resemble measures that were passed and then failed in several states over the past two decades.' "

This is in CD Newswire today. It doesn't square with Krugman's description of Edwards at all. Any clue?

Interesting discussion.

All I have to add is that, as I remember, Pelosi wanted Murtha but got called out on that one. Don't exactly know what that means. All I know is that Murtha never saw a military contract he didn't like.

About the DLC influence in the primaries, I'm totally disgusted. We have two very qualified contenders for the Dimm nomination to run against Smith. But the DLC has decided that Oregonians are too stupid to pick the "right" canfidate in the primary. They have already decided who is going to win and who is going to get money in the primary and in the election. All I can say is that the DLC has proven to me that they don't give a s**t about what I think or what I want. They are picking the candidates based on prioritiesthat have nothing to do with the citizen voters. I don't count. All I'm good for is to make sure that Smith doesn't win. Well, they have another think coming. I hope that the canidate that I want will run as an independent. Even if that splits the vote and the Repug wins, at least my vote counted.

Go Cindy!!!! Set the standard and show the bastards that we want true representation! There is only one party now - no matter what letter they have behind their name. It's called a corporatocracy that has led to a fascist government.

Okay, now I'm pissed. No one better ever tell me to vote for some corporate as*hole because of a letter behind their name. I'm done with that. Period.

Kucinich is the only progressive. No retreat, no surrender.

RichM wrote:

> "When the media barred Kucinich & Gravel from the debates, did the DNC lodge any formal protest..."

I think you are shooting at straw men here. I think I have made it clear enough that I do not claim the DNC at present is controlled by progressive forces. My point is that if more progressives, particularly if organized as a body through PDA or another non-party organization, got more involved in Democratic Party politics, maybe we would have more people on the inside and more influence in the DNC, and then maybe it would be more likely for the DNC to protest the exclusion of progressive voices like Kucinich. Then again, maybe more progressives should have howled at this anyway, independent of the DNC, and should support Kucinich.

PDA members voted to support Kucinich as a first choice. I'll vote for Kucinich. Then again, it seems pretty clear at this point that Dennis isn't going to be the nominee. There aren't enough progressives out there working to mobilize voters for Kucinich. Too many of them are too pissed off and want to play revolutionary or dream of a Green Party or a Ralph Party. Too bad. So I'll take my second choice, Obama. That's how it works.

> "the Dem Party & the other candidates didn't so much as lift a finger to protect the rights of Kucinich & Gravel to be heard"

That's pretty ironic, coming from a Green/Nader supporter. Why is one candidate responsible for the campaign of another?

> "How do you reconcile this behavior, with what one would expect from a party in which progressives really had a fair chance to gain influence?"

NOBODY GIVES ANYONE A FAIR CHANCE IN POLITICS. You have to WIN YOUR OWN VICTORIES. The point is, you get a fair chance AT THE BALLOT BOX because THAT'S THE LAW. If you WIN you will be able to take over the party. If you lose, they don't have to listen to you. That's how it works.

> "Also, since your idea is basically that progressives just "work THROUGH the Democratic Party….win the primary, then win the general election" — why do you suppose such an effort has never succeeded?

Very simple. It has worked. And the Democratic Party has been the vehicle for progressive change. However, since the 1970s the country has slid backwards, and part of that is the retreat of the 1960s progressive idealists from electoral politics, thanks in part to drugs, in part to radical chic, in part to the pied pipers of Nader, the Greens and various Reds. Nader and the Greens, in particular, have been a huge drain of energies that could have gone into reinvigorating the progressive wing and progressive influence in the Democratic Party. It hasn't worked in the past 20 years because it hasn't been tried in the past 20 years. Sure, some few people tried. But not enough.

> "The work-within-the-Dems approach has been tried many times before, without appreciable success. In what way do you imagine what you're saying is any different than what all the previous failures have said?"

If you seriously imagine that there is even one-fifth of the mobilizable, organizable progressive energy out there that would be needed to create a third party and start winning national elections, and if that energy were directed into progressive action within, upon, and through the Democratic Party, it could not fail to have a substantial impact and bring real gains, whereas channeled into a third party, it would be piss in the wind.

Finally, you argue that conservative forces within the Democratic Party worked against George McGovern in 1972. I'm shocked, shocked! So what, if McGovern had run as a Socialist he would have been elected? This is so stupid.

For heavens' sake, Nader2000. Will you stop blaming Nader for the Democratic party turning into a corporate whore? Be sensible. Follow the money. Nader was warning us what was happening before he ran for president.

Frankly I'm quite underwhelmed by the entire gaggle of candidates... Not ONE of them seems to have any real touch on the huge problems that lie directly in our road ahead.

First we have to UNDO most of the damage the current regime has done over the past decade or so... and yes I'm including some of the Clinton years, because their BS machines poured out tons of the stuff during the Ken Starr fiasco.

We have to re-establish trust in the American people and government worldwide... we have to put some balance in the economic opportunity for the people... so that even the poor can stand a chance of gaining ground, not just the ultra-wealthy... and we have to protect our ports and borders, while at the same time putting some common sense into the balance of trade with other nations.

Our educational system needs protection from overly-litigious lawyers... public school teachers need to be allowed to discipline unruly students and teach, not just pass out tests.... and our medical, drug and energy industries need some serious oversight to prevent them from raping the population any more than they already have in recent years.

I don't see ANYONE talking seriously about any of these issues.

Krugman, what a duped schlep. Thinks FDR made big changes... Financial dominance of the spawning total dependence order... A man of the then decidedly racist party... FDR... Who better for the hand outs to flow forth from than a social element typically substrated to begging, the infirm. What a clever facade on the US federal reality that was Hoovers federal police monitoring of legislators sexual secrets. I wonder how sexually available people serviced by bureaucracy were in that day. Doubtless the politicians seeming chivalrous wins points with the Betty's. Hoover acting as the blackmailer in chief at the FBI (fed) while rolls in chair FDR engineers the federal empire to look like a benign nanny volunteering in a soup kitchen.

Creeping Egalitarian Seeming Power Consolidating Hand Out for the Snatch Back Facilitated by Dumbing Down Generations to Beg Happy that You're not a Slave, FDR.

PROVOICE -- Perhaps you dismissed my comments as irrelevant to current events, and clearly your focus is as you say only "the damage the current regime has done over the past decade or so"

Let me attempt to weave together the bigger picture to show how little of this Titanic iceberg we yet really see.

1. the creation of the Fed Reserve ~ 1913, the end of USA citizen's representation through votes, the bankers could trump any and everything from the three branches. Still true 95 years later, only more so.

2. the '30s new deal wouldn't have been allowed to happen if what I described above with Nazi attempted coup in 1933 has been successful

3. the most recent 40 years, starting big time with Nixon (had started already with Johnson 5 yr before; death of JFK), is all about dismantling the egalitarian new deal "mistake". It took nearly 50 yr for the banker's recovery from reversals of 1934.

4. Everything since 1970 is about systematically undoing the 'new deal' promises of re-distributing the wealth from the rich to the entire country.

5. 75 years after failing to take over the USA, the Nazis are well poised with the grandson of the previous coup's leaders already at the helm in DC. Stealing an election is so much cleaner than assassination, don't you think?

6. Going back a decade is chump "change" for those wanting the roaring 20s all over again, them robber barons are BACK!

7. If nothing else is obvious, the fascist beast is very experienced, persistent, and thoroughly corrupting -- and it's strength cannot be accurately estimated

Ironically, as someone recently pointed out, the major reason for our initial American Revolution was equivalent to item 1, where the Crown rejected the colonies use of their own money, and required the payment of usury and use of the English central bank. For our founding fathers, them bankers were cause to fight the most powerful gov't of that time.

Really not much has changed, we're now just the new minutemen cleaning up (again) the insidious banker's cancer that has eaten the heart out of our once proud democracy.

One if we see, two if they land on us.

Namaste … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … … … … … … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »