"What Kind of Party Do the Democrats Want to Be?"

only _ apparently _ alive

tj,

It all harkens back to what I'm trying to argue: the left/center/right thing is a field onto which great clouds of smoke are blown.

There is the politics of autocracy, plutocracy, power, etc. And there is the politics of grassroots, emergent and self-determined populism. There's really no left or right to it -- except the sides of various wedges they'd dropped down from on high as a means of distraction.

When I hear "center" I'm unsure which axis they're referring to. The up/down one? Or the now-useless left/right one?

TJ - tell me whom you would rather have as the Democratic nominee?

Kucinich? He doesn't have any support guys. I'm sorry. I love Kucinich and think the mass media gives him an unfair shake, but the fact of the matter is, he has absolutely no chance of winning and hasn't even been running a real campaign. he came to iowa like twice, for example, and had no organized volunteer group. And it takes alot more on the ground work to win Iowa than that. people can talk about denny k all they want, but they are living in cartoon network fantasy island disneyland dreamworld when they ignore he's polling about 1% in most states and has absolutely no chance of winning.

Richardson? I think Richardson is the new Kucinich. He's a strong anti-war candidate and has both experience and wants real change. Check out his "new realism" theory from his foreign affairs op-ed piece. he wants to close guantanamo bay, join the ICC, reaffirm our commitments to kyoto (and make it three times stronger) and the millenium development goals. he wants a funded marshall plan to end global poverty and he's got the most aggressive plan to curb global warming. I'M CAUCUSING FOR RICHARDSON AS I'VE STATED SEVERAL TIMES. But what if he's not viable in my precinct? even if he is, he's not going to win the nomination. is that the fault of the big media and the corporate political parties? yes. but either we bitch and complain and moan or we do the best we can given the paradigm we're stuck in.

John Edwards? Look Edwards is cool too don't get me wrong. But there is no proof that his policies will match his rhetoric. he only repositioned himself on the war after kucinich backed obama and about a year after richardson has been consistently against the war. and the fact of the matter is edwards does get $400 haircuts and lives in a mansion. on top of that, Edwards is only running a close race in Iowa. He's not doing nearly so well anywhere else. Edwards has put all of his eggs in the Iowa basket. Even if he wins Iowa, he will lose the nomination and will probably not come close to winning any other state. thats a fact. i wish it were different but i'm into reality not artificial reality.

Lastly, Edwards is just another rich white guy. I don't think we should underestimate the effect of electing a black man with a muslim name to replace the worst president in u.s. history. it clearly signals we want change. the best we can hope for is an obama presidency surrounded by good advisors and cabinent members like juan cole and bill richardson. he's not the answer to global social problems.

no president is. only a grassroots movement of the people can bring about real social change. so no matter who the Dems elect, it will be up to us to continue to grow a movement that will hold all politicians accountable to the people.

I wonder if the League of Conservation Voters would still give Obama a 96 after his pro-nukes announcement? On another thread, a poster said anti-nuke Edwards came in at 56. Have their ratings been switched since?

Like David says however, Obama and Edwards are our best bets. But taking a cue from right wing successes, as president he should appoint the direct opposite of people like Ashcroft, et al., progressive stalwarts like Nader and Kucinich to administrative positions like Attorney General and Head of a new Dept. of Peace. The head of EPA should be someone like Carl Pope, of the Sierra Club and so on for ALL posts, including the spy agencies, the military and all other agencies who constantly prove conservatives can't govern.

The right is on top because they refuse to be bipartisan. I'm afraid that Obama is going to lose any advantage progressives may have by caving in to the oligarchy with his emphasis on bipartisanship. Worse yet, he may have drunk the kool-aid that says conservative authoritarians can govern, or in his efforts to appear bipartisan will place them in positions of power. Progressives need to understand that conservatives can't govern: http://www.alternet.org/story/37947/
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/03/19/why_conservatives_cant_govern.php

The winner needs to appoint the best progressive office holders who can offer a countervailing force to take this country back from fascism to democracy and direct democracy.
Since the right has been so diligent in packing the courts and branches of Federal and State Governments, ALL political appointments should be as progressive as possible, without exception.

If we have proved that progressive politics is good for everyone and for business, then let's push progressive politics at least as much as the right has pushed regressive politics by appointing the most progressive people. Where they have Kristol, let us have Chomsky.

This is not a battle for the center, but of good progressives against evil fascists. Of Jesus against Mammon. Of a healthy environment against polluters, of education against ignorance, of healthcare against disease, of peace against war.

Conservatives paint liberals as the enemy. We need to save these ignorant people despite their prejudices. And we cannot do that by appointing them to the highest offices.

Barack Obama's bio shows that he came into politics as a progressive. His rhetoric cuts across the right-left divide and reaches to all Americans, because that is not only the way to win, it is the way to have actual power to bring actual change once in the White House.

A lot of progressives want a candidate who'll stick his finger in the eyes of corporate America, middle America and the Right. That's a candidate who can't win, and that's a candidate who couldn't get anything done if he did win. I wouldn't call Obama a Trojan horse, but if you are a genuine progressive and you want to not only get into office but also get something done when you're there, you do what Obama is doing.

On the other hand, if you are a slick lawyer and you know how to play a jury, and you are trying to trick Iowa Democrats into supporting you, then you do what John Edwards is doing.

Obama's rhetoric of unity could also be a strong progressive tool. Some think it means he'll be bipartisan and try to compromise ideals. but it also has alot of potential if you think about language and propoganda and how it shapes and frames perceptions.

if obama can go right off the bat and frame issues a, b, and c as american issues and not progressive/liberal issues, he's already one-up on the game and will put conservatives on the defense instead of the offense. do you see what i'm saying? his unity paradigm could skip an argument and further the debate right from the get-go. just a thought

Why is there a question mark in this title? This was decided back in the late 80's.

That's when the Dems abandoned the coalition that FDR had built, and instead shifted to the same model of getting lots of money from big donors like the Rethugs. The Dems decided then what type of party they wanted to be.

And the key thing is that this is determined by the leaders of the party. The Dem party is not a bottom-up, democratic organization. Its a top-down party where the leaders decide and that passes down through the party.

Short of a complete revolt that makes someone like Kucinich the nominee, that's not going to change. And even then the track record of the Dems is to turn on the nominee. Kinda like in Conn where Leiberman stayed in the Senate even after the voters revolted and tossed him out in the primary. Running an independent or simply supporting the Rethug is the classic Dem response to a voter revolt picking a nominee they don't like.

The Democrats and the Republicans should just merge and just get it over with. They represent the same thing anyway.

The Dems like Nader2000 want a government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation. They will oppose and trash any candidate who is anything different.

We live in a country where some 75% of the people say 'we are on the wrong course'. We live in a country where the only group of people with lower opinion poll ratings than Bush is the Dem leaders of Congress.

Yet, they will try to spin the nonsense that anyone supporting any real change 'is not electable'. Why not try it for a change and find out?

For me, there's a bigger, long term potential up side with Obama than with Edwards (and certainly than there is with Hillary). How about an Obama/Kuchinich ticket to really ice the conversion into a 21st century Democratic Party progressive populist revival?

And for a domestic issues slogan, how about this?

Time to put an end to private health insurance as we know it.

Fund the transition to single payer, universal health care (not universal health care coverage) by having the new Congress pick which 50 overseas US military bases will be the first closed, as part of phasing out the old Cold War empire.

By all means, let's have Richardson for Secretary of State, and Juan Cole for Middle East envoy.

While we're at it, how about Andrew Bacevich for Secretary of Defense? Elizabeth de la Vega for the Justice Department, and Ray McGovern to replace Michael Chertoff? Maybe even Ralph Nader could be coaxed back into the partisan fray, offering him his pick of Commerce, Treasury, Labor, or Health & Human Services.

Friends and neighbors, ladies and germs, dat's why dey calls it Common Dreams....

Bill from Saginaw

Face it Obummer has not a chance, not even a Chinese Whisper of a chance, of winning the general election. If the Dims realy want to hand 08 to the repugs, then they will nominate Obummer. It is a shame, but it is ture.

If the Repugs pull their act together and nominate McCain, and McCain is able to pull his head out or W's butt.............

Here's the answer, the GOP copycat.

Obama and Huckabee won in Iowa.

They are sent to us dressed in all manner of costume. We are asked to listen carefully to the words they choose. We are asked to believe that they represent our hopes and dreams. We are told to temper our demands to allow the chosen ones to deal with the pragmatics of politics. We are told there is more there than meets the eye. We are asked, yet again, to rally behind them and to believe that at long last the bringer of change has arrived.

And most will succumb to the snake oil. They will be lured by the power of their own desperation for change. We want to believe. We are predisposed to believe. We have always, in the end, picked one of the costumed puppets. Truly, we never seem to learn.

Today, Obama is sent to us.

What deep cuts in the corporate welfare system does he offer? Will he recognize that any real defense budget would first provide for quality health care for each and every American? What good are weapons when almost 50 Million citizens lack coverage to protect their own health? Defense should first and foremost be about protecting the American people. Does Obama recognize (and argue) that our current excessive spending on defense weakens the country rather than strengthening it? Does he highlight that we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined? Does he argue that our fiscal priorities need to be shifted away from corporate welfare and into programs that directly benefit the American people? Does he call for the closing of all (more than 730) US military bases overseas? Why do we need to occupy other countries? What does doing so cost each and every citizen?

Federal spending priorities need to be radically reformed. We need to kick the corporate boys out of the halls of the people's government. Does Obama call for that? Federal spending should focus on public education, health care, infrastructure, alternative energy, retirement security and combatting global warming. Instead, we spend money "protecting" the shareholders of Big Defense, Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Banking and Big Pharma. Does Obama call for an end to that?

It's bad enough the rhetoric of today's puppets never matches what they hide behind their manufactured smiles and their costumes. Tragically, today's puppets haven't even come close to getting the rhetoric right. And yet still, we are asked to choose from among them.

The comments that i've read are so ridiculous ! O-Bomb-EM was in the senet and what has he done? What battles has he fought!Has he ever mentioned the Constitution,the heart of what binds us togeather as Americans, has he lifted a finger to stop the total destruction of the constitution,NO NO NO!!!!!!!
Has he supported IMPEACHMENT for the law breakers,for the many crimes against humanity,or even encouraged those who ever so timidley did?????????? NO NO NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!This is someone who you think will lead us in a new direction,I think not,He didn't show up to vote on some of the most important issues that the so called Democrats thought to be important to us,oh yes he was too busy attending to another job,that would be of importance for himself,to hell with those little people his constituents,not intrested in this job of being a US senetor,but he will be there for us in the next job as president Oh yeh!!!!!

rmax asks the essential question and Goodner's response is tepid to incohate.

1) Obama has not taken the "nuclear option" off the table, he has just smoothed out his rehtoric somewhat.

2) The Iraqis will take care of their own constitutional issues, probably quite bloodily, after the US and other foreign forces and mercenaries withdraw under fire.

3) The vast majority of Obama's advisors are from the Bill Clinton camp.

4) Obama has no economic program, no program for reindustialization or rehabiltion of US cities, no educational program, is slippery on the sanctity of social security, is very much a free trader and slave to "markets" and is extremely cool -- if not hostile -- to organized labor.

5) Obama has been consistently funded by members of the Zionist lobby, going back to his early days in Chicago, when he was first hand-picked by real estate interests to head off the candidacy of an militant African-American community activist.

6) There's not much you can find in Obama's state or US senatorial records that are especially progressive.

7) Obama has been extremely enthusiastic about the occupation of Afghanistan and expanding the "Global War on Terror," into Pakistan, not to mention calling for the beefing up of the military in general.

The problem is not that Obama is an "imperfect" progressive. The problem is that he is a pro-business rightist who is owned by the same backers that Bill Clinton was and Hillary Clinton is.

To call any of these folks "centrists," is a huge error. They are hard-core right-wing politicians who serve at the pleasure of business, attempting to mask their work under the labels of liberalism, centrism and progressivism.

While Goodner opens the piece strongly, he really wanders off into La-La Land in his support of Obama as a "viable," progressive second choice.

As for the Democratic Party declaring declaring its allegiance, that is an impossible task as long as the DLC controls all the basic party mechanisms. An Obama victory only solidifies DLC control over the actual apparatus of collecting money, choosing candidates, establishing programs, etc. -- the things a party should do.

Hey look, another Des Moines Register employee forgot to mention Dennis Kucinich. What kind of party do the Democrats want to be? The ones with a SPINE and the BALLS to stand up against corporate power and military government.

People like these TALK about idealism while they try to push idealistic candidates such as Dennis Kucinich away from the spotlight. Its amazing how successful they have been in covering up Dennis' message. My father in law (a republican baptist) doesn't even know about Dennis Kucinich.

Obama now beginning to sound like Edwards who ended up sounding like Kucinich.

Progressive chinese whispers is the name of the game. Wonder if the message will remain intact and comprehensible?

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

"To defeat Regeanism in the 1990s, former president "Bill Clinton and the DLC took the Democratic Party to the right and compromised with conservatives to gain office."

And Obama's message of "change" is for everybody to get along -like bi-partisanship worked for Clinton

Does this make sense? I don't think so and I don't get people who buy into this fluff knowing the consequences.

Also, note the "angry" characterization, as if anger was not the appropriate response--What planet are these idiots living on?

So who is going to grant American Indian Movement activist and political prisoner Leonard Peltier executive clemency.

He was accused of shooting two FBI agents in 1975; despite the fact that:
1) the proscecutor stated that the Govt doesn't know who shot their agents.
2) that released FBI files state that a ballistics firing pin test comparing shell casings found near the agents bodies and an AR-15 rifle assumed to be Leonard Peltier's were found to be conclusive. An FBI ballistics expert testified in court that there was a match.
3) The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals stated that had not the proscecution withheld evidence to the defense, the jury possibly would have come to a different conclusion, BUT the defense needed to prove the jury probably would have come to a different conclusion as according to U.S. vs. Bagley.
4) The judge who authored the 8th circuit decision has written in support of executive clemency for Mr. Peltier.
5) that two other American Indian Movement activists accused of the same crime were found NOT GUILTY on the grounds of self defense in a seperate trial.

After all these facts, former President Clinton found it more of a priority to grant Marc Rich, the man guilty of the biggest tax evasion history in U.S. history, executive clemency without serving a day in jail.

Mike Gravel is the only democratic Presidential candidate who expressed that he would seek to release Leonard Peltier.

Dennis Kucinich said he would review the case. Well, Bill Clinton said that.

Martin Luther King stated that INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS A THREAT TO JUSTICE EVERYWHERE.

Where has the Democratic Party gone? Well, they cannot fathom these wise words from Dr. King, otherwise Mr. Peltier wouldn't continue enduring this 32 year injustice.

With democrats like these, who needs republicans.

www.leonardpeltier.net

Yet another Obama Kool-Aid drinker. What about Obama is progressive? His lack of a universal health care plan? His support of nuclear power? His "seat at the table" for insurance companies? I'm beginning to think that people don't even know what "progressive" means. "Youth," smooth talk and inexperience don't cut it.

"What Kind of Party Do the Democrats Want to Be?"

The one in Power.

Obama is not perfect by progressive, left-leaning, or radical left standards. as a center-left he's okay. i think we're all familiar with many of Obama's stances but did you also know that he's called for:

a new Iraqi Constitution (so have prominent iraqi scholars in an arab think-tank report)

that he would negotiate with world leaders without preconditions, including leaders in cuba, north korea, and iran?

that he would take the nuclear option off the table?

i'm caucusing for richardson, as i outlined in my story. i also mentioned that both edwards and obama are closer to the bill clinton model than they'd like to admit.

this is obviously lesser-evilism, and grassroots social movements should continue organizing to put pressure on whoever is elected to the oval office. but there is an opportunity here to realign the democratic party with some version of progressive liberalism. its not perfect, but its way better than Hillary, and way way way better than Bush.

We also can't ignore the obvious fact: that america electing a black man with a muslim name to president will have immediate and positive ramifications for our image around the world.

If Obama is going to make a good president, he'll have to have advisors and a cabinent that can help him. Thats why i think Bill Richardson should be VP or Secretary of State. Thats why I called for Juan Cole to be an ambassador or a close advisor. He should swell his cabinent and advisors with people on the left, including intellectuals, diplomats, and activists. most importantly, the left must continue to build the peace movement so that direct action and participatory democracy can hold power accountable to the people.

If one has to settle for lesser-evilism why not try reflecting upon Obama's "Hope" message.

Hoping Obama is a progressive-built Trojan Horse.

What's the chances? Hmmm...

But neither of these candidates really reflect a true progressive platform.

Did Anyone See Obama's Victory Speech?.......Obama better watch out. He is starting to sound like Bobby Kennedy in 68. Barak......don't exit any stage through hotel kitchens.

"Lastly, Edwards is just another rich white guy..."

Like FDR?

Interesting that the author uses every Right-wing smear tactic (with the exception of the trial lawyer bash)but ignores the fact that although the MSM does its damnest to marginalize Edwards, he still polls as the "most electible" Democrat against EVERY Republican challenger. But since his populist rhetoric is such a threat to the corporate establishment-even the Iowa papers have admitted as much--the electibility reality is dismissed in favor of some idealized notion of "change". And I ask you, where the hell is change if the actual implementation of it is considered a threat? Talk about orwellian doublespeak.
Now what was it Richardson polled, 2%--but you dismiss Kucinich? And, I am no fan of Kucinich--I never trusted him--always considered his role to keep the progressives on board--and find his New Ageism superficial fluff considering his own cynical political calculations. Only the desperate true belivers and naive would find him credible now. Hopefully.
It seems to me that your agenda is to further Richardson's career in a Democratic administration rather than support a shift in the paradigm. Richardson may have the positions but he has no political talent. None.
And the smooth, oily Obama is a set-up when the inevitability of Clinton--with all her built-in liabilities starts to erode. What other candidate has perhaps onfair, reprehensible, but undeniable liabilities--a manufactured candidate that those who follow politics know is a hollow entity selling himself as an agent of "change". We know he is just another New Democrat who doesn't pose the threat of real change. But the reality is it will be easy work to "swiftboat" someone named Barack (foreigner) Hussein (Hussein?)Oboma (Osama), who although culturally alien to the American black experience is still a black man in an instutionally racist country.
There is no spinning that reality--so get real.
(and for the record, I find Edwards perennial boyishness consistantly annoying so I don't claim he is without fault)

"To defeat Regeanism in the 1990s..." (sic)

no, it was to perpetuate reaganism that bill clinton and the dlc acted as they did.

apparently the majority of iowa dems have had enough of anything named clinton.

Obama rocks the raucous caucus
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=c93e5f51e57d4a1696a5e44246b6eb53&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=c93e5f51e57d4a1696a5e44246b6eb53&plckPostId=Blog%3ac93e5f51e57d4a1696a5e44246b6eb53Post%3a21359bd9-315f-4dad-9d37-6e600982314a&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest

Democratic Party should begin consolidating a progressive platform
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=c93e5f51e57d4a1696a5e44246b6eb53&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=c93e5f51e57d4a1696a5e44246b6eb53&plckPostId=Blog%3ac93e5f51e57d4a1696a5e44246b6eb53Post%3a88df12a5-d89e-45fc-bc5f-c3886e83f596&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest

I'll never forget the time I was giving a co-worker a considered opinion of a someone who'd just been promoted to office manager. I went into a long-winded analysis about how the guy was indeed impressively articulate, seemed to be bright and innovative, but was a disaster when you considered his actions instead of his warm 'n wonderful presence.

The co-worker, a grizzled Air Force veteran, listened to my long-winded and careful comments. Then she simply said, "In other words: a bullshitter".

I had to laugh. She had summed up all of my complicated observations exactly right.

So, ladies and germs, pardon me if I declare that Obama has always struck me as a bullshitter too. The ever-hopeful moderate progressive commentariat is beginning to bubble that Obama is somehow a "stealth progressive" who doesn't trip the usual reactionary alarm bells, but somehow appeals to normal, average voters. Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

PS: Thanks to whoever screwed up this thread by posting oversized URLs.

Just what I needed.

Another article on the virtues of voting for a "viable" candidate.

No thanks