Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

BIll Clinton should be the new head of DNC

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 03:50 PM
Original message
BIll Clinton should be the new head of DNC
Oust Mcloser and lets really shake up the repugs.
This would do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Catholic Sensation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. Howard Dean should
he can rev up democrats better than anyone I've seen. I know I've not been the nicest person when dealing with his supporters, but honestly, when I watched him speak I was genuinely impressed with his obvious passion.

Dean should run the DNC, and should be considered a serious candidate after Kerry finishes out his term in 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Wouldn't that be sweet justice!
I was wondering what Dean's plans are now. That would be mightily interesting and quite a shakeup!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DennisReveni Donating Member (203 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Pilger on Dean
Pilger on Dean
http://antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=2089
"Above all, he has not in any way challenged the notion of American military supremacy throughout the world that has pushed the number of US bases to more than 750. Nor has he alluded to the Pentagon's coup d'etat in Washington and its stated goal of "full spectrum dominance." As for Bush's "preemptive" policy of attacking other countries, that's fine, too. Even the most liberal of the Democratic bunch, Howard Dean, said he was prepared to use "our brave and remarkable armed forces" against any "imminent threat." That's how Bush himself put it."

Feel a draft? Kerry and Dean want the same involvement for the US.
Sadly, we the people can not win this election.
Oh well, at least we can look forward to Peak Oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatewhore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
3. Hell No!
He bombed iraq continued sanctions (which are responsible for killing 1.5 million iraqis)NAFTA,WTO no thanks please can we get a progressive to be head of it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member ( posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. I thought he already was
behind the scenes.

 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DennisReveni Donating Member (203 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
5. Pilger has a REAL eye opener.
WhatReallyHappened linked to this eye opening article by John Pilger,
http://antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=2089
2004: Choose Your Favorite Pro-War Candidate
by John Pilger

On Clinton
"The truth is that Clinton was little different from Bush, a crypto-fascist. During the Clinton years, the principal welfare safety nets were taken away and poverty in America increased sharply; a multibillion-dollar missile "defense" system known as Star Wars II was instigated; the biggest war and arms budget in history was approved; biological weapons verification was rejected, along with a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, the establishment of an international criminal court and a worldwide ban on landmines. Contrary to a myth that places the blame on Bush, the Clinton administration in effect destroyed the movement to combat global warming.

In addition, Haiti and Afghanistan were invaded, the illegal blockade of Cuba was reinforced and Iraq was subjected to a medieval siege that claimed up to a million lives while the country was being attacked, on average, every third day: the longest Anglo-American bombing campaign in history. In the 1999 Clinton-led attack on Serbia, a "moral crusade," public transport, nonmilitary factories, food processing plants, hospitals, schools, museums, churches, heritage-listed monasteries and farms were bombed. "They ran out of military targets in the first couple of weeks," said James Bissett, the Canadian former ambassador to Yugoslavia. "It was common knowledge that NATO went to stage three: civilian targets." In their cruise missile attack on Sudan, Clinton's generals targeted and destroyed a factory producing most of sub-Saharan Africa's pharmaceutical supplies. The German ambassador to Sudan reported: "It is difficult to assess how many people in this poor country died as a consequence . . . but several tens of thousands seems a reasonable guess."

Covered in euphemisms, such as "democracy-building" and "peacekeeping," "humanitarian intervention" and "liberal intervention," the Clintonites can boast a far more successful imperial record than Bush's neocons, largely because Washington granted the Europeans a ceremonial role, and because NATO was "onside." In a league table of death and destruction, Clinton beats Bush hands down."

On the What if Gore was elected would we have gone to war,
"A question that New Democrats like to ask is: "What would Al Gore have done if he had not been cheated of the presidency by Bush?" Gore's top adviser was the arch-hawk Leon Fuerth, who said the US should "destroy the Iraqi regime, root and branch." Joseph Lieberman, Gore's running mate in 2000, helped to get Bush's war resolution on Iraq through Congress. In 2002, Gore himself declared that an invasion of Iraq "was not essential in the short term" but "nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat." Like Blair, what Gore wanted was an "international coalition" to cover long-laid plans for the takeover of the Middle East. His complaint against Bush was that, by going it alone, Washington could "weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."

Collusion between the Bush and Gore camps was common. During the 2000 election, Richard Holbrooke, who probably would have become Gore's secretary of state, conspired with Paul Wolfowitz to ensure their respective candidates said nothing about US policy towards Indonesia's blood-soaked role in southeast Asia. "Paul and I have been in frequent touch," said Holbrooke, "to make sure we keep out of the presidential campaign, where it would do no good to American or Indonesian interests." The same can be said of Israel's ruthless, illegal expansion, of which not a word was and is said: it is a crime with the full support of both Republicans and Democrats."

Quite a bit about Kerry, but this is an eye opener
"What is the difference from the vainglorious claptrap of Bush? Apart from euphemisms, there is none. All the Democratic presidential candidates supported the invasion of Iraq, bar one: Howard Dean. Kerry not only voted for the invasion, but expressed his disappointment that it had not gone according to plan. He told Rolling Stone magazine: "Did I expect George Bush to f*** it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did." Neither Kerry nor any of the other candidates has called for an end to the bloody and illegal occupation; on the contrary, all of them have demanded more troops for Iraq. Kerry has called for another "40,000 active service troops." He has supported Bush's continuing bloody assault on Afghanistan, and the administration's plans to "return Latin America to American leadership" by subverting democracy in Venezuela."
....
"Like the Blairites, John Kerry and his fellow New Democrats come from a tradition of liberalism that has built and defended empires as "moral" enterprises. That the Democratic Party has left a longer trail of blood, theft and subjugation than the Republicans is heresy to the liberal crusaders, whose murderous history always requires, it seems, a noble mantle.

As the New Democrats' manifesto rightly points out, the Democrats' "tough-minded internationalism" began with Woodrow Wilson, a Christian megalomaniac who believed that America had been chosen by God "to show the way to the nations of this world, how they shall walk in the paths of liberty." In his wonderful new book, The Sorrows of Empire (Verso), Chalmers Johnson writes:
With Woodrow Wilson, the intellectual foundations of American imperialism were set in place. Theodore Roosevelt . . . had represented a European-driven, militaristic vision of imperialism backed by nothing more substantial than the notion that the manifest destiny of the United States was to govern racially inferior Latin Americans and east Asians. Wilson laid over that his own hyper-idealistic, sentimental and ahistorical idea . It was a political project no less ambitious and no less passionately held than the vision of world communism launched at almost the same time by the leaders of the Bolshevik revolution."

Well that article should scare the crap out of everyone.
Meet the new boss same as the old boss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 03:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC