For the Cancers eating away at U.S., "major" Dems prescribe Aspirin.

[RichM]

Victory in political battles is achieved by the party that gets to frame the issue. Once you consent to waging the battle on your opponent's turf, you've already lost - even if you fight valiantly from that point on.

To illustrate: the remaining "major" Democratic candidates all intend to "win" in Iraq. Kerry even proposes sending 40,000 more troops. His website offers his "plan for winning the peace in Post-Saddam Iraq, trying the former Iraqi leader, and building a lasting coalition to support our operations." He is utterly silent on the points that seizing Iraq's OIL by armed force & achieving other geostrategic aims were primary motives for the invasion in the first place. Just as a Republican would, he jumps at the chance to loudly proclaim that Saddam was evil (website: "Capturing Saddam Represents an Opportunity for the U.S."). His main objection to "our operations" is limited to the unilateralism of our seizing Iraq, & to certain promises (war as last resort, etc) that the president didn't keep. He can hardly object to the fraudulent "WMD" pretext for the whole enterprise, having unfortunately voted for it himself.

This framing of the issue accepts most of the GOP premises. In particular, it is silent on the same dirty truths that the GOP framing is silent on: that the war was a war for oil; that preemptive war is aggression by another name. If Kerry wants to "win the peace" in Iraq, this means he tacitly approves the idea of seizing the country and occupying it, even as he quibbles about the precise way Bush did it. It means he signs on to the idea that we are "building democracy" in Iraq - another GOP talking point - as opposed to trying to install a puppet government by brute force.

This is one example among many of "prescribing aspirin for cancer." The cancer is the broad issue of militarism in American society; the fact that the military-industrial complex dominates the very heart of our economy & foreign policy. All this, Kerry (and Edwards & Dean as well) won't even mention. The only rays of truth coming out of Democrats come from brave little Dennis Kucinich and oft-ridiculed Al Sharpton. (You know, the "unelectable" ones.)

Are the major Dems raising the issue of the outrage of the stolen 2000 election? Enron and its intimate relationship to Bush-Cheney? The waves of Wall Street scandals, which demonstrate systemic corruption in corporate America, & which bear obvious close relationship to deregulation? The outrages of the recent Texas redistricting? The ludicrousness of Bush's new commission to "investigate intelligence failures in pre-war Iraq?" The corruption of our media? The demise of the 4th & 6th Amendments? Guantanamo? That we've become a full-fledged plutocracy -- a social form fundamentally incompatible with democracy?

Kerry is basically going around thumping his chest and portraying himself as a "war hero." He has a few quibbles with Bush, but it's nothing major. Bush wants to invade Iraq, seize its oil, and privatize anything of value in the country; Kerry wants the same, except he thinks it would be smarter, in the long run, to divvy up the loot with France and Germany. The rest of the discussion (ie, 99% of what's important) is off the table.

The focus of the recent "campaign" is beyond ridiculous. With the nation being consumed by militarism, imperialism, corruption and propaganda, we see a battle of "Kerry the war hero (plus fraudulent Jane Fonda & intern brouhahas)" vs "Bush's military record." Note that the battle is almost entirely detached from the true cancers. It's also drawn entirely on GOP turf, because the implicit premise is that the guy with the better military service record must of course be the "better man" -- itself, a worshipful nod to US militarism.

To date, one can summarize the campaign as follows: the only substantive truth being spoken is coming from the "fringe" Democratic candidates. The "major" candidates won't dare say anything true -- and if they do, they are promptly demoted to fringe status (Dean). The major candidates pretty much accept the GOP framework, deviating from it only on details (multilateral occupations vs unilateral, for example). When rank & file Democrats support the "major" candidates, they are in effect saying, "Let's vote for the Dems who don't bring up any unsettling truths. We know that America can't handle the truth - so we'd be crazy to stick our necks out and start telling it!"

Have many great battles ever been won with this degree of capitulation to the enemy's viewpoint?

[Tinoire]

1. Cancer but only trying to prevent a headache is the DLC's cure.

Good post my friend!

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. It's a good thing that Democratic voters are rejecting the DLC candidates

[wyldwolf]

15. I think this went over their heads... so I'll repeat:

It's a good thing that Democratic voters are rejecting the DLC candidates.

Yep, they're seeing right through their agenda.

[mac2]

2. Are we too late to change any of this?

I totally agree with you. My choice is against any of this. With Dennis so far in the back...can a "dark horse" win at the Convention with DLC people running it?

Dennis got the message out there but do people really care about anything the the "word" jobs? Talking isn't going to do it.

Getting rid of trade deals and negotiating new ones...taxing corporations and not allowing off-shore registering, etc. They have to share in the social contract to keep us healthy and strong just like citizens (including the rich).

The truth shall set you free, except in the Bush world.

[KoKo]

6. I think we must "protest vote," by writing in Kucinich, Dean or Sharpton

in our Primary Ballot. I'm not a third party advocate for this election, but I'm resigned that I have to vote for the Democratic Candidate who spoke for me, as a Democrat of the "old style" before the DLC took it over.

This is the only way to rebuild the Democratic Party from within. To keep protesting in the few ways which are left to us to do. That means write in.

Thanks, Rich.

[Tinoire]

26. Koko! Do NOT write anyone in. Those votes aren't even counted!

They're thrown into a dust-bin as if they never existed! Vote for someone ON the ballot or go Green.

Writing anyone in is a beautiful but totally meaningless gesture. Check with your state reps if you need more info.

[library_max]

3. Don't take the campaign so seriously.

Politicians don't necessarily govern the way they campaign.

Anyway, the voters and America are the same people. At some point you have to give up the "everybody agrees with me, they're just too chickenshit to admit it" fantasy.

[KoKo]

5. Don't take the Campaign so seriously? You can't be Serious, can you??

Do you really think what Rich said is fantasy? I shouldn't have even bothered to ask.

[library_max]

8. Yes, I'm serious.

The history of progress in this country suggests that what works is to get sympathetic people - people who will listen - into office first, and THEN start making demands. Candidates who run on Turning Everything Upside Down always lose fantastically and then nothing good happens.

[RichM]

10. Your model for the history of progress is too heavy on the "top-down"

part. That's a narrow & very debatable reading of the process. For example, the big eras of change that you mentioned in another thread - The New Deal & Great Society - are more accurately pictured with far more emphasis given to the bottom-up component.

IOW, it's misleading to picture the New Deal as something that sprang entirely from FDR. Rather, he responded to demands which he correctly sensed to exist in the electorate. It also wasn't clear when he was elected that he was so "sympathetic." His 1932 campaign did not remotely spell out the kinds of reforms he went on to support -- in fact, he didn't even have those specific things in mind, when he ran.

The New Deal was an interaction between demands from below, and assent to this from above. The demands existed before FDR was elected; his role was shaping a response to these demands.

As far as "Candidates who run on Turning Everything Upside Down" always losing - when has there ever been such a candidate? The American system never even allows such a person into serious contention, unless you include Turning Everything Upside Down from the Right, which is apparently acceptable. (Bush is running on shredding the Constitution, rolling back the New Deal, & tearing up every major agreement of the postwar era - and it's hardly clear that he will lose.)

A relevant bit of history to look at, when considering the fate of efforts at incremental change, is the pre-Civil War period. Here, a number of timid administrations tried to manage the tensions that eventually led to the war. They all failed miserably. The suggestion would be - let's not glorify incrementalists. Sometimes, the very lousiest policy comes from those too frightened to Turn Some Stuff Upside Down.

[library_max]

18. History is history.

History is replete with "demands from below" that get squat because there is no "assent from above." It's the assent from above that is the crucial part of the equation, and the one that involves politics. I've read Zinn, before you ask. He's interesting, but so one-sided that his work is useful only as a corrective to traditional US history.

Examples of candidates who ran on Turning Everything Upside Down - Goldwater, McGovern, Mondale. And aren't you just making my point that most of them can't even get past the nominating process? What do we accomplish by backing candidates who can't get nominated or running candidates who can't win?

Bush isn't running on shredding the Constitution, etc. Wait and see what he runs on - it'll probably be Mom, the American Flag, and Our Boys in Uniform. When I look at politics from the far left, I always have to remember to filter my vision in order to see things the way ordinary people see them. They don't see Bush as shredding the Constitution, for example.

What you run on isn't what you have to govern on, lousy policy or not. Running on radical change guarantees the loss. Implementing radical change AFTER gaining office sometimes gets your face on the dime.

[RichM]

31. re: Goldwater, McGovern, Mondale, & Turning Stuff Upside Down...

All 3 of these guys were thoroughly mainstream politicians. None of them ran on "Turning Everything Upside Down" (TEUD). The first two were successfully portrayed by their opponents as being dangerous "radicals," but this was laughably dishonest campaign distortion.

If memory serves, Goldwater ran as a precursor of Reagan - basically, "Let's cut government social spending." This was at a time when the New Deal reforms were still much revered, so it wasn't a popular position - but it wasn't why he got murdered in the election. He was clobbered because the Democrats successfully portrayed him as an unstable lunatic likely to launch a nuclear war. This was actually a very dishonest portrayal by the Democrats, who were every bit as hardline as Goldwater in their anticommunism. // The point in any case is that he didn't run on TEUD, & that his loss was not really due to the one novel part of his program.

McGovern was a completely traditional Democrat (ie, supportive of social spending & progressive taxation). His only distinguishing position was a willingness to pull out of Vietnam - and this, mainly on practical (as opposed to purely moral) grounds. This is not a radical position, and can't be characterized as wanting to TEUD. Aside from Vietnam, there was nothing even slightly innovative about McGovern's program.

Mondale, finally, was 100% mainstream. The 1984 election revolved purely on taxes and Reagan's alleged "popularity" & "optimism." Mondale didn't run on wanting to TEUD; other than rightly suggesting that a tax increase was necessary, he offered nothing in the way of novel proposals.

I'm not just making your point that most of them (ie, innovators) can't even get past the nominating process, though I agree that that's the way it's been. Rather, I'm saying that the process is so sclerotic and dysfuntional that nothing bold & innovative has ever really been tried. It might be time to try something new - because the process, as it is, is certainly not working.

[library_max]

34. The process, as it is, is all there is.

Neither the extreme left nor the extreme right will ever get to decide the course of politics. That's the nature of majoritarian democracy. You take a very extreme view of three elections that electoral historians agree were landslides because of the extreme positions taken by the candidates named.

To a flea, I suppose, a human being and a skyscraper are about the same size. Or, likewise, to a skyscraper, a human being and a flea are about the same size. But when you get close to the same as the things you are comparing, you'll see that they aren't alike at all. If I lived on Pluto, I'd have a hard time understanding what Earth folks think of as "cold." If I were 'way out on the political cusp, I'd have a hard time understanding why voters thought McGovern was a radical.

And you keep proving my point anyway - candidates that would satisfy your desire for progress are inevitably non-starters. It's called democracy. More people than just you and your friends are involved in the decision.

[RichM]

41. Re: "It's called democracy. ....the nature of majoritarian democracy..."

It's actually not "called democracy." It's called plutocracy, and/or oligarchy. Democracy is not really possible (except in a superficial formal sense) in a country with tremendous inequality in the distribution of wealth & power.

Concentrated wealth determines the general outlines of public education, and the entire orientation of media content and "news." Most Americans are wholly dependent on these parts of their lives, for their understanding of the political world. To judge how well the informing process works, let's just note, for example, that a majority of Americans believe that Saddam had much to do with 9-11; that most Americans don't know the US was an ally of the USSR in WWII; that astonishing numbers don't know basic facts of geography, etc.

This stupendous ignorance of large parts of the population makes real democracy impossible. Large numbers of people are obviously molded into doing very much what corporate America wants them to do. The choices they make do not reflect informed individual decisions; they are merely consumer choices, produced by PR firms. This pathetic state of affairs is what you are claiming is "called democracy."

[library_max]

55. You're right, of course. Democracy is a sham.

Pardon my interruption. Please carry on with your infinitely superior RichMocracy. Oh, and please keep me posted on how many national elections you win with it.

[IrateCitizen]

32. "Traditional US history"

I find your fallback on this crutch to be quite troubling, library_max. Tell me, what exactly is "traditional US history"? Is it "traditional" because it is the point of view that has been most widely taught? Is it "traditional" because it falls in line with a system of heirarchy?

Continuing along that line, why would you consider Zinn's work to be a "corrective", rather than a viable view of history? After all, Zinn is quite clear in his preface to "People's History" that he is projecting his personal perspective through his view of history -- but, after all, ALL historians do this, whether they want to admit so or not. Would not Zinn's work, rather than a "corrective" (subconsciously implying that it is not as viable as "traditional" history, and therefore should be taken with a grain of salt) be better described as simply a perspective on US history?

[library_max]

35. When I say a corrective on traditional U.S. history

I mean that in the sense that more sugar is a corrective for lemonade that is too sour, or more water for lemonade that is too sweet. Traditional history, by which I mean history has it has traditionally been taught in this country, gives too little emphasis to the views Zinn emphasizes. Zinn gives too much. Mix too sweet and too sour and it might be worth drinking. But neither too sweet nor too sour is worth much on its own.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. This Minnesota native just finished an ROTFL session

at the thought of Fritz Mondale as a radical revolutionary!

The only "radical" in the bunch you mentioned was Goldwater, and he ultimately succeeded by inspiring rightwingers to take over the Republican party.

[library_max]

57. If I lived on Pluto,

I'd have trouble understanding what people on Earth mean by "cold." If I lived 'way out on the political fringe, I'd wonder why most people thought of Mondale as outside the mainstream as a presidential candidate. I guess it's a matter of perspective.

[Desertrose]

12. you mean trickle down....as in when you get pissed on...??

..."that what works is to get sympathetic people - people who will listen - into office first, and THEN start making demands."

and you have them make the changes to fill the demand and ooops! those who voted them in the first place vote them out. :eyes:

yeah,sure...the top really gives a shit about those below them?

:crazy:

DR

[library_max]

19. Except the funny thing is that it doesn't work that way.

Every example of progressive reform in American history worked as I describe it. I'm sorry if that conflicts with your view of politics.

[LibDemAlways]

4. Your dead-on post nicely summarizes why

Kucinich has my vote in the primary. He's the only candidate who speaks the truth to our criminal intentions in Iraq, who wants to cancel the contracts, quit the profiteering, and get the hell out. It's shameful how he's been marginalized.

[Armstead]

7. Dems shouldn;t trivialize issues

As a moderate progressive (rather than either a radical socialist progressive or a centrist progressive) I have believed since the 1980's that the biggest screw-up and betrayal of the Democratic Party has been to consistently abandon the Big Picture.

By that, I mean they have participated in reframing the debate in this country on GOP/conservative terms by trivializing the issues.

While a fundamental and destructive restructing of the econoy and political system has been occuring for 25 years, the Democrats as a party have ignored it (with some noble exceptions). They have trivialized issues and concentrated on merely the very edges of reform.

Instead they merely echo the Corporate Agenda and the same assumptions as the GOP. The centrist Democrat vision of "The Economy" is whether unemployment is at 3 percent or 5 percent, and what the current GDP is. The centrist vision of "healthcare" is whether the government will work with the pirates to allow it to stay unaffordable, but to focus on safe little exceptions like prescription drugs for the elderly.

To create the illusion of choice the Democrats have had a "kinder and gentler" view of social issues. But even there they played into the GOP's hands by distractinbg from the fundamental trends that are destroying democracy.

Dean, Kucinich and Sharpton presented a change in course, towards progressive populism to varying degress. Dean addressed it from a moderate -- but clear -- position of reform and gutsiness. Kucinich has done it by telling the unvarnished, no-holds truth from a lss compromising position. And Sharpton reminded Democrats of the existance of a large portion of its core constiuency.

Whatever happens from here on out, Kerry should not be allowed to be another centrist trivializer. Somehow he ought to be held to the fire and not get away with slipping more corporate bullshit through the door.

"Trade" is not just about obscure provisions in NAFTA. What's important about the "free trade" issue is that the present system is fundamentaly corrupt, flawed and has more to do with advancing the corporate conservative agenda than with promoting international trade....The only way to deal with the trade issue in a positive way is to re-examine its fundamental nature, and refocus it on the goal of fair trade.

"Jobs" is not just about lowering the unemployment rate a point or two. It is about the acountability of employers, the nature of jobs that are being created, reversing the trends to outsourcing, restoring the idea that everyone who works is entitled to a livable wage, etc.

"Healthcare" is not about asking the insurence companies to please, pretty please don't raise rates quite so fast. It's not about some obscure additional benefit. It must be about a fundamental change that gives the govermnment -- rather than private interests -- the primary tole in making sure evenyone has access to GUARANTEED HEALTHCARE THEY CAN AFFORD.

And "the ecomomy" should refer to the fundamentaly wrong direction we have gone towards greater concentration and centralization of wealth and power through deregulation, mergers and the business practices that allow an increasingly smaller but wealthier elite to run the entire country.

[snoochie]

36. Well put

by not standing up and speaking loudly on these major issues, it's as if they're trying to give Nader ammo to use when he says there's 'no difference'.

[rucky]

9. Has Kerry even mentioned the privatization going on in Iraq?

the contracts? the 400,000 government workers Bremer fired. The "free market" that filled Iraq with cheap goods that established Iraqi businesses can't compete with?

This issue is tied in with the occupation, but Kerry could separate the two, if he were really interested in rebuilding & not colonizing.

[KoKo]

11. Kick

:kick:

[GreenArrow]

13. asprin, schmasprin -- they're prescribing placebos

Other than that, I can't argue against any of your points. There's one corporate party with two wings, kind of like Major League Baseball is divided into the American and National Leagues. There are slight variations in rules and styles, but both leagues fall under the aegis of Major League Baseball(TM).

[denverbill]

16. I'll ditto that.

Funny thing is, from the rhetoric of hate radio, you would think that Democrats and Republicans are miles and miles apart philosophically.

They ARE miles apart on abortion, but that's really about it on issues that matter to most people.

Clinton signed NAFTA, a capital gains tax cut, and welfare reform. He launched military operations against Saddam, believed he had WMD, and fully supported the Iraq war.

Frankly, I sometimes think we would've been better of re-electing Bush I in 1992. Democrats would never have let him get away with as much as they let Clinton do, and Democrats likely wouldn't have lost control of Congress in 94.

[MuseRider]

17. Good post. n/t

[Astarho]

20. kick

well said.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. Better than the remedy coming from the left last time around

Wasn't it "things need to get worse before they get better?" I never noticed cancer getting worse before it gets better.

YOu then extrapolate that Kerry must stealthly support oil wars and I suppose one COULD make that argument based on his vote but one must ignore every other consideration to do it. So while you argue FOR your agenda with Democrats you DON'T prove your point.

The recent focus on tha campaign is to a large part out of Kerry's control, and where it IS in hos control, he is focused on his strengths.

I am not for wholesale abandonment in Iraq. Kerry's program does get us out of there and I certainly doubt it includes enriching people who pushed the Bush admin to war for their personal gain. YOu have no proof of such and can, therefore only speculate.

But since we heard it last time around....do things REALLY need to get worse before they get better?

If you are so interested in Democracy, why can't we acknowledge that that statement is just as hazardous as an oil war? Certainly those of us who can afford to sit around on the internet aren't going to suffer for it.

Things got worse for the people we CLAIMED to have wanted to help based on people buying the politically wreckless statement that things need to get worse to get better.

Pick onions for a living or pump gas and say that.

[RichM]

24. Excuse me, but I never said a word about "things needing to get worse

before they get better." Are you sure you're in the right thread?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. It isn't as though I didn't address the rest of your post and as I

recall, you supported an individual who prescribed just that remedy. If I am innacurate, I'll concede the point, but I take it your beef is with Kerry...a *gasP* Washington insider...I would simply caution that the last time a gang of outsiders rolled into town claiming to be reformers, we inherited the awful mess we now have.

I'll take the guy who is mindful of the legislative history in the matter.

Aspirin, smaspirin.

[RichM]

28. You must be confusing me with someone else.

"as I recall, you supported an individual who prescribed just that remedy."
- I have no idea what you're talking about.

Re the rest: If you're trying to summarize my objection to Kerry by simply saying that he's a Washington insider, you haven't remotely understood my position.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

22. I resent the smear on aspirin

It's a good drug.

[RichM]

25. I apologize for any aspersions inadvertently cast on aspirin.

(It can cause gastritis, though, if you have a sensitive stomach.)

[BeFree]

23. Besides several inacurate statements....

...the post is politically unsound.

Carter prescribed the bitter pill of truth for America's ailments. He was quickly removed from office.

The pugs have won elections through lies and deceits. How do you fight that?

While I am not totally pleased with who looks to be our nominee, if he does get elected, it will at least allow us a foot in the door.

One thing you seem to forget is the fact that most American's don't want to be told ... 'don't overeat'...'don't smoke'... 'wear your seatbelt'.

* won the last election because Dems were not unified enough to withstand the onslaught of lies. If we allow it to happen again, there will be no prescription that will fight the dis-ease we shall feel.

[RichM]

29. This is hilarious.

The first sentence is the funniest: "Besides several inacurate statements....the post is politically unsound.""
- Who appointed you Lord High Mayor to judge what is or is not "politically sound?" And once you make such a pompous assertion, don't you think supporting it with a reasoned argument might be nice?

If you make the accusation that there are "several inaccurate statements," don't you feel obliged to name a few of them? Nah, I guess not.

And - "wear your seat belt?" This is supposed to be related to something in my post? I guess the connection is just a little too subtle for me. Too deep. Way over my head.

[LWolf]

30. So truth is a bitter pill,

and we ought to dispense with it in favor of what? Lies to match the opposition's lies? Sugar sweet placebos? What?

Truth doesn't win, so we should abandon it by the wayside? Leave it behind? Run fast in the other direction?

[BeFree]

33. Just 3 Inaccurate quotes...enough

"Kerry even proposes sending 40,000 more troops."

That is wrong. Inaccurate. JK says that instead of Nat Gaurd being in Iraq we need regular full-time troops.

" He can hardly object to the fraudulent "WMD" pretext for the whole enterprise, having unfortunately voted for it himself."

JK can, has, and will continue to object to the "fraudulent" pretext.

"Kerry wants the same, except he thinks it would be smarter, in the long run, to divvy up the loot with France and Germany."

Show me where he says that. This is mere conjecture. KJ wanted the UN involved from the get go. At least with the UN involved the problems we are facing in Iraq would be minimized and the suffering of the Iraqi people may have ended by now.

Instead of attacking KJ on this matter, why don't you go after the real culprit, B* ?

[diamondsoul]

37. "JK says that instead of Nat Gaurd being in Iraq we need regular full-time

soldiers."

Yeah? Where does he plan to get them? Why does he think Bush used the NG troops? Hint- count up all our active troops and then look at our deployment rate.

Good GAWD and Clark supports this idiocy?!:eyes: :wtf:

[snoochie]

39. Are the 40K more troops the same as the two new divisions he wants?

Where are they going to come from?

[BeFree]

40. Ya got me there...

My point was that the original post was inaccurate.

As to these new divisions and where the will come from...well... ya got me. To me, JK is too much into the whole Military Industrial Complex. But the harsh reality that keeps slapping me upside the head is that someone who leans pacifist, like myself, wouldn't win any national election in this country partially populated by virtual lynch-mobs.

Hell, I've started a few threads right here on DU complaining about bloated military budgets, and hardly anyone agreed! That is the problem.... the MIC budgets, and the pugs are just laying in wait for any Liberal saying they oughtta be reduced.

Peace is not a winning political proposition in the infinite game of American politics. I wish it were, but it's not.

So, that's that.

[diamondsoul]

42. Bullshit.

Peace in this election cycle is the ONLY WAY TO AVOID A DRAFT.

If people don't get that they aren't watching what the hell is happening and I'll hold every last one of them accountable when my husband is sent off to die.

[GreenArrow]

43. people don't get it and don't want to get it

and there will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth.

[BeFree]

45. Peace is the only alternative

But someone flying a peace banner these days won't win the presidency. I don't like it any more than you, diamondsoul, but that's the way it is. We can blame that on the sheeple..... for now, all we can do is hope that peace weighs heavily on the mind of whomever our nominee is come June. But don't expect to see the banner waving.

[snoochie]

46. I think he can win

Not only will peace become a more popular option as the deaths mount in Iraq, the need to work for peace SHOULD be made as a fiscal argument as well. We cannot sustain the spending levels we are at now (1/2 of discretionary budget) AND expect to provide social services at the rate they grow. They will HAVE to be cut.

Put it that way, and see how quickly people warm up to his idea of cutting the bloated pentagon budget. Especially seniors, tell them that their benefits will have to be reduced due to the need for a missile defense system or the osprey. They'll love that.

This is the moment! We have a golden opportunity here, but I fear that the media has us all convinced it's better to play it safe with the 'electable' candidate.

Unfortunately, I think, deep down, we all realize just how 'electable' he really is (witness all the violently anti-Nader threads). If he were so all-fired electable, going against a failure like bush, why would Nader cause anyone to bat an eye?

The writing is on the wall -- why are so many averting their eyes?

[PurityOfEssence]

44. People can only take so much

When you determine that people can't take the really bad news, you give them what they can take. There's a deftness to successful politics, and it's a delicate balance.

Typical of Edwards' levelheadedness is his response when Dianne Sawyer was trying to pin him down on gay marriage. She asked him for a yes or no and he gave her a direct no. When she zeroed in for her sport kill, asking "why not?", he responded "because I don't think the country's ready for it." He then went on to carefully--and without prompting--list the guarantees that should be there: health care rights, survivor's rights, medical visitation and such.

Edwards has been flatly stating that Junior's trying to fundamentally shift the country from taxation of all income to only the taxation of wage earners. He's gone after predatory lenders and other nasty abuses in the system, but it can only be taken so far. This is as radical as one can truly get on the most important issue of class tyrrany and not get run out of town.

People can't bear to hear the unvarnished truth for many reasons: it means that they're culpable for letting it get this way (guilty), it means that they're in much bigger trouble than they ever thought (wrong) and it means that they personally have to do something about it (on the hook). FDR was right: people fear fear.

Dean didn't get marginalized for "the truth", he got a groundswell of support for it; he got shot down for lying, being recklessly inaccurate and for being flat-out nasty. He told everyone that they were assholes, and was then shocked when they didn't love him in return.

America is based on the myth of the attainable heaven on earth, so anything that mucks with that is insane by definition. If you want a good example of marginalizing Diogenes, don't talk about Dr. Jekyll, talk about Cynthia McKinney or Dennis Kucinich.

Popular politics are BY DEFINITION facile and surfacy; most people don't want to delve any deeper, and everyone's got the same weight in the end. The shoals of submerged interests must be navigated very carefully, and there's no way around it. To rail at superficiality in major politics is akin to bemoaning violence in football.

Edwards' plan is to internationalize the Iraq operation; this generally nullifies that issue so he can concentrate on fighting an economic campaign. Bad idea? I don't think so. It's also choosing the ground for battle, and as you well know--and stated--that's how one wins. One person's cowardice is another person's caution.

No offense, as usual, but the next eleven to 18 days will decide our future for a very long time, so I'd like to keep the team focused on the task at hand.

I also dispute your contention that the war was solely about oil; I think the truth is much more chilling: it was equally for 1) revenge for Daddy's "defeat", 2) showing the world that we mean business and will not blanch at using force to crush opposition and 3) that yummy, sweet light crude. I truly think that they're more or less equal, but flowing in that order of slight priority; think like a gangster, and you're not far off with that mob. That kind of thinking is primitive macho "respect" and "honor" and crap like that oil greed is huge, mind you, and this was the weakest oil-rich state that was grabbable, but the Daddy thing was much bigger than any rational person would like to think. Once again: truth is scary, and you can explain the entire history of human civilization as a long series of maneuverings to make enough peace with reality that it can be kept at bay and ultimately avoided.

Sadly, this is as good as it gets.

(Please vote Edwards, and dissuade your neighbors from throwing their votes away; they're prone to that where you live, take it from an old homey, as if you didn't know.)

Where the hell have you been for the last few months, anyway?

Nice thread, too...

[BeFree]

47. Ya make Edwards sound pretty good

And you spelled out real politics pretty damn good, too.

When you determine that people can't take the really bad news, you give them what they can take. There's a deftness to successful politics, and it's a delicate balance.

Wish more folks would realize just what kind of game politics has become.

[snoochie]

48. There is much disagreement as to how the game is reacted to by the masses

I would say that the reason many people don't vote is because they percieve (correctly, usually) that the politicians do not have their concerns in mind.

Having this view, it is easy to understand why someone like me cannot support a status quo candidate. It is even easier to see why someone like me cannot support someone who betrayed rank and file democrats to vote with republicans on the war, among other things. But most notably, and most hurtfully, for the war.

Kucinich fights for US, for the common people. I know that, and knowing that I will fight for him. Knowing that I am energized and motivated to fight for him.

The others turned their backs on us. Knowing that, it is hard to gather the will to fight for them. It will be hard enough to vote for them, nigh impossible to help them get elected.

We had a status quo candidate in 2000, and barely won. It seems most democrats are willing to again roll the dice with a status quo candidate, for some reason expecting a different result this time.

:shrug:

[PurityOfEssence]

50. We had a candidate who spoke the truth in '84 and got whipped

From the top: I like Dennis Kucinich a lot and deeply respect him. His supporters have been the most decent and gentle of the lot on this board in the last year, even though they had more right to be snotty than anyone else. My problems with him are twofold: he's going too far too fast, and some of it's a bit left even for me. (Opening immigration would be disastrous.)

Any sensible person knows that we have to go to socialized medicine, and we inevitably will; to say so now is to try to make fine lace on a sinking ship. No offense meant, it's just that there's far too much resistance from far too many powerful forces to allow that to happen now, and coupled with a treacherous moment in politics, it's a bad idea. Medicine for money is murder; even Hippocrates got that right.

I never liked Walter Mondale, and he was/is a stiff. He WAS a liberal with his heart in the right place, though, even if he was no more suited for executive rank than Dick Gephardt. He spoke the truth in 1984: we needed to raise taxes, and he got whipped like an egg for that. (We could have had Gary Hart and won, if we hadn't let the leadership compress the damned Primary Season to coronate their boy; but that's another rant...)

McGovern spoke the truth and got crushed for it.

The Government is like a gigantic supertanker; some guy racing around on a speedboat or a fine windsurfer isn't suited for the billet.

We have no alternate universe to show how a more progressive candidate would have done in '00, so it's mere speculation on your part. Yes, we need radical change in this country, but that doesn't necissarily mean EVERYTHING has to be done in a radical way.

This country is in a very skittish and fragile state right now; extreme action could trigger real panic, and that could set back progressivism for years. One fear I had about Dean was that his steamroller could get him elected, and then his spitting and cocksure personality would alienate everyone so much that he'd be a failed experiment and bring the nazis back with a fury and a real mandate in '08. That would have given us new dark ages. Mercifully, Dean was his own worst enemy, and there were many others out there to help him in his self destruction.

The point? Radical change is the stuff of movies and fiction; incremental change is all that is possible. If done properly, it can all happen very fast, but it has to be done in a way people can accept. I truly dislike Clinton for dragging the party to the right--and he paid for it, mind you, they didn't like him for stealing their thunder--but he turned around the fiscal insanity of the monarchists and made great strides in many ways. That should give us hope for what can happen incrementally in a relatively short time.

[snoochie]

51. Were Mondale and McGovern far left or not?

I've seen people say that they were and I've seen others say that they were mainstream.

We just disagree. I don't think that radical change is impossible. I think it's absolutely necessary. And I think many, many Americans know this.

Not only that, but most Americans don't trust politicians, and for very good reason. If we were to nominate a politician that they could see for themselves that they could trust, I firmly believe that we would have a new Morning in America, only this time it would be the Democrats benefitting from the crossover votes of Kucinich Republicans who recognize the dangers of unrestricted free trade and outsourcing.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[RichM]

52. Wonderfully written post - richly nuanced. Thanks - Tip o' the hat!

I didn't mean to suggest that the war was solely about oil. (I think I said, "oil and other geostrategic goals..."). There were a bunch of things, including the 3 you mention, plus water, strengthening Israel's regional position, securing a huge military base ("an aircraft carrier") in the M.E., & the geo-power that results from controlling the oil spigots supplying potential rivals.

I can't really promise to dissuade my neighbors from "throwing their votes away," because I'm too busy trying to persuade them to do, in a sense, just that. That is to say, I've been working very hard for the Kucinich campaign. On weekends, I march up and down streets like Parker St, Blake & Ellsworth - going door-to-door, trying to convince people that a progressive area like mine simply has to support a peace candidate advocating universal health care.

If I listen to you too much, I'd start to like Edwards more than I really think I should. (If it's any consolation: when I encounter people who are firm that they'll be choosing between Edwards & Kerry, I push for Edwards. This is at least partly your fault!)

Participating in the DK campaign is an experience I'll always cherish. I saw real concern about where we are going on the faces of a lot of people. Many of the other volunteers impress the hell out of me, too. Unbelievable generosity of their time & passion. And Dennis himself - is extraordinary. I'm proud to have worked for him. It felt healthy & bracing - at a time where I needed something that felt like that. :hi:

[WillyBrandt]

49. And non-ABBers prescribe cigarettes

[markus]

64. No we merely object to Bush UnltraLight

with the amazing issue-free, hot-air-flow filter system.

Hell, I'm voting ABB but I am certainly going to be a turd in the punchbowl, and make it very clear I'm just trying to keep their seats warm for a real Democrats.

But I'll be out there working not to lose any seats, even for people like Dorgan and Pomeroy.

[John_H]

53. For the cancers eating the US the far left prescribes benzene & asbestos

[RichM]

54. Haw haw haw - hey, I get it. Benzene & asbestos. That's really witty!

Well, actually, the more you think about it, the less sense it makes.

But anyway: how would you know what the far left thinks? Exactly who IS the "far left," in your opinion? Is Dennis Kucinich "far left?"

[DrFunkenstein]

56. Took Me All Of 2 Minutes To Find Kerry Addressing This

From the same speech you refer to:

"Let’s be clear: Our problems in Iraq have not been caused by one man – and simply capturing Saddam Hussein does not finally and fully clear the path to a peaceful and democratic outcome.

This is a moment of opportunity, a turning point when the Administration can and should face the realities of how you gain international support in this effort.

We cannot expect other nations to join us now if the Administration prohibits them from sharing the reconstruction because they opposed us previously.

That not only defies common sense – it’s childish retribution which puts our troops at greater risk. It’s time we leave no doubt what we believe: Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people, not Halliburton and Bechtel."

---------

As for the WMD fraud, virtually all the candidates - Dean included - said repeatedly that they believed WMDs existed there. But Kerry, like Dean, said clearly that it did not pose an imminent threat.

Regarding Enron and the other scandals, actually Kerry has gone after them repeatedly in both his economic and environmental speeches. Do your homework before you smear.

On the military-industrial complex, the GOP is currently bashing him for doing his best to dismantle it, particularly regarding nuclear weapons.

---------

Your little "aspirin" metaphor is cute in its little Rage Against The Machine way, but it doesn't bear up to scrutiny.

[RichM]

58. When JK says this line you just quoted: "...face the realities of how you

gain international support in this effort," what he means by "this effort" is a "successful" occupation of Iraq, leading ultimately to the imposition of a US puppet government. All the candidates make references to involving the UN in some way, but careful sifting of the phraseology shows that only Kucinich (& Sharpton) explicitly want to give up claims on the oil & control over reconstruction contracts, & to get the troops out. This means: get the troops out PROMPTLY, without playing for time while strengthening the US grip over the region. // Kerry & Edwards, OTOH, invoke fine phrases about letting the Iraqi people control Iraq, etc - but they are NOT saying anything about giving up the oil and pulling out troops, paying reparations and leaving empty-handed. They both stand for various ploys to play for time, and proposals to "share" the loot with European allies, in such a way that the US winds up with a lot of military bases, control of oil, contract bonanzas, and an obedient client state.

My point was not that it's impossible to find some nice phrases in Kerry's various pronouncements. It's that 1) his basic INTENT in Iraq is NOT about "giving up" ANYTHING, & 2) Kerry did indeed go along with the WMD fraud (as you acknowledged) & also said NOTHING about oil, while Kucinich stood virtually alone among all Dem candidates, and said there was no proof of WMD, AND that oil was a central (though not exclusive) motivation for the invasion.

Kerry has a long political career. As illustrated by his past protests of the Vietnam war, by his Iran-Contra investigations, and by his position on Iraq, he is ALWAYS someone who issues statements out of both sides of his mouth. So it's easy to find support for anything you want to support, in his record. You want to find quotes where he said the Iraq war was wrong, in some important ways? No problem. You want to find quotes where he supports it and several of its disgusting underlying premises? Also no problem. That's the beauty of talking both sides of the fence. Want to find him criticizing the US role in Vietnam? No problem. Want to find him ridiculing the anti-war movement and telling protestors to "get over it"? Also no problem.

[Iverson]

59. Here's why you can't be believed.

1. Your post is longer than a slogan and uses them big words.
2. There was no denunciation of Nader.

I mean, man, what were you thinking!?!?!?!?!?!?

[library_max]

60. Well, and there is that pesky little matter

of being wrong from beginning to end. But hey, picky picky picky.

[Iverson]

61. BWAAAA-HAHAHAHAHA! good one!

I know you are, but what am I?

[library_max]

62. Backatcha.

Do you even read your own posts? If not, I guess I could understand how you might feel superior to posters who indulge in sarcasm and base their arguments on the premise that they are always right.

[Iverson]

63. hey, ace ...

You're writing that in the middle of a ridiculous witch hunt on these boards, and you worry about my attitude?

Thanks for sharing.