Fellow Dean supporters.

[a_random_joel]

Some here have expressed their heartbreak, which I understand and do not want to appear unsympathetic towards. But I will not let any of you forget that the heartbreak and anger you feel today is nothing like the heartbreak and anger I felt, and hopefully you all felt, that December day in 2000. You know the one.

Or how about the heartbreak and anger you felt on 9/11 as you watched the smirker read books in a class room as people plunged to fiery deaths. You know the one.

Or how about the anger and heartbreak you felt on that Januray evening as you heard lie after lie after lie. you know the one.

Or how about the heartbreak and anger you felt that March day as the Empire crossed the Kuwaiti border on its way to an unjustified, illegal occupation. You know the one.

Remember your heartbreak and anger; it is a great motivation. This is a lot bigger than one man. And we still have the power to take our country back.
Sing after me, ABB.

[mdmc]

1. We have the power

to take our country back!

[eileen from OH]

25. More importantly,

. . .we've ALWAYS had the power - no one til Dean had really challenged us to USE it before.

And we still have it, guys, we still have it.

eileen from OH

[NoPasaran]

2. November 2, ABB!

Tonight though I'm getting drunk

[a_random_joel]

3. Hah!

Sounds like a plan!

[wryter2000]

4. I'm with you

ABB all the way. But I don't think Dr. Dean's work is done yet. We still have to fumigate the Congress.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. ABB? Sure, I'll be voting ABB..Green that is.

Anybody but Bush and his supporters who voted for his war.

[The Magistrate]

7. Purist Factionalism On The Left, Sir

Is relied on by reactionary strategists; it has brought them many a victory throughout history. Think well on who your proposed course actually benefits....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Apathy of the middle has done so even more often, Sir.

Please note, sir, the number of non-voters in this country.
Why is that? Could it be that, seeing little difference between the two major parties, they feel that voting for either is an exercise in futility?

Think well on who your proposed course actully benefits..

The Democratic Party isn't about to move to the left if they think they can count on our votes.

[a_random_joel]

15. Non-voters

have enabled the WORST presidency in the course of history, sure. Lofty ideals to live up to. Funny that you would them up as role models. This seems to me to be the antithesis of Dr. Dean's message.

Go figure.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. So, you are ready to surrender the party to the "moderates"?

Try re-reading what I wrote. The Democrats are offering us yet another "not too liberal" bowl of pablum and relying on the left to hold their noses again.

If you can stomach it, have at it. I can't. There's been too many deaths in Iraq that are due, in part, to the support of the two front runners.

I supported Dean because he represented the dissatisfaction of the left with the "Politics as Usual" DLC. He failed. I still support what he represented.

[a_random_joel]

33. But, but

The Right is falling over themselves to show Kerry as a... gasp... liberal. Now, where would they get that idea?

Hint - try his voting record. He's been around for a while.

The war vote aside, Kerry is in many ways more liberal than Dean.

But, he will need to redefine himself to appeal to the middle. That is the nature of politics my friend. Get used to it.

[The Magistrate]

34. At Some Point, Sir

You must accept the numbers from the polls where votes are cast, if you account yourself a partisan of democratic people's rule. The fact is that the candidates beloved of the more left portion of the Party received barely a quarter of the over-all votes of the Party rank and file. It is hardly a question of "surrendering the Party to the moderates", Sir: that implies it was yours to begin with. It was not, and it is not now. The far left is not the "real" Democratic Party; what the far left is pleased to call moderates comprise that Party's majority. Your moderate, of course, is a reactionary's dangerous radical liberal....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[The Magistrate]

There Is No Reason At All, Sir

To suppose that those who do not vote would, should they trouble to go to the polls, vote any differently than those who do. The leading reasons people do not vote are that they are broadly content with things as they are, and have little personal interest in politics. This "apathy" in the middle, more properly an inertia, is of benefit to whatever political endency is dominant at the time. Just now it does assist reactionaries somewhat, but it does not necessarily do so. Nor is it a thing in the power of the left itself to do anything about of its own power. The tendency toward purist splinter factionalism is within the power of the left to address on its own; any leftist has the power to reject taking the course of splinter factionalism, on his or her own hook, and if all do, the thing will disappear.

If you think that engineering a decisive victory by the worst elements of reaction will have the effect of moving the Democratic Party further to the left, Sir, you are sadly mistaken. The result would be instead the isolation and angry rejection of the extreme left as wreckers, and a redoubled effort to collect votes in the center of the polity. Radicals would be even more marginalized than they are at present, and the political discourse in the country moved even further to the right.

If you want to move the Party to the left, you must contribute to a victory, and demonstrate that you are an asset in victory.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[a_random_joel]

32. Bravo

As always, wisdom and eloquence in abundance is on display by The Magistrate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Extremist left?

The "extremist left" that you refer to, seems to be much more moderate, at this point, than at any time in the 20th century. They oppose war, are pro-environment, anti-corporate, pro-choice, etc. Instead of the Democratic Party offering candidates that reflect those opinions we are given tepid, oportunistic, politicians who move in whichever direction the polls, and their handlers, tell them to.

In contrast, the reactionary forces in this country, proudly declaim their policies without apology. A question for you, Sir: If "extremism" cannot win, how is it that we now have a resident of the White House that is the personification of reaction?

I lay this phenomenon to the general direction of the "ideals" of this country. Or, as you say, the inertia of the polity and it's acceptance of that direction. And, as you also say, it is beyond the power of the left, as it now is, to do very much about it.

The question now becomes, does one oppose that direction, or succumb to it? The "purist splinter of factionalism" that you speak of, becomes not a matter of "realpolitik" but of conscience.

I see this country as marching bloodily to it's own destruction. A cornered, dangerous, but dying, monster thrashing out blindly at whatever opposes it. The only unknown is the date of it's demise.

Will I oppose it? Or, meekly march with it?

I choose the former.

[a_random_joel]

51. When you speak of such false dichotomies

You betray your intent. Politics is not black or white. There are many shades of gray.

As for this countries destruction, this is slightly exaggerated - go read about the Civil War - but, would you choose to hasten it via 4 more years?

Oppose it or meekly march with it? That is a false dichotomy. Your path appears to be not marching meekly, but being dragged torn and bloody towards the demise you oppose. There are other ways.

[The Magistrate]

52. One Or Two Small Points, Sir

Sen. Kerry has a lifetime rating in the mid-ninties for his voting record in the Senate from the Americans For Democratic Action, the most solidly established and long-lived liberal group in the nation. Yet persons here routinely denounce him as a creature of the right. A person who does this can only be viewed as on the extreme left of the political spectrum, or the term makes no sense at all.

The exaltaion of personal conscience is mere self-indulgence in national affairs: the effect of splinter factionalism is to divide the fire of the left, and leave the field to the more cohesive reactionaries. This is a damned odd way to vindicate personal adherence to left principles. It is not as if there are grades passed out afterwards for moral worth on a personal level: there are elections won or lost, offices held or not, laws passed and enforced or not. That is what matters.

The idea that the enemy's strength indicates impending demise is unfounded. This country is not tending towards its demise; it is tending toward a reactionary consolidation of power that will reduce the mass of the people to penury, and erase much political liberty in consequence, but that is hardly the demise of the nation. To divide the forces of the left is to collaborate in that reactionary triumph, by reducing the forces available to oppose it.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[The Magistrate]

29. The Machine Hiccoughed

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Guaranteed]

43. If everyone did the right thing, it would benefit everybody.

If Dean had been nominated, he would have won.

[a_random_joel]

8. A green vote is a Bush vote

Remember 2000?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. I voted for Gore in 2000. I got Bush and a DLC candidate in 2004.

Gore lost because he went right and took the left for granted.

[a_random_joel]

17. Um, actually...

Gore won.

He "lost" because of vote fraud and SCOTUS. But, the Green vote would have offset 537. And that is not "fuzzy" math.

[Fleshdancer]

21. A Green vote is a pissed off and ignored Democrat

You can't ignore the base and expect their votes. That's absurd. If the Democratic Party splinters AGAIN then shame of the Democratic Party. At some point, we're going to have to take responsibility for this and stop blaming the Greens!

[a_random_joel]

26. I disagree.

A green vote is a green vote. The Thugs have unity. They don't always get their way, but they are united. When they are not united they lose. Remember Perot?

[Fleshdancer]

36. why can't the Democratic Party reflect on the lack of unity just once?

Is it too much to ask that our party take a moment to question why so many people are angry and wanting to vote Green?

Political parties come and go, but they never survive by cutting off their own base and then telling the voiceless to suck it up and vote with the party!

And yes, I remember Perot, but remember how the thugs bounced back? It wasn't by becoming more moderate, it was by getting back in touch with their conservative roots. Throughout the Clinton years, Gingrich and the neocons took their party further to the right so of course they're unified.

[a_random_joel]

38. Big tent party

The Democratic Party will NEVER be all things to all people. We are the big tent party. There are subtle and not so subtle differences even on the Left.

In spite of these differences, we must still learn unity. Or all Democratic constituencies will end up losing out on their issues of the day.

[Fleshdancer]

41. The more we move away from our base, the smaller our tent

I understand we can't be all things to all people, but turning our backs on our base is not the answer. How much longer can we really take the African-American vote for granted? Or the environmentalists or the women, the gays? And for what? To convince a small handful of NASCAR dads? To woo the fickle and hard to understand independents?

I'm a Democrat too and I plan to hold my nose and vote for our nominee, but because I'm a committed Democrat, I want the party to start acknowledging that something is broken and in need of fixing. The Greens are NOT our enemies here. I can't sit here and negatively judge a group of people who's only "crime" is voting their conscience. I admire them for that. We should all be doing that, hell, I wish my candidate could win the nomination so I could vote my conscience too.

It's funny. We criticize Bush and the current administration because they want to silence any form of dissent. We shout, we protest, we write letters, we volunteer and donate money for the sole purpose of dissent against this administration because that's what we believe is the best for this country. And yet we get tricked into thinking that this tactic shouldn't apply to our own party.

Our party is moving in the wrong direction. Many Democrats voted Green in 2000 which was a huge red flag. We were pummeled in 2002. Now what? Do we just keep doing nothing and expect it to all turn around? This just doesn't sit well with me.

[a_random_joel]

42. Sorry to break the news to you

And you should really read The Magistrate as he states it much more eloquently than I.

But...
"The more we move away from our base, the smaller our tent"
this is not accurate.

The ideological base that you claim, is the furthest left. The true base, in numbers, is in the middle. Therefore a bigger tent.

The more left we move, while ideologically sound and principled, the more we alienate the middle.

The Right has learned this Jedi mind trick, and as a result, the middle has moved right. Or have you not noticed?

This is a tug of war, but one that needs to be made with baby steps, lest you cover the middle in mud.

[Fleshdancer]

45. Sorry to remind you, but I heard this same bs in 2000 and 2002

how's it working for us so far?

[a_random_joel]

46. Funny, I didn't

I didn't hear the same BS in 2000, which, by the way Gore won.

As for 2002, yes the Dems rolled over. Where in my post do you see me suggesting this course of action?

Compromise is NOT appeasement.

[The Magistrate]

39. If It Is The Base, Ma'am

Then it turns out loyally and dependable, come rain or shine and regardless of rhetoric employed by candidates. If it does not do this, it is merely one more interest group demanding to be cossetted and petted and brought tea at just the right temperature, with no peas allowed under the mattress.

People who say they are part of the base while demanding to be catered to are committing an oxymoron. If you are part of the base of the Party, you damned well turn out and vote for the candidate of the Party. People who do not are not, and never were, part of the base of the Party.

The platform Nader ran on was, in essence, declaring there is not a dime's worth of difference between the parties; that was as false when Wallace spewed it back in '68 as it was when Nader regugitated that bigoted fascist's leavings in 2000. Clinging to it today does nothing but lend material assistance to the worst elements of reaction in our polity, the criminals of the '00 Coup.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Fleshdancer]

44. So the base is nothing more than sheeple? Don't think so

The base is the core group of people that agree with the ideas and philosophy of the political party. When the ideas and philosophy change, don't expect the base to just mindlessly vote for the party no matter what. The base is more than committed, they're intelligent and passionate about their political beliefs.

Granted I can't speak for all Green voters, but the Democrats I knew who voted Green in 2000 did so not because they were part of some interest group that demanded to be catered to, they were ordinary people who felt ignored by their party. People don't expect their party to fix all their problems, but it isn't too much to ask to be listened too and not be taken for granted.

Yes, Nadar did run on the platform that there was nothing different between the Democrats and the Republicans. Since then he has admitted that he was very wrong and that he had no idea that Bush would be this bad. If I thought Bush was intelligent and if I wasn't so adamant about the abortion issue, I would have been inclined to agree with Nadar at the time. Many of the issues are getting blurred between Republicans and Democrats so it's not too big of a stretch to come to that conclusion.

[The Magistrate]

48. 'Sheeple', Ma'am?

That is a despicable term; worse, it is a useless one.

Again, the base is what can be depended on, the foundation of the effort. It does not need courting. If it must be massaged, and catered to, it is not a foundation but an addition to the attic, or a sun-porch.

Persons who voted for Nader, from a feeling they were not being sufficiently stroked, made a damned bad decision, and the people and the country and the world are paying a high price today for their self-indulgent petulance. That ought not to be catered to, but rather rebuked, and those who did that need to grow up and treat serious matters seriously.

Nader "admitting he was wrong" alters nothing: if he did not know better at the time, he was clearly an incompetent and foolish self-promoter who had no business pressing himself onto the nation's political life.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[KoKo]

6. ABB......Lah.la..Lah.. ABB....La.la..Lah...ABB...la.lalalalahlahla...ABB

There...are you happy. :D

[a_random_joel]

9. Um, yes.

Quite happy.

[Demobrat]

10. Nope. Sorry.

Kerry the pushpolling plaigarist has not earned my vote. He has earned my contempt. The jury's still out on Edwards, but I do know this. I will never hold my nose and vote again. That's over.

[wabeewoman]

11. I know how you feel...

I was 110% behind Howard Dean but what Dean wanted was to give the democratic party back to the people and get bush out of office. I don't care for Kerry but just sit down and compare him to bush. There really is NO comparison. Kerry played dirty in Iowa and NH and I don't like it but it may come in handy against bush. Please reconsider voting against Kerry if he is the nominee. Just think of the damage bush will do with 4 more years.

[Demobrat]

18. Won't happen.

Between the dirty tricks Kerry played and the dirty way the Dems won the last mayoral election in SF, I'm out of the party and voting only for people I really respect. I will not allow Bush to be used as a club by people who have gone along with everything he's done. Sorry, but no.

[a_random_joel]

13. Talk about positive.

See you in the draft!

[Demobrat]

31. Kerry wants to send 40,000 more troops to Iraq.

Where do you think he's going to get them? Enlistments?

[a_random_joel]

35. No

I believe in the long run, Kerry can deliver UN assistance.

Let's put it this way... we know for sure who CAN'T.

And 40,000 is probably a small number compared to the numbers we'll need for Syria and Iran in 2006. Have it your way!

[Bertha Venation]

16. fuck it

this was obviously the wrong thread for this sentiment

[a_random_joel]

20. What truly matters

is that Bush goes back to Crawford.

[Bertha Venation]

24. Yes. That's what matters in the short run.

In the long run -- serious fucking change is coming down.

[SaddenedDem]

19. Not ABB here

I will not whore my vote to the lesser of 2 evils.

I will not sell my vote to any man or woman with a (D) by their name.

I will not sit back and agree with people who would vote for George W. Bush if he announced today that he was a Democrat.

And when you pledge ABB, that's EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

on edit:
It's EXACTLY this attitude which caused me to cast a vote for Zell Miller. Not now, not ever, never again will I be so stupid.

[a_random_joel]

22. BS

you know better than that. This is not about a (D).

[SaddenedDem]

27. No, it's about endorsing MORE Zell Millers

and you know THAT.

[a_random_joel]

28. Kerry = Zell Miller?

Now, that is funny.

[a_random_joel]

23. Get ready for Jeb!

I can't wait to see all you non-ABBers after 4 more years and then another 8 of Jeb.

[CWebster]

37. How about the anger

over the media assasination of Howard Dean and the subsequent rise of desperate a Democratic politician bankrolled by the media?

Don't think we will forget that travesty. Not on your life.

[The Magistrate]

40. Will You, My Friend

Follow Gov. Dean's lead and support the Party's nominee in November?

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Guaranteed]

47. HELL NO. nt

[a_random_joel]

49. Hell no you won't forget 2000 and all the rest?

Glad you are aboard.

If it's hell no to ABB, then I guess I can thank you for even more heartbreak and anger.