What's been the "most important election in your lifetime"?

[Bucky]

Every four years politicians tell us that the current election is the "most important election in your lifetime." Honestly, I can't remember a presidential election since I've been aware (I first heard this gem in 1980 when I was 17) in which I didn't get told the upcoming election was the most important ever.

But when you add them up, the pros and cons, and look at the impact that each of the last few elections have had, which one would you say was really "the most important election in your lifetime"? Which popular mandate has truly had the greatest and most lasting impact on the trajectory of history?

Note Bene: I'm talking about the November elections--this cliche gets less of a workout in the primaries, when the usual choice between two left-of-center Democrats or two right-of-sensible Republicans could hardly be called monumental. And of course in a broader sense the periodic self-correction of an elective democracy, all elections are at least theoretically as important as the others because history is shaped more by the general arc of choices a people make across a generation than by any single election's passing whims.

But ignore that brainiac crap; I want ya to take a stand.

Include your arguments below. I know 2008 is going to be a sentimental favorite. After all, not only did America elect its first minority president along with the generational shift of its first post-boomer president (the president, like me, is part of Generation Jones), but also the country in a sense redeemed itself for 8 years of neocon madness and anti-science atavism.

I'll defend my choice (2004) in a reply post below.

 

[Captain Hilts]

1. '04. Getting us out of Iraq was VERY important to me. nt

[elleng]

2. and the fact that it was stolen

and our hopes to get out from under those damned whatevers dashed, that made it important and horrendous.

No thanks for the memory!

[Bucky]

7. I know we lost that one, but if it's any consolations

the fact that we protested and kicked up our heels and made the stinks we did was very important. Had the left not fought so hard or so well against Bush, I'm certain we would have had some additional war -- probably not Iran, which was never a fightable war, but probably Somalia or Syria. Protesting that vanity war did save lives. Just not nearly enough of them.

[Whalestoe]

3. '08. First time I ever got to vote, making sure Republicans

stayed out was VERY important to me.

[anonymous171]

57. Same here. nt

[Muttocracy]

4. 2000, though at the time I had no idea. nt

[leftofthedial]

5. 1980

when the neocon coup went overt.

[Blue_In_AK]

33. My choice, too, Left.

[leftofthedial]

40. the start of the dark age

[NashVegas]

38. Me Three

It was better to be a little chaotic with Ford/Carter and the '70s than it was to be firmly headed in the wrong direction, on a speeding train, after 1980.

[uppityperson]

41. And me. The start of the Bush Regime.

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. Absolutely right. n/t

[QueenOfCalifornia]

73. That's when

I went mental.

I am not one of the Carter haters on the DU and I was so horrified at how the Republicans conducted their campaign. Yep, "The Reagan Revolution" certainly did us a lot of good. The House and Senate were bright RED too.

Yes... Carter haters here are a dime a dozen - if they paid attention to what the Republicans did once they obtained all that power they would STFU.

[Bucky]

6. 2004 was the most important election in our lifetimes, not 2008

I'm going to say 2004 was more important in historical terms than either 2000 or 2008, or any other likely category. Yes, America made serious blunders because of the trainwreck the Supreme Court dumped in our laps in 2000: thousands died because of it. But in 2004, the American people, to my personal embarrasment, actually ratified that trainwreck. Had Kerry won, we could have said the Bush Doctrine and the neocon artists who pulled the dummy's strings were all an aberration, a minority party mistake shoved down our throats by a fluke in the Electoral College.

Instead, that's the year a slim majority of our voters looked at the dead in Iraq, and the Bugs Bunny-like freedom enjoyed by Osama bin Laden, and the shaky economics wrought by suicidal supply side tax cuts, and bait-and-switch plans to privatize social security, and the idiocy of denying global warming--and still they said "George Bush and Dick Cheney represent us."

No matter how much the crowds around the world cheer our new president today, Bush could credibly claim he ditched the astrix that year. The view of the American people as an empire that would bully when we wanted to and ignore the world's complaints when we saw fit to do so was validated. A president who lied us into war, who ignored facts and embraced lies, and who was even willing to coerce and bribe a coalition to put a mask of legitimacy over his warlust was given a 4-year contract renewal.

The guy who trashed the Bill of Rights and said he didn't think about Osama bin Laden all that much just 18 months after 9-11 won the country over. He just blew in our ear and we followed him anywhere.

The fact that he was rejected in 2008 was almost a historic inevitability. The country could not sustain another four years of Bush's clusterfuck policies. What Obama's going to do in the next few months isn't radically different from what McCain would have done. Hell, policy-wise even Bush quit acting like Bush not long after reelection. He quit the tax cut madness, finally was forced to acknowledge global warming, even started talking to Korea and Iran on the sly like every FP professional knew America would have to. The surge would end in 2010 under either candidate from last year because the Iraqis are more or less forcing our combat troops out--a process quietly started in the Bush years.

Not even Dubya could sustain a neocon foreign policy--neoconservatism is fundamentally unsustainable for any country with an instinct for self preservation. No, a Democratic victory in 2008 was about as inevitable as Haley's Comet. And the solutions being followed by the Obama administration are near inevitable too, following the models set by previous Democratic janitors cleaning up after previous Republican raves. Fiscal discipline like Clinton used in 1993 to unstrangle 12 years of mismanagement; unemployment benefits and massive infrastructure development like FDR ordered following Hoover's neglect & arrogance; active diplomacy and engagement in multiparty talks in the mideast just like Carter did following Ford's "benign" post-Vietnam neglect for foriegn policy.

This is not to say Obama isn't a historically inspirational figure. If he's truly successful in applying these solutions, he may well surpass JFK & Harry Truman as the ideal liberal president in the hearts of future Democrats. I certain hope he continues to be the master politician he's been so far. I'm just saying that "we the student" were ready before the the master appeared.

Obama's real change is to return the country to transparent, common sense government; he's changing the process of government, but not the policy of empire. We will still nation-build; we will still support Israel almost unconditionally; we will still hunt down terrorists who will still hate us and plan to attack innocents; we will still lay out tax cuts in the middle of a historically vast budget deficit; we will still pay too much for Pentagon weapon systems. The change is that we won't bumble about it moronically, we won't betray our liberal traditions to achieve our goals, and we'll start planning for sustainability again (as we always have under Democratic presidents).

It will all occur in the world that eight years of George W Bush gave us. 2008 was the year America started to pull its shit together--but I think we were always gonna do that. It was in 2004 that we decided to go ahead and get skunk-assed drunk with Dubya. We may lose the hangover, but the car we drove last night is still just as wrecked.

[aaaaaa5a]

14. Excellent post! NT

[VolcanoJen]

28. Gawd, I poured my heart and soul and blood and tears into that 2004 campaign.

I was so incredibly crushed when Bush was reelected, and marveled at the ignorance and, frankly, carelessness of the voters who gave that man four more years.

I'm tempted to agree with you. Still, I think I'd have to put 2004 and 2008 at a tie... 2004 was a crucial step in the wrong direction, and therefore, the biggest missed opportunity. 2008 was more historic, I think, and proved America can correct her mistakes... and by millions of votes, too. :-)

Really great post, Bucky.

[Journeyman]

50. Add in the debacle of two new Supreme Court justices -- especially the Chief. . .

and there's no doubt the election of 2004 will continue to reverberate in our lives for decades to come.

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. I'm with you Bucky

We all pretty much knew what was at stake in 2004, and it was huge. So much foul water flowed under the bridge between then and now, it could have been stopped in time to prevent vast damage but it wasn't. 2008 was crical also of course, in large part because we did fail in 2004. I am of course relieved that we did not fail agsain.

[LBJDemocrat]

52. I completely agree

2004 demonstrated how far a president can go towards fucking up a country and still get re-elected.

[TheBigotBasher]

67. Brilliant Post

Confirmed by how the UK covered the US 2004 Election

[peace13]

8. 2000...

the first of the * steals.

[csziggy]

9. Until this year I would have answered 1972

That was the first year I could vote and I saw Noxin and his band of thieves steal the election through their dirty tricks. Members of his administration have been involved in federal politics ever since.

But this year I think has cleansed the US and redeemed our country. I do not want to forget the past and think the members of the Bush administration should be prosecuted for the crimes they have been involved in. The Obama administration has the chance to change the course of our future history from the divisive, partisan politics that have prevailed ever since Noxin got into office in 1968 to a new, inclusive, cooperative model of government.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. 2000 IMHO

1972, 1980 and 2004 were all major but 2000 saw the biggest outcome difference... not only was the Bush regime avoidable, he didn't even win the damn thing!

Since the "most important election ever" thing is usually in conjunction with encouraging people to vote when could the argument have had more import than in the closest election ever that was between an okay guy and a fascist moron?

The most important ever was, of course, 1860. The election result actually dissolved the nation! And since Lincoln only got 35-40% of the vote it's definitely the most dramatic effect 40% of the electorate ever achieved.

[aaaaaa5a]

11. There have been 3 ground-breaking elections in my lifetime

The 3 most important elections are...


1980... Ronald Reagan writes the last chapter to the "southern strategy." Most of the book was written by Nixon but Reagan got the book published. This backlash to the Civil Rights Movement gave us the modern red/blue state divide of today. This is where the modern conservative movement starts. Since this time we have been locked in a battle over choice, religion/science, media bias, declining middle class, rich getting richer, deregulation, and a loss of our manufacturing base. Growing up in the 80's as kid, I honestly thought it was impossible for a Democrat to be elected President.




2000.... Think of how the world would be different if Gore had won. To quote Chris Matthews, "ELECTIONS MATTER!" And this is proof. Bush represents the culmination of the conservative movement. The economy crashed thanks to deregulation and a declining middle class. We lost ground in science and math due to religious fanatics. 1% of the Nation did well. 99% of the Nation crumbled. Oh, yea... there was also that thing called Iraq. And the tremendous decline of America in the eyes of the world. We are a weaker nation today because of Bush.




2008... I dearly hope this is the death of the modern conservative movement. With a return to a more progressive agenda, we can strengthen the middle class and advance in science and math without offending God. Much like the progressive movements of FDR in the 1930s and LBJ of the 1960s, this next wave of liberalism will amend societies ills, such as health care, education and low wages. Also just as important, we need to be a leader on the World stage again.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just missing the cut.

1994... This was a non-Presidential year but was still incredibly important. This was the peak of the conservative movement. Newt Gingrich comes to power. The South and rural areas become toxic to Democratic candidates because progressives believe in equal rights for all citizens and a separation of Church and state. The Government quickly shuts down. Impeachment hearings. This election spawned the modern partisan fights which today are far worse than generations before. The behavior of the GOP following this election is the reason why the two parties are always at war. Hillary Clinton would have been confirmed in committee for Secretary of State were it not for this election.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Non-ground breaking popular elections



1984... The Reagan agenda continues. Geraldine Ferraro embarrasses herself as a first female VP. The nation "stays the course!"




1988... Michael Dukakis fits every stereotype of a Northern liberal. He appears weak, unemotional, and has no shot in the heartland of America. Willie Horton add proves Democrats still can't win national elections being the party of the "black folks" The political term "God, guns and gays" becomes a GOP rally cry.




1992... I struggled with this election year more than any other. I rank it as the 5th most important election of my lifetime. The positive of this election was that it proved a Democrat could actually get elected President. Which in 1992 was the equivalent of an AFC team winning the Super Bowl! The problem? The first two years of the Clinton presidency were so badly handled that it paved the way for Newt Gingrich in 1994. You could argue we are still trying to recover from the '94 election. Bill Clinton kept his Presidency afloat. But the entire progressive movement crumbled around him. Believe it or not, I'm not sure the Clinton's cared. And that still bothered me even in Hillary's primary fight against Obama.



1996... See 1984, except there's no Geraldine Ferraro this time.



2006... We all learned something during this election. Having majorities in both houses is not enough if the people elected are too scared to enact change. When the Democrats came back into power, we all expected big things. However in the 2 years they were in power, (2006-2008) I can't recall one major Bush policy that was halted, changed or even altered. Obama had done more this week to change the direction of this country than the Democratic congress did in two years under Bush. A major disappointment.



2004... Kerry runs the Dukakis election strategy. American hasn't quite awoken to what is going on. In red states, God, guns and gays trumps a war of choice, health care and a declining middle class. People care more about "Gay marriage" than their sons and daughters dying in meaningless war. Conservatives prove again that issues of the heart will trump issues of the head, unless the economy is REALLY BAD!

[Princess Turandot]

12. Not in my lifetime, but in modern times, all of these so far run a distant second to 1940..

Roosevelt's 3rd term. Isolationist Republicans did not want to even provide aid to England and Russia, much less enter the war. Pearl Harbor may well have never occurred since Roosevelt's oil embargo in 1941 in response to Japan's occupation of China, was one of Japan's main reasons for attempting to cripple the U.S.'s naval capabilities. That attack was the catalyst for the US's formal entry into the conflict.

It would have taken a miracle for the Axis powers to have been defeated w/o FDR's 3rd term. And had they not been defeated, most of Europe and Asia today might well have been modern versions of feudal states, serving their Nazi overlords.

[Hekate]

13. This one, and my first one was 1968. EVERYTHING's riding on this election, after all *'s destruction

I have not been so happy in 8 years. I have my country back.

Hekate

[LiberalPersona]

15. 2008 was a critical election

If the republicans won we could very well have ended up being a free nation no longer in the next 4 years as they would've destroyed every last remaining bit of the Constitution that Bush didn't get around to.

[dsc]

16. I lived during 68, 80, 2000, and 2008

I think 68 may well have been the most important in that it started the backlash against Civil Rights which led to 80 which was the most change producing. We can't judge 2008 until we see more of what Obama does and what happens after Obama.

[Occam Bandage]

17. Too soon to tell. nt

[Frank Booth]

18. 2000.

9/11 might not have happened.

Iraq War NEVER would have happened.

We would have avoided much of the environmental destruction.

Maybe less gutting of economic regulation.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. 2000. "Important" doesn't mean "Good".

N.T.

[WinkyDink]

20. The Grand Larceny of 2000, which has ruined EVERYTHING, based on LIES.

[FloridaJudy]

21. All of them

But the first one I voted in - 1968 - was when it all started to go really bad.

[uppityperson]

42. I agree with your post also. They have ALL been important.

For me though, 1980 with papabush coming into his power. But they ALL have been important, for different reasons.

[mvd]

22. 2008, because to be a nation left to fix, we had to win

McCain and Palin probably would have been WWIII and completion of corporate dominance.

[mtnsnake]

23. IMO, 2004, followed by 2000.

In 2004, the entire world knew what a disaster and what a madman Bush was, by virtue of his first term alone. 2004 was an election we had to win, one that we should have won, and one that would have stopped 4 additional years of madness, much of it unreversable, from happening. 2004 was definitely the most important election in my lifetime, at least for me it was.

Sure, 2008 was extremely important, too, but in 2008 George Bush was done no matter who took over. The damage had aleady been done. Besides, there was no way in hell that any Democrat was going to lose in 2008.

As far as satisfaction, nothing tops this years election, though.

[mvd]

24. Hi mtnsnake

I think in 2008 we had two good candidates at the end (Obama and Clinton,) and we did a better job during the campaign - given the Repuke ability to fool the masses, 2008 wasn't a given. However, I do think 2000 and 2004 were elections that could have let the US avoid lots of destruction of this country had they gone the other way. I said 2008 only because they could have completed the damage.

[mtnsnake]

68. Hi mvd

Yeah, it's a tough call for sure, so many ways to look at it. This was one of the more interesting polls.

[Maru Kitteh]

25. 2000. If that fuckup hadn't been annointed by the SCOTUS, millions would have LIVED.

2008 is the most historic and the most heart-warming, for sure, but you asked about important. I think the 2000 selection election was more important in that the damage to the world and the ending of so much innocent life could have been avoided.

[Jennicut]

26. Well at 33 this is the most important one but they were all important in their own ways

I think 2000 will always stand out to me.

[hologram]

27. 2000.

The U.S. was just getting its feet on the ground fiscally after Bill Clinton had to spend years pulling it out of another deep Republican hole. As such, new possibilities lay ahead for fixing Medicare and Social Security, repairing and upgrading infrastructure, who knows what all. Election 2000 was critical to the continuation of fiscal responsibility and future opportunities. Peace and prosperity are not easy to come by and should never be taken for granted or whimsically abandoned before necessary as was done in 2000. The promising state of the union in 2000 may not be achieved again for a long, long time. Election 2004 was already too late to avert yet another Republican disaster.

[Fire Walk With Me]

29. 2000, the first time they simply stole it, and laughed in our faces.

2008, if it can be used to eliminate these monsters from positions and networks of power and resources.

[MrSlayer]

30. 2004. We could have stopped BushCo in their tracks.

Before things really got bad. But instead they "won" and took us into the abyss.

[Captain Hilts]

46. And I resent all the adults who registered to vote, just last year to vote.

We could have used their votes in '04.

[polichick]

31. 2008 - I've been an environmental activist since the first Earth Day...

Everything is FINALLY in place for us to have green energy on a huge scale, and to take care of the earth in a much more serious way.

[Blue_In_AK]

32. All important, of course,

but I think the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 started us down a very dark path.

[Bucky]

34. Amen. The 1994 and 2000 elections were Reagan's bastard children

The Gipper has a quite a few fans among the history department at work. They just fucking hate it when I point out Reagan supported terrorists in Central America. Oddly, they get even more upset when I point out that Oliver North was an embezzler. Republicans are law and order types in the same way that they're fiscal conservatives.

[TheBigotBasher]

69. This is why I found the treatment of Rev Wright awful

It was to be expected from Rethugs and it should not have come from Democratic Party members at ANY level. The Government was running drugs from Central America as official policy, getting poor, mostly black Americans addicted and then having them arrested. All done to pay for illegal wars in Central America.

The US has been sold the idea that there should be no prosecution of the Bush War Crimes because it would appear as a tit for tat response to Clinton. Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr are all guilty of far worse crimes than getting caught with a live girl. Prosecution is not tit for tat - it is justice.

[sampsonblk]

35. 2004. That was the one would could not afford to lose - nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. i think 01 was, beginning of this crap

[madamesilverspurs]

37. On a personal level

the most important election was for class president when I was in the fourth grade (around 1956). One of the "candidates" came to school with a roll of silver dollars, and during recess he gave one of those dollars to anyone who promised to vote for him. He got "elected" and henceforth expected everyone to do his bidding. He didn't much like it when I won the spelling bee (instead of letting him win like I was supposed to).

That long-ago experience gave me an early dose of reality and began my respect for healthy cynicism.


After that, the 2000 election rang enough bells to start waking a sleepwalking electorate.

[depakid]

39. 1968 was by far and away the most damaging to America's trajectory

Hands down- no competition.

That election turned the American Supreme Court- highly respected around the world, if not at home- from liberal to conservative almost overnight- adversly affecting COUNTLESS ISSUES (including capital punishment). Was the beginning of the end for free or affordable higher education- universal healthcare (as a right) ushered in Milton Froedman style economics, brought far right "think tanks" to prominance and was the governmental training ground for many of the 2000's worst:

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Pat Buchannon- pick an old reactionary- that's where they got there start.

4 years after being thoroughly rejected in a landslide.

There MUCH MORE of course, but it's too depressing to go into.

[Blue_In_AK]

43. That was the first year I could have voted

but I didn't because I was just so pissed off after Chicago. I know now that it was a mistake not to vote, that Hubert Humphrey would have become an infinitely better president than Richard Nixon did, but I was still in shock from everything, the assassinations, the riots in the cities and at the convention. It was just a crazy, crazy time. I chose to tune it out for a few years, although I did vote for George McGovern in '72, knowing even then at the time that it was a hopeless exercise. Who knew things could get so bad?

So, yes, 1968 was an extremely important election. I should have voted. Above all, the Bushes and their cohorts should have been stopped somewhere along the line. It's time to hold them accountable now.

[NoPasaran]

45. I agree about 1968's importance

But I think you exaggerate the speed with which the Court was turned around. After all, Furman v. Georgia, which overturned the death penalty as it was then being applied, came in 1972, and Roe v. Wade in 1973.

Still, no doubt that had Humphrey been elected that year we'd be living in a very different world.

[high density]

44. 2004

The recklessness of Bushco continued and now here we are. 2000 was important in regards to foreign policy, but as for its impact on my own life, I have to choose 2004. So many bad policy decisions were magnified even further.

[cherish44]

47. if 2000 had turned out differently we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now n/t

[Dj13Francis]

48. 04

We'd have had a chance to turn it around had it not been stolen in 04. Now its too late.

[fortyfeetunder]

49. 1976

This was a potential divide in the US after Nixon's resignation. America had a choice -- continue with Ford (who pardoned Nixon) or go on a new path with Carter.

[LWolf]

53. 1980. It ushered in the arrogant, self-centered,

greedy Reagan era, and gave the religious right a big boost.

We've never recovered from it, imo, and I don't see us on the path to recovery today.

Our current president admires what Ronald Reagan accomplished. More than he admires the work, the goals, or the accomplishments of the anti-establishment that Reagan opposed.

[tabbycat31]

54. you have to realize this about the 1980 election

I was 7 months old when it happened. I hear people like Thom Hartmann trash Reagan and his policies all the time, but I don't know life before Reagan. I was a day shy of my 1st birthday when he was shot.

I don't remember Reagan at all. Everything I hear about him is from history.

And I'm sure that there's many others on this forum in the same boat.

[LWolf]

55. That's probably true.

On the other hand, I was 3 years old when JFK was shot. FDR died before I was born.

I am still very aware of the political currents swirling through the Depression, FDR's terms, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and LBJ, although I didn't really "come of age" politically until Nixon.

It's history my family, and the generation that raised me and educated me, lived through.

I think it's important to view current events through a larger lens; the lens that includes where we've come from, and how we got here.

I grew up in California. Ronald Reagan was the governor of my state before he became President.

I remember the Reagan era as the death of idealism, the flourishing of arrogance, of anti-intellectualism, of privatization, of consumerism, of the religious right, of corporatism.

The death of what I value, while what I despise moved forward and thrived. That's why I see 1980 as the most important of those presidential elections listed on the poll. It was the year we left the greater good behind. GWB is simply the inevitable outcome of traveling the direction the nation turned at that point, unless that course could be changed.

When Obama praises Reagan for moving us away from the "excesses" of the 60s and 70s, he's dissing liberalism. He's dissing the civil rights movement, imo. The war protesters. The ideals of peace and egalitarianism. He's dissing what I value, and praising what I despise. He lived through it, too. He is one year younger than I. He knows what he is praising, and what he is distancing himself from.

[Hippo_Tron]

56. I think he admires Reagan for his political skill, not his accomplishments

In terms of talking about the "excesses of the 60's and 70's" I think that's political rhetoric, aka bullshit. You may not like Obama or his tactics but I think he's just as committed to fighting these battles as you are but in a different way. I think that he feels that in order to win he needs to drive a wedge between moderate Christians and hard-line fundamentalits and bring the moderates over to our side and so far it seems to be working.

I know a lot of pro-life Christians that voted for Obama that wouldn't have even considered voting for Kerry four years ago. Now you may say that this means Obama is going to have to give them their due sometime down the road and that he will sell out women and gays to keep their votes. I am fully willing to admit that you may be right about that, although I don't think you are. I think that Obama's talk about unity is a method to de-tooth the religious wrong and peel off their supporters one by one so that when it comes time to fight, the other side won't have the strength that they once did. Either way one of us is going to turn out be right and I am cautiously optimistic that it will be me. But I can certainly respect your point of view and admit that you may be right.

[LWolf]

58. I know that some see it that way.

That pov has been explained to me many times. Interestingly, just today, I read a post trumpeting Obama as a straight talker, meaning what he says, etc.; the link is below.

I find that the Reagan remarks, and many of his other rhetoric, to be vague enough, deliberately, that he can't be nailed down to a position one way or the other.

I think it's logical for those who experienced the Reagan era, and the overwhelmingly negative shift and outcomes for the nation, to interpret his statements the way I have.

The link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8138639

[Hippo_Tron]

60. I read that thread and I think it's apples and oranges

As you've said, the Reagan remarks were vague, whereas a declaration that he will act on actionable intelligence in Pakistan isn't.
And as I've said, I have no crystal ball and I will be the first to admit that the future may vindicate you completely. But for the moment I am choosing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on his strategy, although not always his tactics. I think Rick Warren was a poor decision no matter how you slice it.

[LWolf]

62. I think that many share your thoughts,

and I think they are reasonable.

Perhaps more reasonable than mine.

I'm still pissed. I'm not over the nomination and election of a hawkish center-right Democrat, and I'm not ready to make nice about it. I tend to be blunt, and I don't often try to soften what I'm thinking, at least not at DU. One thing you can count on from me is transparency, lol. So take my pov for what it's worth, and I promise to publicly appreciate everything that he and his administration do that meets my definition of "good." ;)

[Hippo_Tron]

64. I think part of the problem is that there are few viable non-hawkish Center-Right Democrats

Kucinich isn't a viable candidate and doesn't have a prayer of a chance of winning a nomination or a general election. Without Obama in the race, I think Russ Feingold could've been a serious force to contend with Hillary but Obama did run and Russ didn't.

[LWolf]

66. I was disappointed

when Feingold didn't run.

I wonder if there is a catch-22; the more "viable," the more linked to mainstream power holders, the less likely for any authentic change that would shake up that power structure.

[Hippo_Tron]

74. Yes and no

It's always easier to run with the mainstream establishment behind you. But winnng the presidency requires political acumen and charisma that people like Dennis Kucincih simply don't have whether they are establishment candidates or not. If Obama had more experience under his belt he might have been able to run as a genuine lefty and still win.

[LWolf]

78. I don't see

Obama running as a "lefty" no matter what experience he gets. He's not a "lefty."

"Political acumen" is necessary, of course. It's also what makes me trust NO politician. I view it as dishonest and manipulative. Sneaky.

I'm aware that some people are drawn to some kinds of "charisma" they perceive in public figures. I don't relate, but I know that it's real. Personally, the only "charisma" I perceive in a politician is consistent positive support for issues.

Rhetoric just doesn't do it for me. I'm not the rest of the public, though, and the majority seem to prefer soundbites, surface appearances, and grand, noble speeches to actual, concrete positions and actions.

I don't need DK to be president. Someone who is as correct on the issues, and as consistent, and as persistent, yes. It doesn't have to be him. That's what is so "charismatic" about him to his supporters, of which I'm one. He's correct, he's more principled, more consistent, and more persistent than all of those politicians with "acument" that keeps them selling out to the highest bidder, and tossing the issues aside to make counterproductive deals with the opposition.

The very qualities that earn him the passionate appreciation and support from those who do support him are those things that will not advance him within the structure provided by the establishment. Him, and others like him. That's the catch-22.

[ieoeja]

75. I share your experience, but not your interpretation.

Like you I remember when Conservatism was practically dead -- there was even speculation that the GOP should fold up and make way for a new Conservative party at that time. Even the dreaded Nixon was liberal in many, many ways. Then Reagan came and completely reversed the course of this country.

I remember in 1992 when so many of us thought Clinton would reverse the course again, only to see him embrace Conservative policies like Nixon did Liberal ones. So now it was Liberalism that was virtually dead.

So, yes, I want Obama to have exactly the same result that Reagan did: to wit, I want him to turn this country around 180 degrees. I hope to see Liberalism and progress on the ascendancy again, instead of continuing to build a steamboat back to the 19th century.

And that is EXACTLY how I took Obama's comments the second I read them.

[gardenista]

59. Purty short lifetime, there, whippersnapper!

But even a child born six months ago would share in the majority opinion- 2008.

Look forward to reading your 2004 rationale.

[OwnedByFerrets]

61. In hindsight, Raygun cheating his way into office was the most

important. Had Carter remained president, things would be a lot different now.

[Fire1]

63. I love my generation and we will forever be the greatest, in my

book, so, it's ok if he's not a 'boomer,' I still love him!

[DeschutesRiver]

65. For me, there will never be another election like 2008

It isn't some sentimental favorite for me. We have stepped out of the dark ages and back into the light on multiple levels. Presidents don't have to be white. People won't have to die because stem cell research is limited and not as advanced as it could have been due to the "religious belief holders" delicate sensibilities on the issue (people like my ill aunt in Hawaii, who tried some early stem cell stuff but died in the process). People who don't hold any of the beliefs of the "organized religions" can be on the same playing field as them. America can defend herself without beating the hell out of guys in Gitmo whose guilt we haven't even tried to establish as we hold them in cages for years with no due process. Making a stab at upping ethical requirements won't kill us, nor will adding regulation where we've failed miserably when left to our own greedy devices. Not everything has to be "us or them". Developing a better attitude isn't the end of the world. Actions are gonna have consequences for a change. And he's only held the office for a few days.

Obama is young, enthusiastic, optimistic, even handed, freaking smart, and stands for the first time we elected a black guy right in the face of the primative morons in this country who said America would NEVER elect a black guy. True, my formative years were the 60s and 70s, and there is no one I would more like to marginalize or hasten on their march to extinction than both racists and fundamentalists, both of whom have held our country hostage for my entire 50 years.

And as if that isn't enough, the bonus is a certainty from watching how Obama reacts and problem solves that we got the right man for the right time. I have never seen my country about to fall into the dire straights that are merely just beginning right now, economically. I believe that had McCain/Palin won, we would have emerged from this progressing economic crisis as poor and backwards as any third world country.

We did something as a country I never thought I'd live to see us doing in my lifetime - so for me, there is nothing out there that could top that. Obama cannot and will not solve everything, but I believe he will make much progress and leave our country in better shape than he found it. His heart is absolutely in the right place.

P.S. And I have never been so fascinated to watch a candidate engage, then retrench if necessary, reflect, and come back with a new plan of action that was bold and swift when issues arose during his campaign. His ability to deal with all that happened during the primaries and come out stronger was something I never tired of watching. And when I first heard of him? I'd thought "who is he, some state senator of short duration that I've never heard of, whatever." Never gave him a second thought, until I started watching his moves and he convinced me of the strengths of his arguments in favor of him being the best suited candidate for the job.

[olkaz]

70. 2000: If we had kept it from being stolen, we avoid 9/11, Iraq, AND this global recession.

Pretty clearcut to me.

[ObamaKerryDem]

71. I Voted '04 In the poll because like several other people..

have already mentioned, had we won, we would've stopped Bush&Ilk in their tracks and things would've been quite a deal better than the mess they left our new adminsitration to clean up now. Plus it holds special, personal significance to me because it was the first time I was old enough to vote, the first campaign I actively followed and participated in from that standpoint, etc, plus I am (per my new username ;)) a big John Kerry supporter and, as thrilled as I am about what is happening now and much as I like and admire Barack Obama and am ecstatic that he's now our President, a part of me will always be saddened that he (Kerry) didn't get to be President. :( But I can also see 2000 as the choice because if Al Gore had assumed the office he actually WON, rather than the moron the Right wingers on the Supreme Court basically appointed, the world would almost literally be a different place right now. I mean, we are definitely now on the road to recovery, but it still sucks that it ever had to come to that point in the first place..*sighs*

[bigwillq]

76. I voted for 2004.

Bush winning in 2004 "validated" his presidency and allowed him four years years to make an even bigger mess.

[Onlooker]

77. 1960 was as important as 2008

I was only 4 years old, but JFK basically ushered in the kind of liberalism that, fingers crossed, Obama might be for. JFK supported social programs, civil rights, new technologies, an assertive foreign policy, and he was something new. He was Roman Catholic, which was a big deal and Nixon even used against him in subtle ways. Like Obama, Kennedy represented something new and good. I don't think his election was as important as Obama's, not more important.

[BeyondGeography]

79. I love Obama, but unless he is able to do more good than GWB did harm, 2000 takes the cake

[alwysdrunk]

80. These next few years truly a make or break period for our country

Ten years from now things will be very different. To me "different in what way?" was the crux of the 2008 election. Has to be 2008 for me.

[Blue_Tires]

81. for me, 1994 -- the first one i voted in

to me at least, that was when things really started sliding downhill, and i started to become a lot more politically aware from then on...the fact that my H.S. and college was chock-full of smug, celebratory dittoheads(even black conservatism was really in style then) pushed me way to the left