Krugman: Who Gets It?

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Earlier this week, Wesley Clark had some strong words about the state of the nation. "I think we're at risk with our democracy," he said. "I think we're dealing with the most closed, imperialistic, nastiest administration in living memory. They even put Richard Nixon to shame."

In other words, the general gets it: he understands that America is facing what Kevin Phillips, in his remarkable new book, "American Dynasty," calls a "Machiavellian moment." Among other things, this tells us that General Clark and Howard Dean, whatever they may say in the heat of the nomination fight, are on the same side of the great Democratic divide.

Most political reporting on the Democratic race, it seems to me, has gotten it wrong. Some journalists do, of course, insist on trivializing the whole thing: what I dread most, in the event of an upset in Iowa, is the return of reporting about the political significance of John Kerry's hair.

But even those who refrain from turning political reporting into gossip have used the wrong categories. Again and again, one reads that it's about the left wing of the Democratic party versus the centrists; but Mr. Dean was a very centrist governor, and his policy proposals are not obviously more liberal than those of his rivals.

more.....http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/16/opinion/16KRUG.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

I sometimes wonder if there are factions of the Democratic Party who really don't want to win the 2004 election.

Why are so many dems spineless. The repubs would never let Clinton get away about lying us into war, outing a CIA agent, etc...There would be imprachment hearing and special prosecutors coming out of every hole in Washington, DC! So why are the Dems holding back. Even the Dems that voted for the war could easily say they voted for the war based on Bush's lies. But they don't. The Dems, especially the ones running for president, keep saying they stand by their vote. WTF?

For this reason I will vote for either Clark or Dean. I am leaning towards Clark.

But no one from the Kucinich campaign contacted me and the Dean people did.

As of yesterday I am a Dean precinct captain for Monday night's Iowa Caucus.

hope you'll reconsider

https://www.kintera.org/site/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?c=aiIKIWNPH&b=2043&en=lhKNJUMyHcLRLTNvFdIWKcOHI8KPJ6NKIgIRJbNUG

Like the old saying goes:"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

No one from Kucinich's campaign called or even indicated that the campaign had any interest in my precinct. I was prepared to join a Kucinich group Monday night, but the Kucinich people didn't do their job! I'm sorry.

No one from the Kucinich office called. No one stopped by the house just to say "hello." My name's in the phone book and the Kucinich office must have my e-mail address. I mean, Des Moines's not that big of town.

Like Lyndon Johnson said:"Ya gotta get out there and press the flesh."

No one from the Kucinich campaign did.

I'm intent that, for my part, every chance I get I am going to respond with angry letters and emails whenever the "earth tones" issue tries to raise its ugly, blow-dried head. I've sent a couple already. My theory is that if it works for the right wing, it works for us--if these guys get gun shy about certain topics, knowing that the wingers will give 'em heat for it, then they damn well ought to learn to be gun shy about us too.

Krugman's well-taken comment offers another opportunity, as in...

Paul Krugman writes that he dreads "the return of reporting about the political significance of John Kerry's hair." He doesn't have long to wait. Earlier this week, Maureen Dowd addressed an entire op-ed piece to the weighty matter of Wesley Clark's sweaters, and her piece was based on a story that had earlier earned a front-page headline in the news section.

It is clear that Mr Krugman is out of step. The Times obviously has every intention of keeping the urgent issue of Democratic haberdashery before the eyes of its readers.

that he made in Manchester, NH about a month ago. Clark said that "he was a product of the military-industrial complex. The kind that Pres. Eisenhower warned us against." Clark is not for the same kind of democracy that Dean is for. Clark is for an oligarchy controlled by the military-industrial complex, Dean is for a democracy based upon our Founding Fathers and Mothers ideals -- US Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

gave over 30 years of his life protecting and defending the US Constitution....Dean on the other hand....

...in twisting the words of our own candidates.

Clark's point--if you'd bother to care, which obviously you don't--was that as someone who has been inside that "military industrial complex," he is completely savvy about how it operates, how corrupt it is, and where it can be hacked back without affecting our real readiness.

Apparently your theory is that he was proclaiming this as some kind of unironic qualification: "Yes, I'll make it even MORE bloated and corrupt!" or something? I just don't get how you can read this so perversely against its obvious intent.

As a Clark supporter, I have come to the defence of Dean and other Dem candidates dozens of times, both here at DU and elsewhere. I try to maintain a deep skepticism toward ALL these kinds of Roveian anti-Dem talking points, even if their provenance is unclear, because of what we saw the media doing to Gore last time around (and NOT doing to Bush). You do remember that, don't you?

They've got us using this crap as ammunition against each other, instead of ALL of us uniting to face it down on behalf of what EVER candidate happens to be the target of it.

Taking back America is going to be a very difficult thing to do.

No matter who the Democrats nominate, he will be subjected to a series of lies and distortions from the Bush junta. The junta will be financed by corporate money and propagate the message through corporate media.

However, the Democratic candidate will have to articulate the concern that this election is about the survival of democratic institutions in America. If Bush remains in office, we who do not support him will not so much be the opposition as the resistance.

Clark's new feistiness is heartening. It means that the two leading Democratic candidates are on the right page.

It should be kept in mind when praising Clark that he himself worked on a mechanism hostile to democracy and civil liberties, as another thread here noted yesterday.

No matter where you go, there's mud to be slung

...also posted on that other thread. But since we're bringing up the CAPPS thing, I'll repeat this too:

We must give law enforcement every appropriate tool to fight terrorism, both at home and abroad. But the Patriot Act, which was designed and passed in haste, must be revised to better protect our civil liberties. I am outraged that John Ashcroft's Justice Department refuses to submit such a sensitive and important measure to legislative oversight.

I call on Congress to review the Patriot Act, to assess what works and what needs to be changed. We should immediately suspend the provisions that allow searches and seizure without subpoenas and warrants. Until we know more about any possible abuses of the Act, I would limit the Justice Department's use of its powers to the prevention and prosecution of terrorism.

http://clark04.com/press/release/039/

that is important is that with the Repubs controlling all 3 branches of government, you do have both business interests and individuals who are afraid to support a Dem. This administration can put on an optimistic face while ruthlessly intimidating whoever they choose. I really never thought such an evil government would exist in my lifetime.

The Imperial Subjects of Amerika do not get it.

But once the Busheviks have consolidated their unchecked hegemonic power at the top, they're (we're) gonna get it but GOOD!

Of course, like Germany 1939, by then it will be too late to do anything about it peacefully.

And it's none of the Democrats... it's BUSH.

Other Dems, and Rove and Co., want to paint Dean as a "radical", when in reality, he's pretty moderate. Krugman nails it when he says that what makes Dean seem radical is that he's willing to speak out against Bush, particularly on the war. Most analysts are way off base when they say the Dem race is "radicals vs. moderates". It's about who's willing to stand up to Bush and who is not. His advice is also right on target... whichever Dem is nominated needs to paint BUSH as the radical because that is, simply, the truth.

My take is - it's too bad that Clark boycotted Iowa - there has been lots of press for most of the candidates on Cspan and all.

If Clark is being 'feisty' - I haven't seen it. I have not seen him be passionate or even especially determined looking. Nothing that convinced me, anyway.

Maybe he wants to control his image with his ads (that I haven't seen, either) - but in Iowa, he has missed out quite a bit where people like me could have seen how he does at a rally with real people.

When he was ripping that bastard As(s)man on Fox News, in some of the debates, and in personal appearances.

I think the Iowa idea was exactly right--it seems to be paying dividends in NH.

but I think he's talking about Dean right here:
So what's the answer? A Democratic candidate will have a chance of winning only if he has an energized base, willing to contribute money in many small donations, willing to contribute their own time, willing to stand up for the candidate in the face of smear tactics and unfair coverage

As a Green I will support the Dem candidate who is nominated. I feel that Clark & Dean are the stongest at this time. I feel they are well qualified to be the next Pres. I would like to see Edwards as VP. This time it is paramount that the Neo Fascists do not retain power. The Supreme Court which is already to far right is in jeaporady of becoming total right wing. This is the most important situation to me followed by the decimation of the Middle Class, the environment and of course our civil liberties. They are all highly important so the order is up for grabs.