What is the 2004 Democratic nomination battle really about?

Thanks for posting it! He defines well what Howard's candidacy is about! :)

enjoyed reading Greider's books, especially, Who Will Tell the People.

But I am especially pleased that his views of the Democratic candidates reflect mine to a tee.

Dean - for The People
clark - status quo

Hey guys, it's time to TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!

What the 2004 Democratic nomination battle is really about is the slow decaying death of the D party. I mean come on, over 10 candidates? And I write all this is as a former yellow-dog, put a lot of time working on campaigns democrat. The whole situation is sickening. Dean doesn't have a chance in hell unfortunately. I think he's got good politics, not as good as Kucinich, but still good.
But we need to think of all the sheep indoctrinated by faux news here people! The Ds need to get it together but don't hold your breath.

Stick around long enough and you'll either get re-energized or give up hope completely.

:toast:

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I'm not saying that Dean is unelectable. I think he would be a strong contender against Bush. I believe the same about several of the other candidates. Here's where you lose me:

"but his nomination (even if he then loses to Bush) would produce a profound ventilation - actually a violent shake-up - in the modern methodologies of what used to be known as the party of working people."

:wtf: Even if he loses to Bush? Are we actually supposed to embrace this prospect with a smile on our faces and a song in our hearts, so long as it also produces a "violent shake-up" in the party and puts political professionals' noses out of joint?

Two things:

Number One, we can't afford to lose this one - we need Bush out of the White House! He sleazed his way in last time - can you imagine the mandate he'd claim if he were actually elected? Also, observe the way the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, the FCC ruling, the stacking of the judiciary, etc. are poised to choke out political dissent in this country. And the war crimes, etc. that need to be investigated, but won't be unless Democrats have the clout in the White House and Congress. And please don't tell me that after the Plame affair a blind cockatoo could beat Bush in 2004 - it just ain't so, and wishing won't make it so.

Number Two, we've got to rethink our hostility to politicians and political professionals. A lot of this comes from RW propaganda. Politicians, trial lawyers, and reporters are the only impediments to corporate control of this country, so take everything negative you hear about them with several pounds of salt. If we want to take back Congress and the White House, the people who are going to do it for us are professional politicians (like Dean) and political experts. The grassroots can play an important part, but they can't do it by themselves. They need to work WITH the pols, not against them. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was a movie, not reality. And if we can't get Congress and the White House back, you can kiss your progressive agenda goodbye, from civil liberties to the environment and everything between.

The party/political faction out of power gets nothing. The party/faction in power frames the issues and controls the debate, in addition to writing the law, appointing the judges, etc. If you want to see the country more EVEN FARTHER to the right, give George W. Bush four more years in the White House.

says, "Oh, well, vote your CONSCIENCE, whether we win or not, and things will change, and blah blah...."

Yeah. I remember how I felt on 1/20/73, and 1/20/81 and 1/20/89. Did it make ONE particle of difference on those horrible days, that our nominee was 'right' on the issues? Did it change what Nixon, Ronnie and Poppy did afterwards??

The ONLY way to change things meaningfully, is to WIN! There is no substitute, especially in 2004.

On edit: I am not referring to Dean, here. He can win. But some can not.

Oh...he did vote for Nader. Last election he was one of the ones that believed Nader could shake up the Deomcratic party.

then why is he going around saying EXACTLY what all the "establishment" interest groups (labor, environment, gay rights, peace activists, etc.) want to hear? The only issue so far where he cuts against the grain is on the issue of guns, but even then, he's careful to note that he supports every existing piece of federal gun legislation.

election is about removing * and the detritus that follows it from office...

Everything else is commentary.....