Ex-Green Party Member (registers Democrat) and Challenges Hillary

Good for him! I admire his thoughtful approach to holding Democrats accountable, without strengthening the Republican stranglehold in the process. This guy has the right idear!

P.S. My intention is not to trash Clinton but to highlight a thoughtful way to challenge Dems without emboldening Republicans.

What are his views on things from health care to public education, labor standards, environmental standards, etc.?

;)

But, I thought it interesting that he's changing party's to challenge her.

I simply cannot stand Hillary anymore, PERIOD! Or maybe someone else credible will come along...I can only hope and pray for that.

Hillary has lied, and supported this war and she is a member of the hated Republican-lite DLC. There was a time when I would have given my right arm for her but no longer. I will support someone's Afghan Hound before I will support Hillary again.

I and several others have emailed her over and over telling her how we feel about the war and her support of it and we get no response other than a form letter.

Why, then, does she deserve my vote? Just because she is wearing a Democratic tag next to her name?

Let's not forget that she was once a Republican...a Goldwater Girl. I am beginning to believe that her ideologies have not changed that much since then.

frustrated with Hillary.

I'm not endorsing him but here is more info from his website:

http://www.greenfieldforsenate.org/page2.htm

I'm glad he's not running as a GP candidate and splitting the vote 3 ways.

rather than Nader her in the general election.

:)

If he is a Green, then he should get the Green party's nomination and run against her in the general. I think it's really disingenuous and sleazy and unprincipled to change your party affiliation just to challenge someone you don't like in a primary. He is probably one of those blame-Democrats-first types, and likely dislikes the Democratic party. That he is joining the party for purely political motives I find highly distasteful.

I'm not even a Hillary fan but I'd vote for her over this schmuck.

I don't think he's a Green or a Democrat--I think he's an Opportunist, and that's a party we can all do without.

they disagree with, while keeping Republicans from benefiting from a split vote.

The simple fact of the matter is that our electoral system is set up to accept only two parties. Any time a 3rd party is inserted, unpredictable results happen. If you have two candidates who appear leftist in nature, then the result is the vote on the left is split, and the voters on the right get their candidate into office, even if their candidate did not actually gain a majority of the vote, only a plurality. (See 2000 election or the 1992 election)

I would argue with anybody that what he did is NOT sleazy but is, rather, an acknowledgement of the reality of the situation with our electoral system.

Running as a Green for any office higher than state assembly (and that's stretching it) is just asking for defeat. The Greens aren't stupid; they know this, just as much as you and I know that the only way to reform is from within.

To those who call this a sleazy move: Would you rather see the Democratic vote split by not-so-yellow-dog Dems ready to bolt from the party, thus handing the seat to the Repubs?

so what...

:eyes:

come on now, if he is going from Green to Dem, that seems perfectly reasonable to me...

just smart.

http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2005/10/25/antihill.htm

Where Greenfield is known at all, it's been as a spokesman and news-release writer for the New Paltz Green Party. Most recently, he spearheaded a boycott of New Paltz Cinema because its owner took out radio ads denouncing Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 911."
He has since called off the boycott, which appeared to have little effect on the local box office.
In order to make his primary run, Greenfield decided to jump political ships, because running as a Green, he said, would put his candidacy in the "fringe party" category.
"The issues I'm talking about – the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, global warming – are not fringe party issues. I need to take a role in mainstream issues."

Really? But President Nader got re-elected.

You can hardly call them "fringe" anymore.

The Republican party has gained many more members since the sixties than any party.

There's an episode of the Simpsons where a group of Log Cabin Republicans have a slogan that says, "a gay President In 2084". One of them declares, "We're Realistic".

We'll have a gay President before we'll ever have a Green President.

Long week end.

I saw in the CA GP newsletter that we were picking up more new registrants than anyone. But, can't remember if that was before or after the last Fed election.

On edit: I'm a liberal first, and a party member second. But, it's a bit of a reality check that might be worth the Dems attention, fwiw.

and handed the country to George Bush.

He should have/could have ran as a Democratic Challenger and not damaged the world in the long run. That's what the guy in the OP is doing. He's challenging Hillary - but for the Democratic nomination.

But I still think it's sleazy.

:hi:

He'd be a hero instead of a zero now. Can you imagine his voice in Congress for the last five years? There were many ways he could have gotten into the system that year and fought the "plutocracy" that year. He had the resources then. Now he and the Green Party are a joke.

But no, he wanted to be a spoiler. He wanted Gore to lose.

Thanks, Ralph.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see a viable Green Party here like they have in Europe. But that ship has sailed. The Greens are done here for decades.

Running to make a difference in Congress/Senate would have been an actual way to make progress. But Ralph was in it for the ego stroke. He said he wanted to stir shit up and he accomplished that goal. It was never about making a positive difference for him.

Remember, Gore won. :)

Remember it came down to 500 votes, Nader said Gore = Bush and got 98,000 voters in Florida because of that.

Obviously several factors played into this nightmare, Jeb, Harris, SCOTUS, Nader etc.

to me, esp after all I've learned about election fruad.

Gore won. And sure, Nader picked up votes from people who weren't happy with either candidate. I was still a Dem at the time and voted for Gore -- after spending 45 minutes helping the elections people find my printed name on their print out. :eyes:

I agree that Gore won, I only wish Nader hadn't made it possible for the Bushies to steal it.

;)

And until you get that, and get active on behalf of secure elections, prepare to lose.

:eyes: that will solve everything.

Diebold will disappear in California? Man, that would be SO much easier than what we're doing now!

lol

i call them 'democrats against democracy' (DAD for short), diebold doesn't *really* matter. neither does disenfrachisment. neither does katerine harris or jeb bush. neither does democracy, *really*. as long as the evil one is cast out...everything is rosy :rofl:
&$^%*# progressives voting their consciences and principles :7 isn't it sad the having principles is being morphed to mean something bad? sad, indeed.

the environment and picking our supreme court nominees?

the similarities are glaring. just refer to the recent speech on iraq by ms. clinton for an example.

Pathetic Nader propaganda - bullshit without actual specifics - once again.

There is no where else to go to the movies unless you drive to Kingston or Poughkeepsie plus a toll bridge to cross. It just crossed my mind when I read that the boycott had little effect on the local cinema. There are a lot of college students without transportation and also people who live in the village of New Paltz who do not like the hassle of driving to Pough and Kingston. New Paltz is a liberal village - great place to live.

http://www.greenfieldforsenate.org/page2.htm I've inferred from what I've read he's in favor of ending the war, revoking the Patriot Act, Nuclear disarmament, and end the Death Penalty.

With the unpopularity of the war I'm surprised no strong independent/third party candidate has emerged in New York.

The only place anyone will talk about him will be in the DU bubble!!!

bloodies her in the primary, and she looses her seat to a republican. But that's not too likely to happen, I guess.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

He changed Party affiliation.

But, like I said, I don't think it's likekly that he'll get very far, nor do i think it likely that she will suffer much damage.

otherwise splitting the vote would bite us in the ass

Otherwise I'd have an issue with his approach. ;)

Republicans

But he's a Democrat now so? ;)

Unlike Hilary and her opponent, he agrees with the majority of Americans on the war. They doesn't sound like someone they'd want to win.

Republicans have been contributing to and running ads for challengers to Democrats and third party candidates for many years.

Welcome to Democratic Underground.

I think this puts them Repubs in a hairy situation.

:shrug:

This guy isn't going to split the vote, Republicans may end up running against him as the Democratic Senate nominee. ;)

Republican would be more likely a winner against him rather than Clinton?

:shrug:

what have the Clintons, Feinsteins, and Bidens actually done for our party?

They voted for the obscene medicare prescription plan. They voted to give * the authority to go into Iraq, and now that it is obvious that it was based on a lie, they say we have to stay the course

Time for a change.

Were poor people better off under Bill Clinton or now? It's pretty obvious what the Clinton's have done for our party.

And you may know that I'm a Democratic partisian hack. However, I think this guy has the right idea by challenging her as a Dem in the primaries rather then risk helping a Republican in the senate election.

:hi:

in addition, ask any of the people who lost their jobs because of NAFTA, they were NOT to happy. In fact it can be argued that the trade agreements negotiated under clinton, has caused the off-shoring we are experiencing today

As far as it is pretty obvious what the clinton's have done for the party, it certainly is. He had everything going for him, and he was WARNED ABOUT THE Arkansaw project, and the neocons looking to set him up, and told NOT TO SCREW AROUND WITH MONICA!!!

DID HE LISTEN?

NO, instead he allowed the repukes to gain control

I don't give a damn what he did in his personal life, but what he did to the party, was cause us to lose in 2000

That is reality, no matter how good things were, people didn't care, and he could have avoided it

Screw the Clintons

Were poor people better off? Yeah, most likely---unless you believe that Bush's tax cuts and export of jobs has somehow resulted in a bonanza for the underprivileged.

And we need accountability too!

Nobody would have to switch parties in these situations. He could run as 3rd party or as an independent, and he wouldn't have to worry about splitting the vote because people would likely put either him or Hillary as the secondary choice if the first choice fails to win a majority. That's the genius of instant run-off voting.

Right when we have growing strength and the public coming behind us.

This "Democrat" learned nothing...make that everything from 2000.

Thanks, Ralph.

Does he have a problem with his own party?

that is how you hand the seat to the Republicans.

Took this guy five years.

I'm not impressed. I'd rather see a Democrat challenge Hillary.

Not that anyone has a chance of knocking her off.

this is the way to do it. Run in primaries, not in general elections where only Republicans are helped.

I am a solid Democrat and I support Ms. Clinton, but I agree "THIS is the way to do it."

for the last 6 years be held accountable

I know it may be sacreligious, but I am all for it

We have to stand for something

for progressives as to HOW to go about participating in a democracy where Republicans have such influence. I don't think the guy will win, but it sure will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

or he may cause her to self-destruct

either way it is important that democrats understand they cannot take votes for granted from what used to be the base of our party

She's going to have to adjust or she'll have a serious hurdle getting the support she needs.

Greenfield is going to set an example for progressives as to how we (progressives) can take back this country, without defeating progressive causes in the process.

He already has my respect.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=169x4792
B-)

The story is getting national attention now. Should be interesting.

That's what the party really needs- and I bet that the race could be winnable with the right candidate.

Joe Lieberamn is officially Republican's most favorite Dem.

They just need another Dem to step forward!!!

Anyone who opposes Hillary and any other Dem who continues to support the Iraq war, can't be all bad. I'll give him a chance.

Greenfield...must remember that name.:) Green Party (turned Dem)/Greenfield...easy peasy!

... he's a fellow 'former green', and we need to see challenges of all the ineffectual Democratic leadership.

Go Greenfield!

You've got the right idear too! ;)

are finding to make their concerns heard.

'Way to go, people. What a relief.

I find it highly sleazy and unprincipled for him to just switch his party at the drop of a hat just so he can challenge Hillary. Greens often like to boast about their liberal purity and undiluted idealism, and I am sure this guy is no different, especially given what he says about Hillary. So in that case, the fact that he's willing to sell out his pure progressive principles to run as a Democrat (while I would bet money that he is highly disdainful of the Democratic party) just REEKS of political opportunism. Bzzt - this sleazy schmuck doesn't get my vote, and I'm not even a fan of Hillary.

But I don't live in NY, so it's not up to me anyway.

human life over their so called principal. That's what this cat appears to be doing and for that I applaud him. ;)

And I DO agree it's better to challenge her in a primary than to split the votes in a general election.

I hope you are right, that he's just putting his concern for the country ahead of his devotion to Green party principles. I'd have to find out more about him. There's still a reek of opportunism clinging to him.

Edit: I read his website that you linked to up there, and it still reads like a "not a dime's worth of difference" bullshit to me. Claiming that voting for the IWR "granted Bush unlimited power to order to unprovoked attack of Iraq" is a flat-out lie. If he wants to criticize her current ambivalence about Iraq - and he SHOULD - then fine, but there's no need to resort to Nader-esque lies and distortions to do so. He also claims "George Bush didn't start this war all by himself" - uh, dumbass, YEAH HE DID.

Sorry to rant at YOU, haha, I know you said you supported Hillary over this guy anyway, and that all that has nothing to do with your broader point. I guess my point is, he's still a Green in Dem clothing and I think that's dishonest and shady.

:hi:

...but being a Republican in Dem's clothing (like Hillary) isn't?

:eyes: how the loyalists see no inconsistencies in their positions.

avenue for change Mr. Greenfiled has chosen.

:rofl: now that's the funniest shit i've heard all week. someone is already claiming he's "distorting" hillary's position on the war. i give this...three days, tops :7

on everything here?

As I said MOST of the people participating in THIS thread have been supportive of the thoughtful manner Mr. Greenfield is challenging Hillary. That doesn't mean New York Democrats are not going to challenge him as they would any other Democrat whom they disagree with. Remember the primaries?

i remember that as long as the rules are followed, as determined by the big two, even the most partisan of democrats will pretend they actually believe in democracy.

Another bullshit smear against "Democrats" who rightfully resent a vocal/lying political opponent by the name of Ralph. So when we critique Republicans who lie is that "anti-democracy" too?

some should become more familiar with before giving any more stupid "manifest destiny" speeches about the iraq fiasco. perhaps i am idealistic, but i also think a "true progressive" would hold the principle of valuing life dearly, so that "true progressive" probably would not support war as a means to resolve conflict, and especially not as a means to enrich halliburton and fulfill bush's mission from god.

continue the PNAC agenda. Progressives should be familiar with the entire goal of this regime and it's counter parts. Progressives should also reflect upon the VAST differences between Bush and Gore, Republicans and Democrats. Lastly, one should consider those who claim(ed) the two major party's are alike before listening to more rhetoric that distorts reality at the expense of human life. These are some of the reasons I admire Mr. Greenfield's approach.

and in that sense, there is no difference between them and those with r's behind their names. do i have to name the names for you...hmmm? a kindler, gentler war is what most democrats are talking about, so let's not pretend about that...not any real value for human life.
but i tell you what...i sure as hell wish gore had run again.

I don't know any Democrat that subscribes to the original "remake the entire middle east" mentality. Unless were desperate enough to bring up Zell Miller?

i suppose that's why they are distancing themselves from murtha's very modest proposal.

about "the democrats" again. I'll await an answer. And, instead of saying "the democrats" try naming some because not all "the democrats" agree on the war - for example.

about him. Very hopeful development!

I hope this is the start of a trend, not the exception to the rule.

Hillary will probably win but Greenfield could make her work for it. I see nothing wrong with challanging a pro-war Democrat in the primaries--that's what they're for--after all.

Oops....

"Greenfield's biggest electoral achievement so far was garnering 545 votes, or 21 percent, while losing an Ulster County legislative race last year."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usgree224523752nov22,0,5887.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

I will vote for him in the primary. In fact, I will donate to his campaign, with both money and time. I'll try to get a significant segment of local people to support him.

Of course, Clinton will beat him, and easily win the general election. But it is important for her to recognize that a growing number of people are not going to bat for those who are supporting the war in Iraq. She will have my vote, but not my money or time.

path, one never knows? You may just end up with a new Senator from NY?

;)

there is any chance of that happening. Clinton has a very impressive organization throughout the state, including in the republican upstate counties. On a county level, it has left little room for honest differences of opinion. It marginalizes dissent in a manner that one associates with those old-time machines. I like her in many ways more than I like the machine. But I have also inhabited the margins of society my entire life, and am pretty comfortable there. It might be good for that old machine to see how Green those margins can become in the primary season. Might make them reconsider who they need to appeal to.

"change the tone" a bit.

:hi:

would be better spent playing his sax in a Home Depot parking lot.

Hi all,

Hillary is a great Senator here in New York. But, with him being a "professional saxophone player" he must be given very serious consideration! LOL

Hillary will be easily renominated as Senator, but if it forces her to move to the left on Iraq--then good for him.

announced earlier this year that he was challenging Lieberman in the primary.

As far as I'm concerned, anybody who runs against Hillary in the primary with the intention to take her out and bloody her is an accomplice to the my wretched DA. The people of Westchester have had to suffer through her cronyism much the same way the nation has had to suffer through Bush cronyism. Can't some of the left realize that robbing us of a Senate seat is bad?

:shrug:

People are bloodied in the primaries all the time. I don't live in NY though, so I don't understand all the ins and outs.