Daily Kos: The battle for the soul of the Democratic Party

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/11/16/195136/32

Also check out the free link to The New Republic article that Daily Kos got. The article, Outside In describes what I've felt for a long time. The Dem Party is in Civil War and that the Clinton or Clintonistas are strangling the Dem Party in favor with their addiction to corporate money.

Also, this article states what I've felt about Al Gore, since he called MoveOn.org to host his speeches -- that Gore is leaning towards Dean.

<SNIP>
As the party's split into Deaniacs and anti-Dean Clintonites unfolds, one of the most intriguing subplots concerns the machinations of Gore. Immediately after the Florida recount was decided in 2000, Gore's senior aides were purged from the DNC and Clinton's were installed. Some ex-Gore staffers are still bitter about the coup, and several express admiration for what Dean is doing.

The two men have a strained history, but lately Gore is sounding more and more like Dean. His three most important speeches since leaving office have been harsh attacks on President Bush's Iraq policy and his abuse of the Patriot Act. The two most recent were delivered before MoveOn.org, the Internet network for grassroots liberals, which is overwhelmingly pro-Dean. Some suspect that, just as Dean went outside the Beltway and built his own high-tech grassroots army to bypass the sclerotic D.C. establishment, so is Gore. It's not a bad way for him to exercise influence in the party, if he wants to make a potential endorsement more powerful or if he still harbors hopes of running for president in 2008. "The rest of the Democratic infrastructure is controlled by the Clintons," says one top Democrat.

Perhaps Gore would not endorse the former Vermont governor (though Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager, says "they talk relatively regularly"). Regardless, he'll have to choose sides, because the Democrats are splitting into two parties: the party of Clinton, and the party of Dean.

so what agenda are you referring to?

he still owns DraftClark.com, but he quit because Dean offered a job to him. He's also friends with Clark's son, Wes Jr.

and he is paid for that work as a software contractor, but he has not officially endorsed Dean over Clark that I know of.

Kos's agenda, if he has one, is to make the Internet a viable tool for grassroots politics and insurgent politicians. As far as I know, he supports both Dean and Clark because of the grassroots use of the Internet, but because Clark has staffed his campaign with Clinton has-been aides, Kos has cooled to Clark, but has not written him off yet.

If we don't nominate a WINNER there won't be any **soul of the democratic party** to worry about because we'll be dead, dead, DEAD.

That's how Clark voters see it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=721557

is more like it. I agree completely.

I can't stand the rhetoric that surrounds it, whether it's coming from the Al From dept. of "We don't need the 'liberal elitists'" or those who constantly shout that "there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans".

This high-level DNC stuff bores me to death.

To me Clinton cared more about the game of politics than the good politics could do. Clinton was a master politician, and he knew how to play the TV, but he could not help the Democratic Party grow. It bled members during his Admin and his sex scandal became an albatross around Gore's campaign neck in 2000.

I'm not a Democrat who favors image over substance and that is how I saw Clinton.

Because he no longer holds office, and he's not running for anything.

If there are "friends of Clinton" actively working to destroy Dean, I think they're misguided. But they have every right to support the candidate they feel has the best chance. I just wish that the Democratic Party could focus on unity, but I guess that's too much to hope for in the primaries.

When Bill got into office, the Dems had the House, the Senate and the Whitehouse. Bill and Hill are only focused on their own power, and as long as they control the party the Dems will be the Minority party in this country!!!

Im not sure which way I will go, just to get that out of the way, but how did you come across this>?

http://www.dailykos.com/ is the main page

?

He has a tiny amount from a PAC, but PAC's can only donate up to $5,000 per year.

Go to www.opensecrets.org and you will see that the bulk of Dean's contributions are less than $200 and they do not report any corporate PAC donations.

That both TNR and Safire are trying to push... that there's a civil war with Dean & Clinonistas on 2 sides.

In case you didn't notice- it's just the Far Right's Clinton bashing repackaged as a way to divide the Democratic Party.

It's a shame to see a Dean supporter falling for it.

between Clintonistas and the rest of the Democrats. I also felt that the Clinton domination of the Dem Party contributed to Gore's decision to bow out of running for Prez in 2004.

As one who helped with local elections last year, our US Rep candidate got bad advice from Washington consultants -- Clintonistas, who were arrogant and contemptous of us regular folks. Not only did he not get good advice, he could not get funds from the DCCC to help his campaign. The Washington folks basically wrote him off and refused to help fund his campaign to unseat a freshman Republican.

It has been evident, to me at lest, that there is a growing rift within the Democratic Party between those who recognize that meaningful, fundamental changes must be made in how this country's governed and how the economy is managed (Dean, Kucinich, Moseley Braun); and those who want to maintain the status quo (Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Clark) by applying middle-class friendly Band-aids to the most egregious reactionary Republican legislation.

Look at the number of Democratic politicians in the last twenty years who've embraced big business-friendly initiatives such deregulating the communications industry, the Lieberman-sponsored accounting "reforms" that led to the Arthur Anderson scandal and tax credits for companies re-locating to Caribbean tax havens. And I'm sure I've only just scratched the surface.

There are two camps you outline. The first camp is betting on cataclismic change. The second thinks that change will come only gradually. The first group's supporters are high risk gamblers, the second aren't willing to risk four more years. Everybody wants change - sure there are degrees of difference, but we all see that the direction we are headed is a disaster waiting to happen.

Are we willing to risk it all on a candidate that history says won't win, or are we going to go with a candidate that history says will have a better chance?

There is also the question of (1)who is more likely to have coattails, and (2)who will have the strongest sway over congress. I didn't want to mention candidates by name in this, but can you imagine Dean trying to manhandle congress? They will flatten him. Result: we get nothin'.

I will support the nominee. I respect my fellow Dems right to disagree, but I must state my opinion when I think we are in danger of driving off the cliff. There won't be any second chances.

groups, interests, constituencies and legislators. He got a LOT done in Vermont. He bloodied some noses now and then, and they respected him nonetheless. You can't get elected 5 times without a pretty darned good track record. Even some of those who were his adversaries when he was Governor are wholeheartedly behind his candidacy now.

Oh, and you see:

Are we willing to risk it all on a candidate that history says won't win, or are we going to go with a candidate that history says will have a better chance?

Our individual assessments of who fits what description are exactly opposite.

Eloriel

We better figure out what we're going to change into.

Are we looking at a compromising centrist who never took a particularly strong stand on anything, thinks logging is part of land protection, turned a blind eye to the biggest corporate polluters in his state, displayed classic NIMBY politics when choosing where to dump his waste, believes in HMO type medicaid and medicare reform, thinks people on welfare lack dignity, refuses to implement any gun laws to get NRA endorsements, has the incarceration rate rise 10% while the national rates decreased, thinks criminals getting off on technicalities is a reason to execute them.

Is this the heart of the Democratic Party?