Both Dean and Clark are to the left of Kerry

Both Clark (if words can be believed..he can prove himself if he wants to) and Dean are left of Kerry. Kerry in the last 3 years has voted the centrist position over and over. His vote for NCLB was hostile to labor. His vote for the Patriot Act and the IWR were both for political expedience and BTW hostile to the american people. He wanted to get elected and he wanted the nomination. He knew he had to kiss DLC butt to get the nomination and so he did.

That's why he lost IMO. There is nothing wrong with being a North Eastern liberal if you have convictions, but Kerry showed his only conviction was to be President. Now look at where we are.

They are insidious.

This one is just another version of "Kerry is a flip-flopper."

It's not true, but that never stops them.

Kerry is just easier than most to accuse. He should have done the right thing on the IWR in the first place and then he wouldn't have had to spend so much time trying to rationalize his vote and explain it away.

Go look at the list of the senators who voted against the IWR, there was no good reason Kerry shouldn't have been on that list. Robert Byrd is hardly a liberal...but even he was left of Kerry this past 2 years.

Cheswick is CERTAINLY no right winger-

Kerry spent the last two years with kneepads for the bush administration.

IWR, patriot act, and NCLB are three of the most regressive pieces of legislation to pass the executive desk in the last 30 years, and Kerry happily jumped on board all three...it's pathetic.

It's hard for me to speculate what Wes and Howard might have done, however, as they weren't in the legislative branch for the last three years.

Kerry, given a chance to put the pressure on bush for lying and being untrustworthy, instead stated he would vote for it again. I think that alone may have lost us the election.

I have a hard time with taking a politician at their word. That was my one gripe with Clark....He had NO RECORD to stand on. All this "clark is liberal" talk is only that...so much talk.

Could have lost us the election, too.

Just what did you do to help get Kerry elected?

Evidently not much or you would not be posting this dribble now.

Pa. He won the two counties I worked in by 57 Percent in one and 54 percent in the other. I believe those are higher percentages than Gore (it pains me to say since I much prefer Gore) got even though the local repukes moved 21 polling places a week before the election, in one of the counties.

I found and secured the use of several staging areas for election day. I recruited dozens of volunteers and drivers. I organized materials for walk packets in about 20 precincts. I talked to nut case anti-choice voters when they called and harassed us or showed up at the office.

I stayed up until 4 am the night before and I spent 7 hours in the cold organizing canvassers and keeping paperwork and numbers for a whole city effort on election day. I dealt with ASSHOLE (30 year old white guys in suits with cell phones stuck to their ears walking around imagining they looked important and impressive when they really looked officious and obnoxious) staffers at campaign events when they harassed the college kids I was working with for "stealing their volunteers".

What did you do?

what did you do? :evilgrin:

I wonder if kerrygoddess will tell us what she did. :shrug:

:eyes:

Not the campaign's fault at all.

So I am waiting to read what you did.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

When did I ever say I agreed with the right on the persecution of Clinton?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1395863&mesg_id=1396854&page=
Cheswick2.0  (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-29-04 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #69
75. you aren't making any sense
how is talking about whether or not Clark should be the nominee in 08 hijacking a thread about whether or not Clark should be the nominee in 2008?
This makes about as much sense as your insistence four years ago that Clinton and Lewinski were the great love affair of the century and that he would leave Hillary and marry her when he left office. For some unknown reason you had the hardest time admitting a sleazy affair was a sleazy affair. Maybe you are not the best judge of character?
This is my last post in this petty pissing match. Knock yourself out if it gives you satisfaction to conintue.

He had a sleazy affair. Do you deny that? I don't judge him for it...but it was an affair none the less and certainly not the love affair of the century.

I have never stopped supporting Clinton against the right wing smears on him. I don't think we should every have known or cared about his sleazy affair....but it was one. Blow jobs in the oval office do not a relationship make and I feel sorry for Monica or any woman who thinks they are going to take a married man away from his wife simply by providing sex.

Clark supporters have, understandably, been in the defensive about where on the political spectrum he sits, and whatever opportunity they can create to make him look palatable to real Ds they will take. This is just another, at, not surprisingly, Kerry's expense.

She did more for Kerry than you I bet.

I didn't respond because I thought it was a compliment and I didn't want to get a swelled head.

Cryingshame, I did have the good sense to support Dean in the primaries. Thank you for the compliment.

At ACT and in many forums where she took the defeatists and ABK phoney-leftys with exceeding toughness.

But the fact remains that Kerry DID pursue a DLC "centrist"-right strategy in his campaign--which was all about medals and war heroism from 30 years ago and not ENOUGH about the challenges that face us today.

His effort to be all things and fudge his position on the war and so many other issues was a disaster and its time we admitted it.

I cringed during the convention with all the military imagery. I knew it was going to be turned on us and it was.

I said two years ago that the IWR vote was going to come back and haunt us and it did.

There is no defense like the truth. The democratic party needs to learn this lesson. We have forgotten how to tell the truth even when we are afraid people don't want to hear it. The Iraqi war is a farce.

PS... good to see you my friend!

I think I've just about seen it all now.

I'm continuously amazed with the things people will come up with just to get a dig in at either Clark or his supporters. This one pretty much takes the cake though.

Load your weapons. Let the circular firing squad begin.

BTW, isn't Dean a "North Eastern Liberal"? Whatever...

Yes on social issues. I am one too. Didn't I say there was nothing wrong with that? But if you are going to win elections you have to stand up for what you believe. Instead of standing for his convictions Kerry ran from them to get the party's nomination.

I'm a Northeast Liberal Feminist from MA! A Kerry Democrat, a Kennedy Democrat. Howard Dean is NO Northeast Liberal.

It's so sad that after all these months you are still picking this same argument about who is more liberal.

and Dean, with the exception of balanced budgets is more liberal than Kerry these days.

I was not the one who picked this argument.

and shrub can't help cheating.

I agree that Gore won, everyone knows that, even the republicans. But Kerry winning is a lot less clear and dispite the propaganda, I don't see Kerry doing much about any election theft.
When I see him make a public statement calling for action, I will believe he is with us.

and yeah, i feel betrayed too, but, we don't know what the Son of a Bush did, he prolly threatened kerrys kids or something, or maybe, it might have been the ole skull and bones sellout, we will never know, but there is nothing that can make me believe the lie Shrub was ever elected once, nevermind twice, cause, you know, diebold can't count.

An activist was being compared to an elected official (both Dems). The question was asked if both could be considered Dems if one (the activist)stood firm and the other (elected official) capitulated.

My answer was that both could call themselves Dems but it boiled down to their purpose. One has a career to worry about and the other is involved for idealism. Who is more likely to play the SAKAL?

Judging by Kerry's performance during the first stage of W's monarchy I'd say he acted according to what was good for his career more than anything. The lack of passion I saw for him day in and day out at Dem HQ is a strong testament to that (and though discouraging for me it was also a bit of a private affirmation).

Julie

It never stops, does it.

and where they stand, I thought it only fair we examine all the candidates.

For instance, everyone running was to the left of Kerry except Lieberman. Clark and Dean certainly are/were.

What happened? Santa gipped ya?

So, I guess we'll see 3 threads of it

Have either Dean or Clark EVER cast a senate vote? I think not. How many primaries did they win between them? Two. And what's wrong with running as a northeastern liberal? Ask Michael Dukakis if you can find him.

They weren't senators. Kerry is a senator and has a responsibility, which IMO he failed to uphold. He voted like a moderate republican.

PS.. Dukakis wasn't a liberal.

Isn't it the perfect season for lots of socks? ;-)

Julie

Sock on!

Kerry led the good fight.

Clark would have ended up much like Kerry. Bush Inc can not be defeated on the subject of terrorism or the military if you agree with them.

Sorry, but Dean would never have sold out on all the right wing issues Kerry sold out on. Kerry folded like a cheap suit.

You're woefully uninformed.

You've missed a lot that went on here on DU these past few days, I can see.

Well, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, and you'll learn a few things, too.

Again with the personal attacks. Is that all you've got?
Tell me what I missed when Kerry is inaugurated okay?

I've read all the ignis fatuus "reasons" why...Dean didn't make it to Super Tuesday. That's a process that he failed at. Period. Clark endorsed Kerry in February in Wisconsin. Dean dropped out a day later.

Yet somehow we are supposed to somehow see the Grand Weltanschauung from the moderate governor from a tiny mostly caucasian state as the reason we are either smugly wiser or woefully duped for not genuflecting to the proclivities.

It's time to move on, Ches.

I support Dean's work with DFA and even hope he gets to sell himself for the DNC chair, although I do feel his efforts with the DFA would better addressed by focusing on the DFA solely.

Whatever...we can hem and haw about how Kerry is not left of Dean and Clark without either of them having the scrutiny of actually having a voting record to measure up to Kerry fairly.

Misunderstand me and flame me for all I care...

I believe Kerry won...we were gamed by BBV...it was close...we tried...if Kerry unconcedes on January 6th, 2005, we may see some very interesting events happen. That's what I'm focusing on now and suggest you do the same.

Some think that now is focusing on the procedural gaming of the voting machines.
Some think that now is focusing on how candidates stand on the political spectrum.
I don't see why these two viewpoints have to be mutually exclusive.

Obviously, some people think they are, but I just don't get why.

If we want to get sidetracked into issues of what is "now" and what is "not now," we could go around and around on that one and not get anywhere.

I mean, some folk think that the specific election fraud of 2004 is not now anymore and a lost cause, so we need to move on to other things such as political spectrum questions.
Some think that political spectrum questions are not now, old hat and that we need to focus on election fraud.

Why not do both???

They (including Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and Lieberman) FAILED miserably, to do so between 2000 and 2004. It is an absolute travesty.

How could they not see this coming? What good are they if they can't even protect voting rights?

dirty tricks and sheep voting for the guy they were told was electable. How's that working out for you?

The party, including Clinton should have stayed out of it because they only garaunteed a big loss in Nov.

Clark and Dean both had their chances and both washed out. What's the deal?

I disagree that either Clark or Dean washed out but that is another discussion.

One of the selling points of Kerry was that he was more electable, more moderate and would appeal to swing voters.
By definition swing voters are voters who arein the middle that could swing to the left or right depending on the candidate. So if a candidate who is perceived as being too far to the left or right runs, they have less chance of getting elected.
This was one of the points used against Dean, also that he was less moderate and too angry.
Whether that is true or not about Dean, it was one of the reasons brought up for Kerry being a better candidate.

So why is it that people won't "own" or own up to this now?

Kerry was the electable guy........ but he wasn't.
Bush has the lowest approval of any president ever reelected. How could he not be beaten?
It is incomprehensible.

Bush and Rove spent four years rigging the vote in every conceivable way and they succeeded. Incidentally the CIA has *fifty* years of experience holding phony elections to install puppet presidents and doesn't Bush have close family ties to the CIA?

That's got to do with why he didn't get elected from a procedural standpoint.
The question Ches raise originally isn't about procedural standpoints but is about where the 3 men are on the political spectrum.

were to the left of Kerry, perhaps even Graham.

Given any situation, votes can surprise you, if you look at what was voted upon. Don't ever believe that one item is on the table when a vote is taken, because that's overlooking the realities of how the Senate and House of Representatives work.

Votes are complicated things, with all sorts of nuances and subtleties leading up to their casting.

And, on any given issue, anyone can vote one way or the other.

but that would have been a more complicated point for me to make at the time.
Yeap, senators and representatives and just plain citizens are full of contradictions.

after all, he forged the NCLB with Shrub. I guess your credentials are better than Ted Kennedy.

Don't forget Kennedy also voted for the the perscription drug scam. Who knows what is up with Kennedy these days.

a lifetime of fighting for working people is thrown out the window. For both Kennedy and Kerry.

if anything is thrown out of the window that is their choice not mine.
Did you ever hear the expression "that was then, this is now"?

and saying it defines them is ludicrous. They've done more for progressive causes than anyone that posts on this board. Even you.

Those three votes were crucial and the ones I most care about. There are others that were not much better. Over the years Kerry has become the biggest corporate contributee in the senate. I guess money changes a man. I realize not everyone cares about progressive positions on education, war and civil rights, but I do.

Both Dean and Clark are left of Kerry and Edwards.

but there is no sense arguing with you. These men have done more to advance the progressive agenda than you could ever dream of doing.

and please tell me what progressive aggenda you are talking about. I am a progressive and they have done nothing for my aggenda for years.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What exactly don't I understand?

you surely don't know what a personal attack is.

Thanks for kicking the thread.

And, you're welcome, since I have no idea what "kicking the thread" means.

But, your gratitude is payment enough.

so more people can join in the discussion.

the pleasure is all mine.

Kerry did what he had to in order to get nominated the Dem candidate. But look into his eyes and heart. He's the REAL Liberal. Get him past Dec 6, get him in the WH and let him show you.

We can 'hind-sight' all we want now, but...

tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead and the USA is going broke, social programs are being cut...........

"But look into his eyes and heart. He's the REAL Liberal." That's on the same level as shrub looking into Putin's soul.

As far as getting the nomination, I can see where Kerry might be willing to lie or play some dirty pool to get the nomination. I can accept that. Spare me the "REAL liberal" crap. Kerry himself said during the campaign "What good is faith without works?" Maybe he should consider his own beliefs and his works. He voted IWR and then he said he'd do it again. FUCK HIM!!! If he was not a warmonger then his actions and words would have reflected that and NEITHER has!

Dean and Clark are both to the left of Mr. Edwards who didn't just vote for the IWR but also believed we should invade Iraq to protect our interests.

But alas, all we have is his gun toting, NAFTA supporting, tax cutting, "fiscal conservative", "embrace-pro-lifers" rhetoric.

so is We.

And you needed to edit it too.

I edited it because I left the y off of mighty.

& somehow I knew I'd get a comment of no particular substance as a response as soon as I did it. Of course if I had left the y off and not edited it I would have gotten one too.

Got anything of substance to say?
You know what I was getting at in my comment, I would be willing to bet.
How about a comment on that?

examples of substance?

You wrote --

"But alas, all we have is his gun toting, NAFTA supporting, tax cutting, "fiscal conservative", "embrace-pro-lifers" rhetoric."

My comment All and We are pretty big words is a dig, pure and simple.

I could have said something like this instead ---

That is not all we have. All who has? It might be all you have, but where are you getting this "we" from? And I could have asked just how you figure that is "all" we have, and whether even whether the things that You say "we" have are accurate.

I could have elucidated in detail what else "we" have other than the points you listed, but that wouldn't have accomplished much, now would it have? For one thing, it would have been a list of things that "I" have, not that you have.

So I could have done a nice detailed semantic critique in three part harmony of your choice of words "all we," but I decided to make a short pithy snide comment instead.

That's the substance of it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't really care if you see any substance in it or not.
Some people get things, some don't.
If you don't see the substance it's not my problem. It's your problem.

latte sipping, sushi eating, tax hiking, new york times reading, body piercing, hollywood loving, volvo driving FREAK SHOW.

Do you have links, I'll add them to the list.

January 7th, 2004

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/pastproject.php

Cheers! :-)

Club for Growth. Spend much time there?

notsomuch

:-)

NCLB, Patriot Act, and IWR. Maybe Kerry lost because America isn't to the left of Howard Dean and American voters confused the leftists with the Democratic Party. Did you ever think of that? Argue from the possibility that what I'm saying is true, then what is the Democratic Party supposed to do?

or become a true opposition party?
or reframe the debate the way Lakoff suggests?
or focus again on economics the way Thomas Frank suggests?

That the 90% of America that's to the right of a leftist doesn't make them a Republican.

who are against NCLB, the IWR and the Patriot Act.
If being against that stuff makes you a leftist, then the country is in sad shape.

The majority of people were for these bills when they were passed, for the purposes stated at the time. Apparently more voters are still more for them than against them, since they voted for Bush who campaigned on keeping this stuff exactly the way it is. Reality's a bitch, but there it is. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, not being willing to even look at any of the necessary purposes of these bills, that's what makes one a leftist.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is stupid, not leftist.

You're using leftist to refer to someone who is not pragmatic.

There are plenty of pragmatic leftists.

That's what I'm referring to as leftist. Not liberals, progressives, populists, or pragmatics. Leftists, anarchists, specific group of people who wouldn't be FOR anybody unless they were a pure socialist. I'm tired of them claiming speak for the Democrats when they're not remotely Democrats.

then you should say 99% of the country is to the right of them.
I understand your concern with that specific group of people but they are not even close to being the 10% figure you used in my opinion.

I say 10% being generous to them. America is not as far to the left as many DU leftists want to believe. And alot of people who call themselves liberals and progressives are actually leftists, and not in touch with what mainstream Democrats think. They don't listen and are just as stubborn and rigid and sometimes stupid as any redneck they rant about. If an idea is put forward that might help a few people, they'll call it a DLC sell-out if it isn't 100% leftist. I'm sick of it. It's always easier to sit around and bitch than to be the one responsible to actually try to help somebody. If I were a parent in a failing inner-city school, a tutor to help my kid would sound like a pretty good idea. Not a perfect solution, but better than nothing. But applying the same standards to every school is stupid and a waste of money. NO kid in my district needs a tutor, but if we fail again because 94% of kids were tested instead of 95%, our district will have to pay for tutors. Stupid. I can see the difference in the two scenarios, why can't the anti-everything leftists?

Particularly these sentences--

"And alot of people who call themselves liberals and progressives are actually leftists, and not in touch with what mainstream Democrats think. They don't listen and are just as stubborn and rigid and sometimes stupid as any redneck they rant about. If an idea is put forward that might help a few people, they'll call it a DLC sell-out if it isn't 100% leftist."

I'm not sure anymore if I'm in touch with what mainstream Democrats think. I tend to think I am & am in touch with what mainstream America thinks down in my bones since I lived in Missouri and Kansas and Ohio for a total of 35 years but it is a different world here in NYC that's for sure.

I think I'll leave it at that.
It's getting late here in the city and I need to be fresh and awake for the work day after the long holiday.
:)

Ted Kennedy has a lifetime ADA voting average of 90.
John Kerry has a lifetime ADA voting average of 92.
This is based on 1990-2002.
http://www.adaction.org/lifetimesenmassachusetts.html

I think he's not only a liberal, but a consistent progressive vote. Of course, that's only based on facts, it could change with mere conjecture.

not anymore. You can't make that claim based on the ADA rating.

He's actually got a pretty pragmatic record. I think alot of what he was actually saying got mixed up with what some others were interpreting. His health care plan for example. I saw people write LTTE's supporting his single payer plan. Or helping frame the IWR vote as a vote for war, rather than laying that one on Bush who said he had no plans for war in Oct 2002. America supported the IWR vote in Oct 2002, but not war. The left helped frame that and helped frame wishy-washy as a result. Because they refuse to see that America just isn't where they're at on most issues. Which isn't to say Kerry isn't a liberal, he's the most liberal candidate we ever could have hoped to elect. And still not good enough for the left. In order to be far enough left for the leftists, we'd have to run a candidate who was out of touch with 90% of America. And you can't convince these people of that. It's ridiculous.

I consider myself to be on the left and my concern with Kerry had little to do with his position on the political spectrum.
There are pragmatic leftists as well.
I think Chomsky would be considered a leftist and as I recall he said to vote for Kerry unless you were in a "safe" state.
& I believe Naomi Klein would be considered a leftist and I saw her give a very impassioned speech in September in which she said to vote for Kerry.
Let's see, there was also Howard Zinn... and seems to me there was a very long list of leftists on a call to vote for Kerry at some point in September when everyone was so afraid of Ralph Nader.
Remember?

So your point may be a nice broad brush rhetorical device about Kerry not being good enough for the leftists, but it doesn't seem to be borne out particularly by the facts

Sorry, but, 'I hate the son of a bitch, he's a corporate sell-out, not much better than Bush, but vote for him anyway', isn't really doing anything to get non-voters motivated or swing voters to switch. In fact, having leftists out there ranting about Bush probably turns off more people than anything else.

I'm not surprised.

I see you ignored that post. If you don't know who the anti-everything people are, the ones who demagogue every issue, maybe it's because you're one of them. :shrug:

I responded there.

Not everyone is as capable as you seem to be of jumping around from post to post in a flick of an eyelash.

If you don't cut people some slack on that kind of thing you're likely to fall into the same trap as those demagogues you're so scared about, except in a relatively benign fashion on a discussion board.

That's not much of a definition. I know lots of leftists. They are very much "for" many things.

you nominated someone most democratic party activists didn't like. WE all worked our asses off and we never told voters he's an asshole even or the "lesser of two evils". Stop blaming us for this loss. You wanted him and he lost. Blame yourself.

America doesn't support NCLB, the war or the patriot act. They average american just figured that since Kerry didn't offer an alternative they might as well go with the devil they knew.

At the time these were voted for, they did. Also, parents support the goals of NCLB, if not the exact method of implementation. Most people support the goals of the Patriot Act, if not every provision like the sneak and peeks. And most people supported getting inspectors back into Iraq and knew a threat of force was necessary to accomplish that. John Kerry also offered a clear alternative. Doing what America wanted, the WAY America wanted it done. The right did a great job of blurring the distinction, along with the help of people like you. The right sure wasn't going to make the distinction, and mainstream Democrats couldn't get the distinction out there because the voice of the far left and "they're all the same" was louder than the voice of the party. All their "constructive criticism", which was nothing more than repeating exactly what Karl Rove wanted repeated. Using the left to turn the middle against Kerry was as brilliant as any wedge issue.

polls show that people voted based on the bullshit war on terror and decided that Kerry didn't offer the same level of determination to keep them safe.
Kerry is the first democrat in years to lose the advantage on the woman's vote. If he offered an alternative he did not make it clear to the voters.

People wanted to be kept safe and fight the war on terror. Part of that is the Patriot Act and the IWR vote. That's what you just said in your post, whether you realize it or not. They think those two things are going to keep them safe from the terrorists. So how in the world does repealing the Patriot Act and voting no on IWR appeal to those same voters? That's what you're saying would have won. It makes absolutely no sense.

the reason they voted for those things is because we didn't tell them they were false bullshit issues. Obviously you are of the idea that pandering to people's stupidty and being appeasers is a winning tactic. But Kerry was not elected, so obviously you are wrong.

Then why didn't he get elected?

"The right did a great job of blurring the distinction, along with the help of people like you. The right sure wasn't going to make the distinction, and mainstream Democrats couldn't get the distinction out there because the voice of the far left and "they're all the same" was louder than the voice of the party. All their "constructive criticism", which was nothing more than repeating exactly what Karl Rove wanted repeated. Using the left to turn the middle against Kerry was as brilliant as any wedge issue."

oh please.
You really don't have much idea at all what I'm like, of that I am very confident.

Considering that was a response to somebody else which I reposted to you because you didn't read it the first time. :eyes:

who is appalled at NCLB.
I would not characterize this person as being a leftist.
I think you should say the "alleged" goals of NCLB.

First of all, guess you missed that too. Teachers aren't the only voters you know, lots more parents than teachers. I also said, at the time it was passed most people supported it. I further said, most people support the goals, the Teddy Kennedy goals. Most people still support the goals of higher standards and every school being a good school. They don't support the ridiculous way Rod Paige chose to implement the thing.

so?

I could just have easily said Christian parent.
Teachers are parents too.

What purpose does that hair splitting on your part serve?

There was alot of talk on the Democratic side about teachers not liking NCLB. Not alot from the parents themselves. I don't know why you stuck Christian in there. Lots of Christians are Democrats, so that doesn't mean anything either.

But the point is, people voted for the guy who ran on NCLB and the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. For leftists to say we should have ran completely against these things flies in the face of what happened in the election. America said yes. Because they supported the goals, if not every single thing about them. It isn't splitting hairs to know who the electorate is and what they think. You can tell stories about random voters all you want, doesn't change who the people voted for overall.

My experience in education is that almost everyone knew it was a POS bit of legislation that was meant to privitize education and attack teachers unions.
I don't know any parents who understand the legislation who are in favor of it.

Just because lots of Americans are morons, doesn't mean that smart people like Kerry should do the WRONG THING on the three most regressive pieces of legislation in my lifetime.

I thought democrats were supposed to stand up to republican bullshit!

Guess not.

None is the only answer. Thanks for helping move the debate forward and not starting useless flamewars. Same old beta

Sometimes, it's important to see where various figures stand.

Sometimes, it's important to see where various posters want us to think they do.

The direction of the Democratic party is not merely an abstraction played out in the realm of ideas, but a concrete reality that manifests through actual members of the Democratic party.
You can talk all you want day after day about the abstract ideas, but unless you also talk about actual people who espouse these ideas we won't get far.

Of course since the second you talk about actual living breathing humans emotion and feelings get involved, it is only natural that people get worn out and don't think it serves any purpose and doesn't advance the debate.

But I don't think there's anyway around it. At some point you have to talk about real people, not just the ideas.

but why does the poster have to engage in a smear campaign against a candidate EVERYONE knows she doesn't like that only serves to be divisive to the community. Now is a time to rally around and move the party in a new direction and slamming someone who is fairly liberal, as not enough (while holding a self-proclaimed moderate up as a paragon of liberal virtue) is not helpful to that goal.

I am far from worn out, I'm ready to fight the good fight, but at this point I don't see how Clark Dean or Kerry have anything we need to fight over since none is running for the same job currently. Why compare and fight over them? To me THIS is the time we need to fight about ideas and not people. We need to decide our direction before we can find people to advance our banner. Fighting amongst ourselves when we should be unified in fighting Bush (and debating the merits of different ideas behind the scenes) is what we need to be doing now. There will be plenty of time in one year for the mid-terms and three for the Presidential race to begin looking at different people. But splitting ourselves now is not the time nor place

I think what causes some people to be focusing on people this quickly instead of waiting until the mid-term campaign is because of the question of who the DLC chair will be, something that usually flies under the radar but that is not this go round.

The position is not as important as it is being built into. The main reason it has come into such focus is the media's need to have an opposite in a neat position to Bush. I'm in favour of letting a leader emerge naturally over the next few months, no matter their official position in the party. If someone wants to step up and speak in opposition to Bush for the party let them, and the more the merrier. Increase the echo chamber around the opposition to Bush.

cheers

I just thought it was important that more the the primary candidates were brought into the mix.

What about DK? Do you think he is to the right or left of Dean and Clark? I am thinking he is to the right of them based on his 40% rating with the ACLU.

would call DK to the right based on an outdated rating. You know that's not accurate and you know the reasons it's not accurate but you continue to bandy it about as though it were gospel truth.

If you find it important to bring in more than just the primary candidates why did you only mention three primary candidates in your post? Come on, debate is one thing, starting a flame war without adding anything positive, or at the very least constructivly critical is worthless and the opposite of what we need right now.

I don't think his rating has improved that much.

Why would you hold that only against Dennis?

to the constitution. Clever, but, what's the difference to the flag burner?

I don't want to fight over candidates and ex-candidates and as I said I think this is utterly stupid and divisive. You do your man Howard no favours with such a lousy attitude and willingness to fight.

Thanks for reminding me of another reason why we keep losing :hi:

Cause you can't defend his crappy record on civil rights?
Even Joe Leiberman was against that Flag burning ammendment.
Clark, Graham (I think)Gephardt were the candidates for the anti flag burning ammendment...
Instead of making nasty personal comments, you might just not post on the thread at all when you have nothing else to say.

not me.

Dennis took a stance on the flag burning amendment that I disagree with, but that's his opinion and perrogative that the flag is a symbol beyond reproach. I would hardly call the FBA a question of civil rights though, that's ridiculous. I'm sure you don't agree 100% with the good doctor.

I made one personal comment, and I didn't think it was nasty, though I probably shouldn't have. It seems that even though you have a new name your attitude has not changed, in that it's a truthful statement.

In the grand scheme of things I'll take the flag burning amendment disagreement if it means I get the rest of DK's wonderful positions. Compared with Abortion rights, the war in Iraq, gay rights, the deficit, taxation, education, peace, foreign policy, soc security, etc the flag burning amendment doesn't matter to me.

But, I said I didn't want to talk about fighting over people, you continue to ignore that and push to attack me and a man who is a damn fine politican and human being. If you want to help make the party better please please stop this stupid bullshit. But I reserve the right to call you on your divisive bullshit when I see it.

Wes Clark is real - for now. I hope he stays that way.

Its going to take a lot more than a few good men to rescue the party from this year's disaster. But Wes Clark and others are a start!

Comparing gubernatorial, military and congressional records which are largely incomparable, or comparing statements and stances? If you want to talk political expedience and harm to people, talk Dean's throwing VT's environmental laws in the shitter to make deals with IBM et al, or his shipping of waste to Nevada. For Clark, you have his support of Republicans in the past and his work with some odious defense contractors. Kerry's bad decisions and votes have been plastered all over this board, being part of a congessional record and therefore more suitable to be posted and spun than Clark's or Dean's records. Does Kerry's record constitute a wholesale rightward departure from Clark or Dean? I would say no.

Clark and Dean are both good men--the differences between them and Kerry I would say are chiefly in terms of presentation and political history. Note that all of them supported a Bush-says-go-we-go war resolution (though Biden/Lugar was better than the IWR), all supported "fixing" rather than repealing NAFTA, the Patriot Act, etc. In policy, they are hardly significantly different from each other. You want a big difference, take Dennis. Dean, Clark or Kerry would all have made fine presidents, however.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

which kicked the thread. FABULOUS! :7

and it saved you the inevitable trouble

Depends on what your litmus test is used for being 'to the left'.

Kerry had the convictions to protest the Vietnam war. That says a lot to me about his leftist convictions.

I think Dean is more of a pacifist than Kerry, but that doesn't mean he is more or less 'leftist' than Kerry. Clark's a war-monger compared to Dean. Everything is relative. Clark is a pacifist compared to Bush.

Dean was my first choice, but I had no hesitation for voting Kerry because he's good enough a 'leftist' for me. Not perfect, no one is looking for the perfect leftist. Everyone has to sell out for something, that's a reality I can deal with. Some are selling-out much more than others. Like the Shrub, for example.

I agree he used to be liberal. I also agree that "leftist" is relative...which is really the point of this whole thread.

You mean the Dean that was for the first Gulf War that Kerry did not support? Or the war in Afghanistan?

Or the Dean that was for a unilateral strike in Iraq if Saddam didn't disarm in 30-60 days (as said in his Salon 2/4 interview)?

That Dean? Hmmm... Not a big deal, but Dean is hardly more of a pacifist than Kerry if you look at his real record...

Well, for one brief instant in time, Dean did stand out as a lone voice against the invasion.

I have my own litmus tests to determine who I should vote for, I was always hoping for Dean, even though I knew he was something of a centrist or right-of-center in his home state. But he was for normalizing the relations with Cuba, something no President has ever tried to do since Jimmy Carter. Kerry still wanted to play the embargo card, he was hoping for some of the S. Florida Cuban-American vote to win that state.

Besides, Vermont seemed like it had a few leftists. Not to say that Gov. Dean or Sanders were ever true native Vermont leftists, they are NY imports who moved into the state for matters of convenience.

had re-voting. Not timidly asked, unmentioned recount, but a second election day.
You may be interested to know that in both countries, the challenger (who also accused fraud), won, is taking office.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled hair pulling.

how about yours?

your entire premise for throwing dirt is flawed. THAT was the point in bringing up fraudulent elections which were REDONE in functioning democracies.
Ukraineans, Romanians could have also sat on their duffs wondering why they lost. Instead they DEMANDED a new election - not a bean count of just how big the fraud was - but a new election mind you. And the will of the people prevailed.
Some people in this world still understand that fraud taints an entire election, no matter how big, small, close or far, man-date or values BS.

I said there was no hair pulling at my computer?

I am not missing the point at all, much less "as usual".
This thread is about the relative right/leftness of the candidates.

What do you think about Graham? I think he is right of all the other candidates including Lieberman.

we did lose the election de facto, in all that counts.

Even if later the election does turn out to be proven to be tainted, it won't change who is in the office for the next four years - Unless (and it is a very big unless) culpability can be laid directly in Bush's lap and it is even more unlikely that will happen.

It took two years to get Nixon out of office and that was with a Democratic congress. I don't see that happening with a Republican congress and Bush, if something doesn't come to light that very soon that convinces people with power who are relatively objective.

Americans have lived safely and comfortably in their Democracy for 216 years they've not seen the power of mass movements, or corruption on large scales and believe it couldn't possibly happen here. In Ukraine and Romania they've seen in the last 15 years that mass movements of people can shake a half-century's worth of repression and bring about social change. This is especially true among the young in those countries, whose first political awakening came with the fall of the Soviet Union. In this country the young have been suckled at the teat of consumerism and taught in schools that the US is always right, good and democratic. Until people wake up to what is going on around them they won't rise like they could

their exact quotes in all areas, including civil liberties, please.

Saying Kerry is liberal because he used to be liberal doesn't cut it. Reagan used to be a democrat. :shrug:

quotes and opinions. You know, like on how judges should be picked, things like that.

http://www.adaction.org/Campaign2004/VotingHistory/votinghistory.html

Kerry's liberal record overall is 92. I seriously doubt that if you counted both Dean's and Clark's records (or lack of them in actual provable voting scenarios) that either of them would best a 92 rating. Kucinich is rated as an 86 and Edwards as an 85.

Short of viable proof or some methodology other than sheer opinionated and utterly subjective conjecture (like the theme of this thread), there is no contest that Kerry is indeed more "left" than either Clark or Dean if you want provable facts involved.

It's like saying you believe in evolution because you think you act and look like a monkey.

just because you're against something doesn't mean that you are its opposite. It was good of Dean to criticize the DLC, but contrary to the very reasonable assumption many people made, it didn't mean he was much different from the DLC on the issues. It was a clever tactic in the primary though that worked very well.

Clark is the most liberal person on the list. Otherwise, Dean isn't too different than Kerry, Lieberman or any other moderate Democrat.

Clark appears to be more lenient toward normal relations with Cuba, but he stops short of ending the embargo/boycott. He has made concilatory remarks to appease the rightwing CANF lobby in S. Florida last year. Well, as I said before, that's my basic litmus-test of a true liberal/progressive. He falls short of my standard.

He doesn't seem to be any better than Dean. Probably worse. There's no way I can be sure until he breaks out of that pattern of appeasement to the Cuban-American rightwing voters. They're Cubans first and Americans second. Not an issue that average American should support, in fact there are business opportunites out there which can help our economy and normal business with Cuba is just good ole capitalism at work.

you get a cigar for nailing it

LOL <----------- the same backwards as forwards!