Would you support a mediocre "caretaker" Democratic administration in 08?

(On edit:This is not just about Hillary. It's about the direction we want to go.)

The talk of Hillary as a possible president in 08 raises a question we all should think about now.

It's obvious that a Democrat -- any Democrat -- in the WH would be an improvement over what we have now. That's a given.

However, suppose -- as is quite possible with a "centrist" Democrat --that the 08 campaign is only about "competance" and stopping the active dcstruction going on. No big visions, no real plans, no changes except a different set of names of the "players" in Washington.

And after that, we could have an administration that follows the familiar model of GOP lite, as a caretakr for business as usual, with a slightly kinder and gentler facade... Avoiding the big economic issues, shying away from any real reform and accepting the continmued growth of corporate power and the stale "status quo" elitism that is much broader and bigger than partisan differences....Perhaps you could call it a replay of the 1990's.

Is that sufficient? Is that the best we can hope for? Do we really want more of the same of what has been happening since the mid 1970's?

That, IMO, is what is really at the base of the current divisions and debates between different factions on the center to left side of the spectrum.

How do you see it? Differing interpretations are welcome.

"the perfect is the enemy of the good". Likewise, the medicore is the enemy of the good. Too many willing to settle for mediocre, IMO.

I'm hoping we aren't lowering the bar. At this point in history, mediocre is actually supporting destruction.

Compared to Bush, mediocre looks pretty good. It isn't. It's the same old hard, reflexive, dead end policies gussied up in softer clothing.

We wouldn't have seen all that's happened over the last five years, if the foundation had not been enabled by both parties in the previous 20 years.

a superficial indicator of something supremely pathological in the American character.

It makes me sick, anyway.

I think the next administration, especially a Democratic one, will have a multitude of serious problems in need of action thrust upon them.

Right off the top of my head I can think of so many things that may finally come to a boil in the next administration: Iraq, the economy, the national debt, underfunded pensions, and on and on.

I think the next administration will have the chance of greatness or the possibility of failure thrust upon them by events out of their control.

That's a possibility. But what's important to remember is that FDR actively rose to the challenge.

That's what was rolling around inside my mind when I read your original post.

A caretaker government would be a blessing at this point. I think there is a real chance that the next administration will face situations that will lead to transformative change to our government and our society.

The real question is whether these changes will be positive or an acceleration of the pace we're on now. Will our society become more equitable and just, will our foreign policy be more internationalist or will be see a larger division between the rich and poor, less personal freedoms, and a foreign policy driven by the ideology of the current administration.

While it's true that Demcrats aren't in control of the levers of power at the moment, this is the time for them to push for a sweeping vision and agenda of reform that goes beyond the current roles of GOP and Democrats and goes for the systemic problems.

Such an approach now could pave the way for a return to the WH and Congressional changes that would allow for meaningful change.

"mediocre" is in the eye of the beholder.

Is the question should you support my candidate if you think they are mediocre or should I support your candiadte if I think they are mediocre?

In a bigger sense, this isn't just about one candidate or office.

I actually think Hilary could be a great president. She's got it in her. However, she'd have to do some changing to be that, IMO. She's got to go with her underlying passion for the best instead of trying to be all things to all people.

In a bigger sense, my question was about whether we are looking for a better operating corporate system, or fundamental reforms.

the subsequent shrieking from the right 24 hours a day about the past with Hillary, what they already know about Hillary, the "master Hillary plan", it will make me and I know others vomit.

Why don't you just ask it? You know, what you really want to know.

"Whould you vote for a republican light administration?

Clark, Hell, even Gore would get my vote along with any other that is not currently playing the let's watch and see how bad it gets with the republicans before we open our yap and start standing for something.

Oh and I guess a "caretaker" administration would do the obligitory items as to get a "defense of marriage act" type legislation and other kind like it, and throw the usual suspects that vote Democratic to the wolves.

We have systemic problems in this country, and they require systemic changes.

Clinton style "triangulation" makes problems worse, rather than solving anything.

That doesn't need we need to move to the left of Karl Marx. But even a return to the liberalism of an FDR or even a Hubert Humphrey would be a step in a better direction. Or some Teddy Rossevelt "trust Busting" (without his obnoxious jingoism).

The key reality is that the US did not decline suddenly when GW came on the scene. We have gone in a radical direction to the right in the last 30 years, and we need something radical now, just to get back to a real center.

I would much prefer Hillary in the White House than the possibility of a Bush Trifecta via Jeb. If the Right Wing loons are out of power, who cares if they scream? We need to do the right thing, and while Hillary is an often mentioned name, it's not a given that she will be the nominee.

I wonder if we can win with a less than impassioned candidate. Mediocre may not do it. We need a FDR type, if we intend not to just sit by and watch the world go down the tubes, but that we intend to fix the problems.

We can't roll back the Bankruptcy Reform Act without a Passionate party and President. We can't fix the things the Repugniks are screwing up without a more than Meandering type of leader.

She's just too moderate for me... Voted for the war, and wants to send im more troops!... Sounds to me Regressive-lite.

I'd like to see someone like Conyers or Lee, but hey, this is America, and they're black liberals.... no way they'll win now.

So Gore is my choice, but that's right.... hes not running...

SO, we're fucked!

that many people are willing to contemplate.

Most concise observation. Look at the right wing today--they really believe what they say. Time to stop the centrists from destroying more than just our party.

is a mistake... time for democrats to go back and write a POPULIST agenda, (Health care for everyone... right to schools et al), Right now the DLC (which is one of the problems) is in charge, they get to decide who does what... so if we should have a daretaker gov'ment, at lest to me this is more of the same.

Look FDR comes to mind (and we might elect a caretaker government that does what is needed as FDR was not a man that carried precisely what he promised in the campaign....)

What is going on, and I have said this before, is the gilded age redux and both parties are corrupted to the core... we need a change in leadership and most importantly we need to go back to a populist message, the people are ready.

and our side is not going to get anywhere by simply polishing the brass on the GOP mansion.

"We won't rock the boat too much, and we'll be a bit nicer than the Republicans."

Bush is unpopular, but that doesn't necessarily translate into votes for the Democrats.

It may simply translate into "a plague on both their houses" and increased voter apathy.

So your question is moot.

Even if the Democrats do regain power with a vague, wimpy message, they will soon lose it again unless they can show some positive accomplishments that directly impact ordinary people's lives.

would have won all debates and presidency.

Gore should have treated bush like the idiot he is. He should have brought up bush's failures as a "military" man and as a "business" man as well as his drunken driving convictions and cocaine use -- every freakin' chance he had.

But he didn't.

Ah well.

I do agree with you that unless the Democrats offer something new, it'll translate into a "plague on both their houses" mentality.

Perhaps it's because I was already a liberal who was disenchanted with the Democratic Party in the 1990's, but I find the continuing tendency to avoid big issues and to zig and zag around the core questions to be very disturbing. I think if the Democrats limit themselves again to accounting and management issues and wedge social issues, we're in big trouble.

However, a lot of Democrats seem to want a replay of those "glory days" of Clintonism, and only see Bush as the problem. So they would be more than happy with a status quo approach, and aremore than willing to get back to the days of blissful ignorance of systemic problems.

Shortcoming of all pragmatic politics.

One of ther most infuriating thing about Democratic politicians in the Clinton mold was the phoniness of the message that everything was wonderful in the 1990's.

They WEREn'T wonderful, except by the Alan Greenspan slide rule. The erosion of the middle class and the consolidation of the economy and the ignoring of the poor and the shredding of the safety proceeded apace in the 1990's.

We need a new paradign to determine what is success, because what's happening now is just a lot of old chickens coming home to roost.

Didn't pass...OK, it was her fault.....Sad that President Clinton gave up so easily on that.

mentality that bothers me.

As one who remembers the optimism and can-do spirit of the late 1950s and 1960s, I find the limited vision of today's establishment Dems to be extremely disappointing.

Think of it--that era saw a major adjustment to the country's legal system (civil rights legislation), a real reduction in the poverty rate that probably would have continued if we hadn't gotten bogged down in Vietnam, advances in technology and medicine, massive federal aid for the study of science, technology, and foreign affairs; lots of artistic innovation, and just to top it off, a space travel program that seems wildly impossible today.

I think this country is in a big enough mess that it will require something more than just a mediocre "caretaker" to deal with it.

That doesn't mean that we won't end up with one. Just that if we do, we will continue to go downhill as a society with problems that will become more and more unmanageable.

I seem to recall that many Nader supporters argued vociferously against a centrist "caretaker" Gore administration. They argued that it would be better for the Democrats to lose the 2000 election so that a more liberal Democrat could get elected in 2004. That arguement was a load of crap back then, but enough dimwits in Florida (and New Hampshire) bought it to tip the election to Bush.

Besides, I take issue with the argument that centrists have fewer ideas and less vision than so-called liberals. John Kerry had one of the most liberal voting records in the U.S. Senate, but he was completely devoid of vision. Clinton, on the other hand, had plenty of ideas, just not necessarily ones that liberals agreed with.

There were a lot of people who reluctantly defended or supported Nader because they desperatly wanted the Democrats to get off the dime back then.

I didn't vote for Nader, but I did defend him a lot here back in the day of those flame wars because he grew out of the stifling nature of the 90's Democrats, who refused to deal qwith the problems that today are threatening to engulf us.

And it wasn't the Nader factor that cost Gore thre election. But I won;t resurrect that old ghost.

This late in the game, I don't care how good their platform is, if they can't run a winning campaign, they won't get my help.

Sorry, but that's one of the attitudes that got us into this mess.

Whatever the Democrats have been doing hasn't been working. Just thinking in terms of trying to "win" with no definition what that means is one of the reasons, IMO.

because they're not getting their message out. Voters don't understand what Dem candidates stand for, so having a great set of policy papers is meaningless these days.

Kerry wasn't chosen as the candidate because he was a good campaigner. He actually had very little campaign experience, coming from a traditionally Dem state. He was chosen by the news media and by Dem leaders who also don't know how to run and win a modern campaign.

Dems lose not because of their issues, but because their campaign and communication skills are poor. Still are, as evidenced by the lack of any kind of message from them to the voting pubic in the last two years.

They put out position papers on their websites full of timid, bureaucratic-sounding ideas, and when they get on the stump, they talk in vague generalities, as if they're afraid of offending anyone.

But the beginning of good communication is having something to communicate. The Dems need to have a huge summit, decide on about five or six issues that all of them will push nationwide (and I mean bold initiatives on real essential issues, like the loss of living-wage jobs or the health care crisis, not obscene lyrics in rap or $300 tax rebates).

Back in 1992 I didn't know much about Clinton, voted for Kerrey (Bob, I think) in a primary.

But soon I began to see how charismatic and able politically Bill Clinton was.

He could win, that was a huge plus that I saw in him.

Second as I learned more about him, I came to believe that his most deeply seated beliefs were like mine.

He went to JFK's grave before his first inauguration. There was that famous photo of him shaking hands with JFK when Clinton was younger.

I really expected a healthcare bill to pass.

I found that I had to tune out much of what was going on after a while, as it was too disturbing. All the stuff being hurled at the Clintons that continues to this day, and also the Lewinski stuff which I never wanted to hear about in the first place.

When people disparage the 1990's, I'm not exactly sure what their point is.

Is it that this neocon revolution was ongoing and building towards what we now have? If so who knew that at the time?

We'd had 12 years of Reagan and Bush Sr. I was so ready for a Democratic administration and for Clinton in particular.

Unfortunately there was a "vast right wing conspiracy" as Hillary said, and they were fighting and kicking and screaming all the way while Clinton was in office.

To say nothing of the personal scandal that the GOP politicized and used as a bogus basis for impeachment.

During Clinton's administration, terrorist attacks were disrupted.

Many of the problems that are now being blamed on Bush had their start in the 80's and 90's and were -- tragically -- ignored by Democrats. Once thge nation was placed on a more sound and optimistic footing, Clinton and the otehr Democratic leaders caved in and even echoed the positions of the corporate conservative GOP.

Consolidation of corporate power (including the media), widening gaps between the haves and have-nots, erosion of workers rights and security, knocking away the slats of the safety net, undermining of our nation's economy through outsourcing and "free slave" trade policies, etc.

Sure the right-wing GOP had a hand in it. But instead of combatting them with policies that would really make a difference, Clintonistas bought into the Alan Greenspan/Ayn Rand school of economic analysis and made America feel there was no otehr alternative avaialable.

If we choose to go down that road again, we may lose even if we win in 06 and 08.

progressives now have is significantly different than it was during Clinton's term and before?

Won't this make a difference, ie if anyone reasonable had any idea that we were headed where we now are I believe they would have acted.

And Clinton was under assault much of his 2 terms, and we'd lost ground in Congress in 1994.

I will agree that there is much to be learned from all of this, I'm just not so sure it could have happened much differently at the time, all things considered.

The progressive movement warned about all of the things that were on the horizon throughout the 1990's. But most "mainstream" Deocrats ignored and marginalized them.

That's one big reason so many are now so frustrated, and see the situation now as ther logical outcome of everything that was brushed ubder the carpet in the 1990's. Theyt felt like they were banging their heads against the wall for far longer than five years.

It was only until the protests in Seattle in 1999 that the dangers of the corporate "free trade" model of globalization were even glancingly referred to....Today we are bearibng the bitter fruit of that, with outsourcing and the loss of jobs and all the rest.

that it would come to this, they would have done something.

Are you talking about anyone well known politically who gave the warnings?

Anyhow, here we are now, most of us so much more aware of what is up with the neocons etc.

We're discussing a lot of issues lumped together in the abstract, which doesn't necessarily shed much light.

I think '08 is more about undoing the last 2 terms than it is about doing anything actually new. From '08 to '12 it's going to be trying to get back to where we were at the end of 2000. Even just holding steady would be an improvement, really. As long as we're not continuing to regress, it would be an improvement.

A President who won't keep messing up everything he touches and then ignoring the consequences and pretending nothing happened would be an improvement. Not ideal, no, but I'd at least be a little relieved, if not exactly ecstatic.

People can say that they won't accept a better administration (even if it's a caretaker one), but you'd really have to look at why. I can think of a few reasons they might, and some or all might apply to some or all of the people advocating political suicide.

1. The psychic benefits of being able to complain and be victimized outweigh the benefits of a competent administration.
2. The psychic benefits of being able to complain and act victimized on the Internet before the election outweighs the benefits of having the integrity to advocate what is better and what they will ultimately do in the voting booth.
3. Complaining is easier than actually getting involved in changing something.
4. They are unaffected by the difference between Republicans and Democrats (such as being so poor that you can't evacuate from a flood and drown) that they don't care.
5. They actively want to torture and kill people using a Republican administration as the instrument of that torture and killing for not lining up with their further-left agenda.

With Dem's and Rep's controlling the election process: access to debates, ballots, and discussion, I see no possibility of electing a third-party. The money is sewn up. Therefore, I have no choice but to take anything the Democrats throw out there.

...which came partially from the Republicans.

issues that will need addressing after the Bush Gang is gone from power for merely a caretaker administration from EITHER side.

I made a sign for the recent San Francisco march:

Which is the worst disaster:
Katrina or Bush?

Our country -- the world -- has been hit by a man-made disaster called George W. Bush and will need serious people who can come in and rebuild all that we have lost.

It is a time for vision, for daring, and for someone who truly puts service to the country over their own political ambitions.

And that just ain't gonna happen with a caretaker.

through the mess bush* created?

you are "dead on the money" with your observation that we are divided between those whose primary (no pun intended) focus is on winning elections versus those whose primary focus is on winning the hearts and minds of the American people on the issues ... one is based on campaigns and electoral politics; the other is based on movement politics ... if we fail to merge these two themes, we're all in big trouble ...

it all comes down to whether one believes that winning elections will result in "sufficient change" ... some faithfully obey every edict the Party issues ... they love phrases like "circular firing squad" rather than trying to incorporate the ideas of all Democrats ... they see criticism as "complaining" rather than as democracy in action ... they demand blind allegiance to the Party regardless of what legitimate criticisms or alternate views are proposed ...

the group I'm part of believes that Democrats, even if they win an election or two, will have no mandate to make the changes we need if they don't run on a strong vision ... we believe that our democracy is dying and that too much power has been centralized in the hands of an elite, wealthy, powerful few ... electing Democrats will do very little to change that unless the Democratic Party makes this an explicit, central theme of their campaign ...

i see the rift, and it's a very dangerous and very real rift, as being between those who demand a "unity of votes" as an end in itself and those who demand a "unity of ideas" before a "unity of votes" can be achieved ...

of course, your OP really did not go far enough in answering the "dead elephant" question ... the next step is, for those not supportive of a "caretaker" government, what do you plan to do about it if that's all the two major parties are offering in the 2008 presidential election?

and here there may well be a sandwich for every ant ... i will strongly support every progressive Democrat running for office as a first choice ... i will do all i can to influence more moderate Democrats to openly exchange ideas with me ... i will be willing to make compromises in some areas but not in others and hope the moderate wing of the Party will be as well ... i will seek a unified party if at all possible ... BUT, i will work hard for third party progressive candidates and will fight against any candidate, regardless of party, who refuses to be open to building a "unity of ideas" ... if this means i'm working against the Democrat in some races, even if the third party candidate has no chance of winning, that's the way it's going to be ...

if the Democratic Party shuts me out, i will not support them ... period ... for those whining about disloyal Democrats, you should be fighting for more democracy and representation in the Party instead of demanding unity, calling people names and questioning their motives ... electing Democrats should be a means to an end; NOT an end in itself ... until the Democratic Party is willing to sit down with each and every Democrat to discuss what those ends should be, we do not have a "unity of ideas" and we will not have a "unity of votes" ...

I can overlook disagreement on an issue or two.

What I can't overlook is constant kissing of Republican ass, consistently making lame excuses for voting for harmful legislation ("It was going to pass anyway." :puke: ), and constant dissing of the grassroots Dems because the Beltway consultants supposedly know better.

Do the Repubicans kiss Democratic ass? How often do they vote for Democratic initiatives? When do they publicly diss their grassroots supporters?

Which party is in control right now?

Everyone who has said that we need party unity is absolutely correct, but it infuriates me to hear those who think that we should all unify as a kinder, gentler Republican party or that the left should just sit down and shut up except when it's time to give money or door-knock for whichever inept candidates the establishment decides are "sure winners."

We need unity around an actual vision of what America could be.

We need politicians who believe in that vision with their whole hearts and project that sincerity in their public appearances.

We need politicians who know how to draw lines in the sand when dealing with Republicans.

We need politicians who can take complex ideas and communicate them in simple yet non-condescending terms.

We need politicians who don't get bogged down in trivialities like rap lyrics (cf. DLC proposals) but who go straight for the issues that are rotting this country from within: election fraud, the loss of living wage jobs, health care, the need to wean ourselves from oil, affordable housing, equalizing the quality of public schools, getting rid of laws and policies that hinder labor unions, tax burdens that fall more heavily on the poor and middle class...There's so much to talk about, and too few Democrats are talking about them.

by fillibustering the latest piece of shit SCOTUS nomination.

Just on principles. The repukes did it to Abe Fortas when he was nominated for Chief...

It would be a wonderful demonstration that that bastard bush has no power left!

As long as they don't worry about what they do because they know they can just pull out the "Karl Rove thanks you" meme, then we deserve what we get. They can only be as spineless as we are. Stand up. I'm no purist, but I can see that what is happening in the Democratic big-whig circles, doesn't work for me or my country.

good to hear from you ... i haven't seen you around for awhile ...

you know, what really kills me is the whole circular firing squad mentality ... i'm absolutely convinced many of them see ALL party critics as enemies ... it's really crazy ... they don't see the precious center, i.e. moderate republicans, as the enemy ... that group is to be catered to and courted ... but those of us who are Democrats "with the wrong attitudes" are not worth pursuing ... interesting way to build a party ...

the reality is they want to be able to take our votes for granted ... instead of crafting a political strategy to listen, learn, negotiate and try to reach common ground, they choose insults, not disagreements on policy but insults, that do nothing to bring about the unity we both seek ...

the Party is totally screwed up right now ... and it's more than just about the war although that's a major issue ... the Party's left wing does not believe they are being heard or represented ... the "big tent" needs to hear that message ... they ignore it at their own peril ... it's not about yielding to the left or the left "demanding perfection" or any of the other drivel that is spewed as political analysis around here ... it's all about democracy ...

i, for one, am sick and tired of the top-down elitism that seems to be the way the Democratic Party does business ... i want to participate in shaping the process ... i want the Party to listen to its membership ... i want to see the views of all Democrats finding representation in the House and the Senate ... and i want to see a real process of reform that restores some democracy to how the Party does business ...

i just don't see it happening ...

over, or at least dwindling down, and the issue won't make a difference. Because other than on the issue of war, I agree with a majority of what Hillary (and Bill) Clinton says. And to call them "republican lite" is bullshit in my opinion, because that would make ME republican lite, something I most DEFINITELY am not.

Besides, it's politically dumb for us to alienated the Clinton administration, which gave us the best economic record in our nation's history.