In your opinion, what Democrat best embodies what a Dem should be?

...Past or present. And why?

Why don't their political failings qualify them for scorn on DU?

In the current DU environment where it is constantly debated who or what a "real" Democrat is, I'm curious who is thought of as being a "real" Democrat - past or present.

And why?

And why don't their political failings qualify them for scorn on DU?

Alternate title for thread: Set them up so someone else can knock them down.

Past: Franklin Roosevelt
Present: Barbara Boxer (she first came to my mind)

She speaks her mind and takes no prisoners. Boxer is the BEST!

and some people may knock me for saying this, but if he had looked more like John Edwards, he might have done a little better.

added on edit -
too hard to do past, time has a way of altering our perceptions

BTW -
I still don't think Kucinich would have stood or will ever stand a snowball's chance in Barbados of winning a general election.

Overcame personal obstacles through courage and perserverence. He's a consensus builder, committed to causes like racial justice and opportunity.

Past, I'd say Harry Truman.

Truman was once introduced to an elderly lady who told him she'd been 50 years old before she even met a Republican. "Didn't miss much, did you?" said Harry.

A brilliant politician and man.

I think history is going to rank him among the best in history...especially given the pinheads on either side of him...

That would probably be legal, right?

I believe that you have to be able to hold the office of president for a full term and Bill can only sit for 2 more years that would not, possibly, allow him time to complete a term if something happened before that time

The majority of the CBC, Lloyd Doggett, Wexler. Not all of them but a start.

mentally ill. See Rosalyn Carter's First Lady From Plains on how she worked with Kennedy for 4 years on The Mental Health Care Systems Act and managed to get it financed for a year that Reagan/Bush could not steal but after a year they violated this law.

Clinton made draconian cuts in welfare, the Okla. Bombings are as suspicious as 911, see Officer Teakey or Yeaky, several articles online, the murders at Waco Tx and Ruby Ridge to make the American people feel powerless.

Look up the Clinton Murders esp. the drug airbase at Mena, Arkansas and the murder of two teenagers who stumbled on it and the torture murders of those who investigated these deaths and the drug trafficking.

Most of the Clinton murders, except those involving women he wanted and or their boyfriends and husbands also were of benefit to bush, Senior - see the Promis software murders and it is more significant that Clinton placed Monica as a spy in the Pentagon when Flag Officers were going to arrest Clinton for treason because of giving military secrets to the Chinese.

See Skull and Bones: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know But Were Afraid to Ask on severals sites. Clinton, like Kerry and both bushes are not only Bonesmen but also members of Bilderberg as is Senator Dodd.

By the way, Kennedy helped Reagan win in 1980.

On your Clinton "points" - here's a good read for you:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312245475/qid=1133705672/sr=8-3/ref=pd_bbs_3/104-0281717-7573501?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

My all time favorite of the "Clinton murders" was "L.J. Davis, investigative reporter who was going to spill the beans"...who not only isn't dead, but admits he had been so depressed by the experience of going to Arkansas and listening to ignorant bigots lie about Bill Clinton that he went back to the hotel bar, got drunk, then fell down in his room and bumped his head.

as Waco, NAFTA, draconian cuts in welfare and healthcare. I remember Clinton's mask dropping and sneering after the horrific houlocost at Waco "I'm sorry those people killed their children."

Hilary had several years to try to come up with another or a tweaked national healthcare plan but she did nothing. Why? Because the Bilderberg wanted and are still trying to make the US a third world country.

Think about what Kerry did on election night, he shut down his blog though there were desparate people like myself stunned by what was happening with the exit polls at 3am with a message that the moderators were tired, aside from a 45 minutes when despairing people were begging Kerry not to shut his blog down again and not to erase his months long blog, that he would be as bad as bush if he did, Kerry erased his months long blog and the comments from "election night" I saved some of them and have a site http://presidentkerrydeceptions.blogspot.com/ quoting some of the desparate comments and Kerry also removed anything critical of Bush that morning even before he conceded BEFORE the provisional and absentee ballots were even counted.

Why did Kerry do that?

I also have the article from the Village Voice which I guess you could call left-wing on my site dated Feb. 2004 when their was still time at the convention to elect a real Democratic candidate giving evidence that Kerry had his staff shred evidence that there were over a thousand POWs left in Vietnam. When a lawyer on his staff objected, Kerry said it wasn't hurting anyone, his staffer said it was hurting the POWs and their families.

Bush Senior wanted to use the funds for looking for POWs for drug trafficking and Ross Perot who was in charge has gone on record as saying he was threatened by bush, sr. when he tried to do his job both in the Skull and Bones article I mentioned and in a book called KISS THE BOYS GOOD-BYE by a journalist who was sick of the drug war fraud and quit a prestigious newspaper to write the story.

Why don't you address issues, many of which went on in plain sight, raised rather than insults like a FReeper?

Anyone who trusts Clinton and Kerry with all the information available is a bad as a Bushbot.
Another good site is http://www.StopTheLie.com about the PNAC and the left/right paradigm no longer holds.

Someone just commented on BlairWatch that Jack Straw is as bad as one of the Democrats being investigated in the Abramoff scandal is on the investigative subcommittee. Don't call me a right winger!

Prove these "facts" from your previous post"

* Okla. Bombings are as suspicious as 911

* the murders at Waco Tx and Ruby Ridge to make the American people feel powerless.

* Clinton Murders esp. the drug airbase at Mena, Arkansas and the murder of two teenagers who stumbled on it and the torture murders of those who investigated these deaths and the drug trafficking.

* Most of the Clinton murders, except those involving women he wanted and or their boyfriends and husbands also were of benefit to bush, Senior - see the Promis software murders and it is more significant that Clinton placed Monica as a spy in the Pentagon when Flag Officers were going to arrest Clinton for treason because of giving military secrets to the Chinese.


THEN we'll discuss NAFTA and the Democratic plan, first mentioned by FDR, then JFK, of welfare cuts.

"I also have the article from the Village Voice which I guess you could call left-wing"
You guess? Really?

"Kerry had his staff shred evidence that there were over a thousand POWs left in Vietnam"
Put some more tin foil in your hat. Those mind rays are seeping through.

"Don't call me a right winger!"
Right winger would be mighty kind, given the evidence.

Look up who owns it.

The POW/MIA story was discredited years ago. The entire investigation was started because of bogus picture that was placed on the cover of Newsweek purportedly showing US soldiers held captive 20 years after the war. There were unscupulous people who were taking money to "find and rescue" these soldiers. The story was Nixon abandonded them. Kerry agreed to head this no-win investigation and asked every Senate Vietnam vet to be on the committee. (they were)

They went through mounds of Nixon era documents and questioned Kissinger and other officials. Nixon himself had to respond to written questions - which infuriated him - both because he was asked at all and because it was Kerry asking. Some of the discrepancy in the number they listed as POW/MIA and those that returned reflected deaths the US didn't know of for sure.

Kerry, using his reputation and the promise that it could lead to normization of relations, was able to get a very high level of co-operation from the Vietnamese. They were able to go anywhere to visit with no prior notice and were even able to search catacombs near where Ho-Chi Ming was buried. The Vietnamese lost over 3 million people in the war, so asking them to find bodies of US soldiers who died 20 years before was a tricky task.

Over the last decade the remains of many Americans were returned, thanks mainly to John Kerry. For many families, this brought a measure of comfort. In Dec 2003, Howard Dean's family was able to bury his brother who was killed in the 70s. (Kerry to his credit didn't mention his involvement in making this happen for the Deans and other families, nor did Dean.)

Of the Senators on the committee, Senator Smith (NH) was the one who most believed the stories at the start. He was the ranking member on the comittee and Kerry let him have half the staff. Kerry with Smith investigated every lead they had. Smith, a very right wing Republican endorsed Kerry for President - while saying they almost never voted the same way because of Kerry's good characture and because he thought a Republican congress would keep him from doing much. The endorsemant was described on the Kerry blog as probably the least expected Kerry endorsement. (included for completeness: Smith lost a primary to a Bush supported opponent a few years earlier.)

The Kerry blog was saved and will be archived for history per some of its moderators. I think it had to end with the campaign for legal reasons. As to removing comments negative to Bush - I doubt Kerry on the morning of the Nov 3 was sitting editting a blog that was going to be taken down. I know from reading it, that as a blog for 2 sitting Senators, the moderators insured a level of decorum was maintained.

Seems like a lot of people on this forum hold to the contention that making challenges to incumbents and frontrunners of our party is destructive and disloyal, and that 'naysayers' about particular Democratic office-holders and front-runners must be kicked to the curb, while we all stick to shows of uncritical support (for, say, Lieberman and Hillary Clinton). I don't agree. I think it depends on circumstances.

You can make a good argument that Kennedy's challenge in the 1980 primaries weakened Carter in his contest with Reagan. But another reasonable argument would be that Carter showed his strength, at a juncture when many people doubted him, by defeating what up until then had been considered the strongest possible challenger among Democrats.

Beyond that, the reason Kennedy challenged Carter is because many Democrats, as well as swing voters, were very dissatisfied with Carter's performance as president. That dissatisfaction among swing voters was, I believe, the main factor in Carter's defeat, along with the big media's bias in favor of Reagan. Marching-in-lockstep on the part of Democrats would not necessarily have produced a victory in 1980.

Also, consider how Reagan got into the position to run for president himself in 1980 and gain the nomination. He challenged incumbent Gerald Ford in 1976, and very nearly won the nomination away from him. Ford lost to Carter, but Reagan came back in four years as the nominee and beat Carter. So Reaganite Republicans would be unlikely to maintain today that Reagan's challenge to Ford in 1976 had been the wrong thing to do -- challenging an incumbent from their own party, in a contest in which that incumbent eventually lost.

So is it wrong for Democrats but not Republicans?

In 1984, Walter Mondale, as the former vice president, was a clear frontrunner for the nomination and favorite of the party leadership. But Gary Hart proved to be a strong challenger. Mondale prevailed in the end, and lost the election. So did Hart cost him the election? Or should Mondale have gotten out of Hart's way? Or, looking into a crystal ball, should they both have demanded that Bill Clinton be nominated?

Finally, consider another Kennedy's challenge to an incumbent for the presidency: Robert Kennedy's in 1968 to LBJ, and then the chosen heir VP Hubert Humphrey. Should Kennedy (and McCarthy) have stayed out of the race, and should Democrats have all refrained from criticizing their Democratic incumbent on Vietnam and supported "staying the course"?

I would argue this: on election day in 1968, disaffected, pissed-off anti-war Democrats all should have gone out and voted for Humphrey anyway. But primary challenges and criticism within party ranks are a valid and necessary part of the process.

... is this.

In 1980, Kennedy brought his "fight" to the convention floor after it was already a forgone conclusion that Carter would recieve the nomination. Kennedy did not pull out until that second night at New York. He refused to hold Carter’s hand in the air, much as Carter tried, and the result was that on all networks you saw this image of Carter almost chasing Kennedy around the podium trying to get him to hold up his arm, and Kennedy politely shaking hands and trying to leave.

Meanwhile, Kennedy's supporters started a "go home boweevils" campaign at the convention (boweevils being southern Democrats.) All of this got national media coverage, giving the impression that the Democratic party was not unified and not organized.

Of course there is nothing wrong to challenges to incumbents and frontrunners. But there comes a time when challengers (and incumbents) must concede. Kennedy and his supporters didn't know when that time had arrived.

out what was really happening on the podium.

It doesn't seem like you read much. If you remember the Carter podium incident then you don't have the excuse of being 18 years old for your profound lack of depth of knowledge.

...Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Curious as to why you're avoiding posting sources/links to your "information."

I have read that book, by the way. Does nothing to dispell the first hand accounts I've given.

Tell me which pages dispute anything wyldwolf has posted about the 1980 convention?

No, "boll weevils" meant rightwing Southern Democrats who did not follow the exodus of defection begun by Strom Thurmond to the Republican Party, but still tended to cross-over and vote with the Republicans. This term particularly became familiar during the Reagan era, though it may have also been used during the Nixon era.

Jimmy Carter was not by definition a left-liberal Democrat, but he was by no means a "boll weevil." I frankly don't remember the "go home, boll weevils!" chant you say took place at the convention in 1980, or the incident on the podium between Kennedy and Carter, though I watched the convention coverage on TV at the time. IMO, if these incidents took place, they did not have the impact you suggest. Kennedy gave up his bid and endorsed Carter in his speech on the 2nd night of the convention. Though Kennedy's 1980 campaign had been very flawed and hurt his standing with many, that convention speech is remembered as one of his best.

It's only a "foregone conclusion" that a nomination is secured when a candidate definitely has enough delegates to win the nomination. That was not the case on the opening night of the 1980 Democratic Convention. That's why there was deep division.

It also was not the case with the 1976 Republican Convention, though there was a strong likelihood that Ford would win. Even so, Reagan maneuvered to sway delegates by naming a vice-presidential pick without having been nominated (a misstep, because his pick was a moderate Republican and that appalled his hardcore supporters). But, again: Reagan came back and won the nomination and the presidency in 1980, and his admirers surely aren't sorry that he ran in '76.

As for Carter, it's worth remembering that, as governor of Georgia, he led the quixotic 'Stop McGovern' movement at the 1972 Democratic Convention. In fact, that was probably one of the first instances in which he drew significant national attention.

No, "boll weevils" meant rightwing Southern Democrats who did not follow the exodus of defection begun by Strom Thurmond to the Republican Party, but still tended to cross-over and vote with the Republicans.

Boll weevils was a American political term used in the mid- and late-20th century to describe conservative Southern Democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boll_weevil_%28politics%29

It think it's really a matter of semantics to take issue with me leaving the term "conservative" out of my definition being that the term "boll weevil" was applied to the southern wing of the party - the wing which helped elect Carter in '76.

Nevertheless, the incidents I describe did, indeed, happen.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Reagan’s speech that evening really set the stage for him to come back and win the new Republican nomination overwhelmingly four years later. Nominees like to use that closing night as a tableau to show that all of their opponents have fallen in line and decided to support the nominee--perhaps none more so than Jimmy Carter renominated for President in New York in 1980. He had been given a big run for his money by Ted Kennedy, in the spring of 1980; Kennedy brought his fight to the convention, did not pull out until that second night at New York. And so the result was that there were a lot of Kennedy delegates on the floor, support Carter wanted for the fall. He wanted that picture on closing night after his speech of himself holding up Kennedy’s hand in the air. Kennedy had pulled out, but he was not very happy with Carter and not very enthusiastic about supporting him. He did come to the hall. He did come up on the podium, but he refused to hold Carter’s hand in the air, much as Carter tried, and the result was that on all networks you saw this image of Carter almost chasing Kennedy around the podium trying to get him to hold up his arm, and Kennedy politely shaking hands and trying to leave.

LEAH CLAPMAN: Did Carter catch him?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: He did not catch him, and the result was there was a dramatic display of Democratic disunity that caused a lot of Kennedy supporters to sit on their hands that fall.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/convention96/retro/beschloss_speeches.html

The "boll weevils" incident has been described to me by two party delegates from the convention. (one immediately after, the other more recently who is actually writing a book on the 1980 Democratic convention)

It was a forgone conclusion that by the convention that Carter would be the nominee. He won most of the primaries and had the delegates. Kennedy tried to get the DNC to change a rule that he thought would garner him some of the delegates Carter had but didn't succeed. The rule Kennedy wanted changed was one binding delegates to vote on the first ballot for the candidate they originally were elected to support. (This was a defeat for Sen. Edward Kennedy, who was hoping to convince Carter delegates to abandon the president on the first ballot.)

No, it's not a matter of semantics.

If you look further at the Wikipedia entry, it explains that the term "boll weevil" meant different things at different times: during FDR's tenure, it meant Southern Democrats who supported New Deal policies but "were opposed to desegregation and the civil rights movement" (in fact, there were no such strong efforts in that era -- what these politicians supported was a continuation of the harshest Jim Crow measures, and they often even opposed legal prosecutions of lynchings). We might deplore their racial views today (I do), but these guys were definitely not 'conservatives.' Some of the strongest voices of 'progressivism,' in the sense of creating government programs and projects for the common good, and making interventions upon business dealings, came from Southern Democrats of that era.

By the 1980's, "boll weevil" came to be a familiar term to definitely mean 'Southern Democrat allies of the Reagan administration' and nothing else -- a very different definition, because Southern politics had changed a great deal. The Democrats who still held to segregationist views had well begun their exodus to the Republican Party, and many had put away the segregationist program and rhetoric in favor of coded racebaiting. The Wikipedia piece you cite skips over the period in-between as to the use of the word. As I say, it may have been used during Nixon's tenure to mean Southern Democrat allies of Nixon's, but I don't recall that.

Those later "boll weevils" were not progressives at all. They were 'conservatives' in the Republican sense of being shills for big business interests and the very wealthy.

Jimmy Carter was not a "boll weevil" in any sense by the time he ran for president (and so far as I know never had been). Instead, he tried to combine (without using the term, I don't think) a 'cultural conservatism' with mostly traditional Democratic policies and fully tolerant racial views. This was, I think, intended to stand in contrast to the image of the 'McGovernites' promoted by the media in '72 as exemplifying 'countercultural' values (though Carter buddied up with some notable 'Southern rock' stars during the campaign, and quoted Bob Dylan lyrics and all that). Carter most definitely was not running on a program of promoting a Republican-style 'conservative' agenda, and though he certainly garnered a lot of regional Southern support, "boll weevils" in any sense were not the catalysts to his victory. In fact, his strongest opponent was probably Mo Udall, whose political positions were, as I recall, extremely close to Carter's own.

Meanwhile, the furthest-left contender in that contest in '76 was Fred Harris of Oklahoma, by no means a 'countercultural' figure.

Again -- it was NOT a foregone conclusion that Carter would gain the nomination that first night in '76, though Kennedy's chances were pretty bleak. It had been a bitterly close contest, and Carter's popularity had taken a bad hit. The prospect of rule changes are as much a part of the process as anything else. Do you think Kennedy would have made that pitch if there wasn't a prospect of a lot of delegates changing their votes at that point? I DO remember a sign somebody was holding at the convention, which I saw on TV. It said "WIN WITH TED OR LOSE WITH CARTER."

Carter's loss to Reagan in the general election is usually said to be about the defection of 'REAGAN DEMOCRATS' to the Republican side. Now, those middle-class Democrats who didn't like Carter's performance as president and voted for Reagan: were they disappointed hardcore Ted Kennedy supporters, you think? No, of course they weren't. Their defection didn't come about because of Kennedy's challenge at all.

There was a former-Republican third party candidate, John Anderson, whom some Democrats were foolish enough to vote for, but though he was one more bad factor, I don't think he threw the election to Reagan. I think the swing voters didn't think Carter was doing a good job, were unhappy about the gasoline shortage and energy crisis, and fell for the media propagandizing about Reagan and the drumbeating over the hostages in Tehran.

As for Michael Beschloss, I'm sorry, but he's a guy who provides spin on corporate-media hot air shows in the guise of being a historian. His spin here on the supposed 'podium incident,' IMO, belongs with the bit about Clinton 'pretending to cry' at Ron Brown's funeral. I never heard ANYBODY refer to any 'podium incident' at the 1980 convention as a reason they didn't vote for Carter, period.

But southern democrats who had been steadily giving more support to Republican candidates for president did back Carter.

We can discuss what might have been and what could have happened but the fact remains that going into the convention, Carter had the delegates to win and, barring a rules change, he was a sure thing.

As for Michael Beschloss, I'm sorry you don't like him as a source and have to pull out the "spin on corporate media" card. Unlike you, I've heard the incident I refer to from people who were there.

In the first place, your claim that Carter gained support in '76 from Southern Democrats who'd "steadily given more support to Republicans" requires some explanation. Why did those people support Carter, besides for the fact that he was a Southerner with a good shot at winning a major party nomination and the presidency?

If they'd previously supported Republicans on the basis of their so-called 'pro-business' and anti-'big government' ideology, they must have overlooked the fact that Carter most certainly was NOT a Republican-style conservative (i.e., the type of sellout corporatist shill which the DLC tries to promote today as a fine model for Democrats).

Another factor that brought support for Republicans from Southern Democrats was, of course, the Republicans' post-1965 'Southern Strategy,' which fundamentally sought to exploit anti-black racism and resentment of the gains made by the Civil Rights Movement (initially in the South, though this turned out to be a wonderful success nationwide). Southern Democrat voters who responded positively to that strategy certainly wouldn't have voted for the anti-racist Carter on that score.

In any case, my point in bringing up the distinction between the two definitions of "boll weevils," i.e., Southern Democrats who supported progressive policies but also Jim Crow, versus the later Republican-style 'conservative' Southern Democrats, is that it amounts to an early, regionally-defined instance of a shift which much of the nation overall has now made -- IMO, under the sway of intense media propaganda over the last two generations, which has been aimed at getting people confused about where their real interests lie, and instilling distrust and resentment of government in them.

I think it was that shift, promoted heavily through propaganda peddled by the corporate news media, that swept away the Carter presidency, rather than any mischief on the part of liberal Democrats who supported Kennedy in 1980. Again: if swing voters were so turned off by liberals like Kennedy and his supporters, but liked what Carter had to offer, they would have responded positively to any anti-Carter spectacle put on by Democrat liberals. In truth, those voters bought into propaganda which depicted Carter himself as a 'liberal' in pejorative terms.

This is why it's important to point out the likes of Michael Beschloss for what he is, the corporate media for what it is, and the DLC and their ilk for what they are, if we wish to defend a traditional Democratic agenda, represented by a wide spectrum of Democratic politicians which includes both Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter.

As for the alleged 'boll weevils go home' and 'podium snub' incidents, I say again: find me a whole bunch of voters who were swayed by those, if they'd even heard about them, in 1980.

In the first place, your claim that Carter gained support in '76 from Southern Democrats who'd "steadily given more support to Republicans" requires some explanation.

Why does it require "some explanation" other than the fact it is a fact? And it really isn't that difficult to see. Johnson won by a a landslide in 1964. In 1968, Nixon won a very close race yet the GOP didn't make inroads into the Congress, indicating that some Democrats who voted for Johnson in '64 voted for Nixon in '68. 1972 was even more dramatic, with Nixon winning in a landslide yet, again, the GOP did not receive corollary victories in the Congressional Elections. Democrats had retained power of the Congress. This fact reflects massive split ticket voting.

Then we come to 1976 - Carter's electoral sweep of the southern states was the first time a Democrat had swept the South since 1956. The south had steadily voted more and more for Republican presidential candidates (or Republican-like candidates like George Wallace) since 1960. And the trend began again in 1980 when Reagan garnered the vote of so-called Reagan Democrats.

As for the alleged 'boll weevils go home' and 'podium snub' incidents, I say again: find me a whole bunch of voters who were swayed by those, if they'd even heard about them, in 1980.

What difference does it make if they were swayed by those at that point? And I never said those incidents alone swayed voters. Many former Democratic voters had already abandoned us. Those two incidents were just symptoms of a more serious problem within the party in 1980 - an impression that the Democrats were not unified and not organized and largely ineffective. However, national media coverage of the event at the podium had disasterous results, along with other incidents.

I also feel it is a odd request to ask me to march out a bunch of voters who were swayed and have heard of those incidents. Do you want them to post here? You want a list of names? I can tell you this - many in my local party remember it. Two were there for it and have given me first person accounts.

... foreign policy failures proved the last straw for neoconservatives and many national security voters, convincing them that the Democratic Party was simply too weak and compromised to defend effectively the nation and helping to drive them to the Republicans... By 1980, many liberals were in open revolt against Carter, abandoning him to support Ted Kennedy's ultimately-doomed primary challenge even as the public was sending unmistakable signals that it was sick of Kennedy-style big government. The number of Americans who agreed with the statement that "the best government is one which governs least" had risen from 32 percent in 1973 to 59 percent in 1981, and liberal positions on crime and welfare were similarly unpopular.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.wallace-wells.html

This is why it's important to point out the likes of Michael Beschloss for what he is, the corporate media for what it is, and the DLC and their ilk for what they are, if we wish to defend a traditional Democratic agenda, represented by a wide spectrum of Democratic politicians which includes both Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter.

What does any of this have to do with the discussion? Other than the fact that you have discounted a source simply because you don't like what the source said. I've yet to see you source your statement that Michael Beschloss is "a guy who provides spin on corporate-media hot air shows in the guise of being a historian." It's really easy to discount a source if you don't like what they've said.

And we could go on forever about the DLC - an organization I largely support.

John Anderson, a Rockford, Illinois Congressman, who was a moderate Republican also ran. I knew MANY liberal Democrats who voted for him rather than Carter.

and Henry Wallace to mention a couple whom I really liked.

(tainted of course) from prisoner in Arkansas and else where and was selling it to Canada for big bucks. And the poor folks in Canada was getting HIV and dying.

that make damn sure we don't have a free press any longer. Michael is the son of Colin Powell for those who think Powell is not corrupt even after the information on how he covered up Mai Lai.

Neil Bush was in China giving away our jobs while Clinton was president. Neil had been banned from banking for life after he got away with stealing $1 billion from the American people in the Silverado Savings and Loan scandal.

Clinton was responsible for NAFTA or CAFTA, giving away American jobs.

This is just scratching the surface of how Clinton played his part in the Bilderberg/Illuminati plan to destroy America and don't believe everything you read about the reason why our military is in Bosnia.

There is some really disturbing info on Kucinich if one wants to believe it... again... if one wants to believe it...

But back to one part of my original question - why doesn't Kucinich's political failings qualify him for scorn on DU?

But Dennis couldn't even get 10% among his fellow Ohionians (or whatever they call themselves there in the Buckeye state)....

You did get "Buckeye state" right.

No, Kucinich didn't gain a lot of support in '04, and the fact that Ohio's primary didn't take place until late in the schedule when Kerry was surging didn't help him there (he got 9%, mostly in the Cleveland area, the only part of the state where he's extremely well-known). He may have set the groundwork with that campaign for raising for profile in national poltics, however, and making candidates with views similar to his own more viable in the future. Remember Barry Goldwater getting trounced in '64?

Beyond that, it's not true at all that "favorite sons" who don't win their home states must be dogs. In 2000, Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee in the general election, despite having won the popular vote nationwide (as well the actual election, if it hadn't been for the fraud in Florida).

the news media including a long article in Newsweek and I don't think the press was lying. In 2000, I learned that ERs do not even set broken bones, even for children. Kennedy has talked about emergency rooms being strained to bursting point, just after Clinton left office.

I know very little about Dennis Kuchinich but since there is still no avatar for Kennedy and I admired his recent outrage over the Republican trick against Rep. Murtha and our soldiers and their families. I have watched very little TV in the past few years but I remember how the Democrats handed the nomination to Kerry telling their delegates to nominate Kerry and the only ones who didn't were the Kuchinich delegates and I admired the way Dennis handled it saying he had told his delegates to vote for Kerry but gave a nice compliment to the people who had worked so hard for him.

I also remember Kerry's "Every vote will be counted" and the theme of "No Surrender" to discouraged any bush/bilderberg opposition when kerry surrendered before the votes were even counted and disappeared for several months. A New Zealander newspaper The Scoop, quoted the LA Times of a sighting of Kerry one month or so after the "election" when kerry was still hiding out from the newsmedia and his supporters at one of Arnold's parties yukking it up with Dennis Miller and the NZ paper said after Kerry had left his "distraught and much poorer supporters wondering what had happened to him."

Kerry gave a great "Anybody But Bush" scare email campaign a few days before the "election" from people who are not rich that netted him $50 million which he kept. This is separate from the money which he raised during the campaign and said he gave all of it to the Democratic Party but it turned out later from several liberal site that Kerry kept the $50 million from the last minute fundraising.

Kerry's dive also made getting BFEE getting away with the atrocities at Fallujah easier. And I was outside the Senate to show support at David Lytell's (Re-Defeat Bush) rally to support Senators who refused to accept the nomination of Bush on January 6, 2005 when Kerry was in the Middle East looking at their elections instead of his own and along with others at the rally cried when we heard that only Barbara Boxer had the courage to stand up and refuse to vote for this fraudulent election.

Keith Olberman had some choice words about Kerry and his attorney after they had played cat and mouse with Keith and Kerry's supporters for several months and stated he was not going to announce anything more from the Kerry camp and compared it to F. Scott Fitzgerald's in the Great Gatsby writing of Nick's shock at sitting across from someone who had fixed the World's Series in the early 1900 and that scene had been running through my mind even before Olbermann mentioned it.

I don't believe any rumors or anything that is written if it does not fit with logic or what I know already. As many people have said the Internet is giving people a place to put puzzle pieces together and Democrats who are criminals and who have betrayed the trust of the American people and it looks like there are certainly some in the Abramoff investigations should go to prison as well.

There are some very, very corrupt and enabling Democrats which is what has made the bush atrocities possible.

I don't believe any rumors or anything that is written if it does not fit with logic or what I know already.

But how do you already know it?

I mean, how do you know Clinton was in Skull and Bones, for example, considering one must be in Yale to be Skull and Bones and Clinton wasn't.

the name of on-line articles, names and a book, Kiss The Boys Good-Bye which has book reviews online.

And ask yourself why Kerry did not mention that he was Chairman in the first part of Iran-Contra but was taken off because he was covering up or shedding information as a favor to Bush, Sr. It was before Kerry was married and he was having financial problems.

You would think Kerry would be proud of convicting Bush, Sr. cronies who are now in Bush, Jr. cabinet like Negropointe and Poindexter (Cheney was Bush, Sr.'s Defense Secretary with no experience).

As you know Bush pardoned the perpetrators of Iran-Contra so the only reason why Kerry would not mention his Chairmanship during the campaign was to avoid questions into why he was taken off the second half of the investigation and prompt inquiries into his Bonesman bloodbrother, Bush, Sr's pardons.

You might look up Clinton's pardons while you are at it and maybe try to find a way to prevent Presidential pardon's as being a get out of jail free card for our very corrupt presidents of the past two decades who were chosen by Bilderberg.

Rep. Conyers has a page in his action center to try to prevent bush, jr. from pardoning his co-conspirators.

<a href="http://www.johnconyers.com/">Conyer's Action Items</a>

<a href="http://www.conyersblog.us/">Conyer's Blog</a>

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

Doesn't say he went to Yale. Doesn't say he was Skull and Bones.

in this thread, for instance.

Do yourself a favor and tape over your copy of Jerry Falweel's "Clinton Chronicles" video. Your mental health will improve immeasurably.

CLinton was hounded because of a CONSENTUAL SEXUAL EPISODE. You think if he'd killed someone we wouldn't have heard about it?

Just like the Kerry campaign, the Monica incident was to draw attention from the fact that Clinton was cutting welfare, healthcare, allowing his appointee to FCC, Michael Powell to allow monopoly ownership of the press and that Clinton was not a Democrat and was in deep with the bush side of the CIA.

These issues are as complex as understanding the voter fraud which you needed to follow on the Green Party Recount site and listen to Rep. Conyer's ad-hoc hearings or read the transcripts on Democracy Now to understand how deep the voter fraud went.

If you are not even aware that Clinton went to Yale then facts mean nothing to you and it is a waste of time. There is real work to be done. Why don't you do something useful to try to stop the many on-going atrocities and suffering. http://www.CagePrisoners.com has many things you can do to help the torture victims.

I just sent a personal message using the easy one click form below to
the President, I hope you will join me!

http://johnconyers.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B8736AFE-46F8-4994-81E7-7ECB674DE91D}

TELL THE PRESIDENT: NO MORE PARDONS FOR TRAITOR-GATE CRIMINALS

i do think it's clear that most of the covert/criminal shit that's been going on for decades, simply continued under Clinton. Not to excuse Clinton, but it is questionable what influence a (any) president has on those matter (assuming he'd be willing to do something about it in the first place), being surrounded by 'experts' and 'advisers' that have been there since forever.

If Clinton is responsible for political murders that too place during his presidency, then most if not all presidents are responsible for a lot of such murders as well.

Past - Harry Truman because he was "one of us" and fought for the little guy against greater economic interests.

Present - John Murtha because he had the guts to stand up and demand that the War end, when almost all other Democrats were too scared - or too bought off - to speak out.

See this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2289606

i wish i lived in his district.

JOHN CONYERS,KENDRICK MEEKS, RAMSEY CLARK,

these people stand up for truth. they stand up for the people's voice in government. they believe in the Constitution of the United States and they don't let any wool be pulled over their eyes.

in other words, they just don't bullshit around!

Came up through the ranks as a pawn of a political machine, yet shone as a senator during WWII - his biggest concern was to make sure that troops got the proper food and arms that the taxpayer had paid for. His committee investigating corporate corruption probably saved more American lives than any other event in WWII.

Despite being kept in the dark about many issues in government, including the top secret nuke program, after FDR's death, he grabbed the reins of power with honesty, integrity and in a manner that gave the US confidence at a very delicate and dangerous time in the war. He saw through the two front war, winning both of them.

His bravery in office was marked by several difficult decisions - the use of two nuclear weapons in Japan, his removal of McArthur from Korea, his orders about segregation in the military, and many more examples.

A common man, sometimes called the accidental president, nevertheless, a man who rose to the task, did not shirk his duties and did not run away from a problem.

A fine president, a better democrat and the best example of what strange fortunes and internal convictions can bring at a time of need.

and full of many interesting details.

You might recall that Truman was given no chance of winning in 1948, and that the Chicago Daily Tribune was so certain of the election outcome that they went to press early, with somewhat hilarious results....

When Republicans snap the ridiculous line that Democrats of yester year were more like Republicans of today, throw that one at them.

Al in all, a good man and a good President.

a great researcher and better writer, I suspect that he gets so close to the subject that he begins to admire the subject, no matter who it is. Yet, that being said, he never appears to be blinded by the good to the exclusion of errrors, crimes or anyting in between.

All in all, we are lucky to have a biographer of his caliber.

I finished it this summer--excellent!

Enjoy!

Imagine . . .

and many of the Democrats mentioned above ... and i would be remiss if i also didn't mention John Conyers who did all he could during the darkest days while other Democrats hid in the corners ...

the implications of the OP are incorrect ... it implies that DU will "knock down" every Democrat ... that scorn is reserved primarily for those who are acting under "pale colors and timid voices"

Clinton was such a centrist as to effectivley be a republican and his indiscretions cost us the White House and now, most likely, the Supreme Court. His wife is to the right of him, a shameless opportunist who will be eviscerated by true democratic wing of the democratic party in the primaries and, if not, will be sliced and diced by the GOP in the General election. Then we will have 8 more years of hell. Clintons go away. And take John Kerry with you, capitulating bastard....

I would not support him, otherwise.

Honorable mention, past and present: Mario Cuomo, Barbara Boxer, John Conyers, Dennis Kusinich, Paul Wellstone, John, Bobby, and Ted Kennedy, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, Geraldine Ferraro, Howard Dean, Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks. And, many more who are nameless of faceless to us, but go out every day, and express the true ideals of what this Party should stand for.

I can trust myself, and I don't know a single lobbyist!

principled, ethical, independent, unbought liberalism. :bounce:

Paul Simon was not as effective a candidate as I would have liked, but he would have made a hell of a president.

Seconds: I agree with many of the nominations, but the ones that stand out for me are Paul Wellstone, Paul Simon, and Harry Truman.

New nominations: Barbara Jordan, Eleanor Roosevelt, Mario Cuomo, and Robert Byrd. Byrd has come a very long way since he first entered politics, and he is now the conscience of the Senate.

All of these people were politically liberal, sincere and articulate, and they didn't have to stick their finger in the wind to determine what they should do. They knew what was right, and they did it.

n/t

I think he fights for what he believes in,no matter what the polls say.IMHO

He speaks truth to power and is fearless in his criticism of the neo-cons. I view him as a hero to the cause.

Got to speak up for those who no one hears or you aren't a Dem to me.

"Today, I am proud to stand here this morning and announce my support for a true progressive, a true Democrat, and the next president of the United States.

"A man whose progressive policies on education, taxation, health care are in the finest tradition of the Democratic Party.

"A man whose ideals, decency, and compassion are in the great tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton.

"A man whose life's work and devotion to America will serve as a beacon to our young and give pride to us all.

"That man is Wes Clark - and he will lead our party to victory in November.

"Like Wes Clark, I'm a veteran. I was an airman in World War II. And I believe there is nothing more patriotic than serving your country.

"I also believe there is nothing more patriotic than speaking out - and standing up for what you believe in. That was one of the reasons I ran for president in 1972 - because I believed that Vietnam was a not a war America should be fighting. Back then, Wes Clark was an officer in the United States Army. And in the election of '72, he voted for the other candidate. Let's call it youthful indiscretion. The good news is that this time we both agree.

"Today, we are fighting the wrong war in Iraq. And that's one of the reasons I'm standing here today. Because there is only one man in this race with four stars on his shoulders and thirty-four years of military experience. There is only one man in this race who stopped genocide and saved 1.5 million Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. There is only one man in this race who has a success strategy to get us out of the war in Iraq - and get our servicemen and women home safely. And that man is Wes Clark.

"Wes Clark is also a champion of America's working families, because he knows that you can't be strong abroad unless you're strong at home. Wes Clark understands the problems facing ordinary Americans, especially the three million Americans who've lost their job since George W. Bush arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And the 44 million Americans don't have health care, and the thousands who can't afford the sky-rocketing costs of education.

"Wes Clark is the only man who can get our country back on track. He's got a jobs program to get our economy going ... a real tax reform to help our working and hard-pressed families ... and a health care plan to make health care affordable for all Americans and universal for all our children. He wants to fight for all Americans, from all walks of life. These are not just Democratic values. These are American values.

"Running for president is no easy task. And I have the battle scars to show it. I, too, was the subject of a few dirty tricks during my day. But I'll tell you, there is no better man to withstand the Republican attacks then Wes Clark. And the Republicans know that - they're running scared. The last thing they want is a four star general on their hands. So to my Republican friends out there: get ready, here we come.

"Finally, let me say this: There are a lot of good Democrats in this race. But Wes Clark is the best Democrat. He is a true progressive. He's the Democrat's Democrat. I've been around the political block - and I can tell you, I know a true progressive when I see one. And that's why he has my vote.

"Wes Clark will bring a higher standard of leadership back to Washington. He'll fight for America's interests, not the special interests. He'll bring honesty, openness, and accountability to the White House. He is a born leader.

"That is why I am standing here today: because there's one man in this race with a success strategy in Iraq... there's one man who can really stand up for working American families ... there's one man who can beat George W. Bush - and take back the White House in 2004.

"And that man is my friend, our leader, a true progressive, and the next Democratic president of the United States, Wes Clark."

--Senator George McGovern, Manchester, NH, 1/18/04

Feingold, Sharpton, and I'm sure there are more; these are just some that I'm more familiar with.

Kucinich and Sharpton have been scorned plenty on DU. Their political failings have been happily rooted through on the march to the middle.

The others haven't been primary candidates for the WH, so they haven't run that particular gauntlet. Yet.

are two who serve today in the two houses of Congress

Both are solid.

McDermott, Senator Durbin, Barak Obama, Barbara Boxer, Lyn Woolsey, there are others. I think their record speaks for theirselves on matters that should be the top priority in this country.

Populist, very liberal, and very electable.

isn't afraid of criticism, and speaks to almost all issues in terms everyone can understand.

I keep hoping he's teaching classes to our elceted Dems (and those yet to be elected) on how to do the same!

He was a true populist that never forgot who he was working for.

WELLSTONE... and of course, now he's gone.

He does not play to opinion polls, but calls it as he sees it. He is progressive on social issues and rational on foreign policy and defense. He works hard to rebuild our damaged reputation in the global community. He does not bash other Democrats he may disagree with and seeks common ground across the political spectrum of the party. He is a strong leader, but goes where and when the party needs him.

Udall was one of the most productive members of Congress in the latter part of this century. Chief among his accomplishments was the Alaska Lands Act of 1980, which doubled the size of the national park system, and tripled the size of the national wilderness system.

Other significant legislation includes: The Central Arizona Project, Postal Reform Act, Bill to Reform Congressional Franking Privileges, Strip Mining Reclamation Act, Indian Child Welfare Act, Civil Service Reforms, Archaeological Research Protection Act, Southern Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act, Nuclear Waste Management Policy Act, Arizona Wilderness Act, Amendment to the Price-Anderson provision of the Atomic Energy Act, Indian Gaming Act, Arizona Desert Wilderness Act, Tongass Timber Reform Act.

As well as serving in the House of Representatives for three decades, Udall ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1976. He became one of the most creative and productive legislators of the century. His concern for Native Americans and love of the environment resulted in numerous pieces of legislation moving through Congress. He also authored important legislation on campaign reform, congressional ethics and was the first major Democrat to oppose President Johnson on the Vietnam War.

Udall's sense of humor, civility and a strong bipartisan spirit led him to distinguish between political opponents and enemies. One of Udall's closest longtime friends was the rock of Republican conservatism, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. To honor his family's contributions to public service, The Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, The Morris K. Udall Foundation, and the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, all continue the Udall's legacy to improve the American experiment.

http://www.udall.gov/mku.htm



He was a class act and certainly one of the finest presidents America never had.

Good pick :thumbsup:

in addition to equality of opportunity, all of which fall under the umbrella of carring about huge imbalances of power which if unchecked will polarize society to the point that it topples over.

Try to find someone else who returns his pay raises (happens to be the poorest Senator out there too!), refuses to let teachers use their school email address at his rallies (public funds), votes completely independent of peer pressures (Patriot Act) and READS EVERY BILL.

People complain about his votes for Roberts, Ashcroft and the like (even though he is considered one of the most liberal Senators out there), but that is what I want in a Senator/Democrat. He doesn't play politics with politics. He believes in a Presiden't right (Republican or Democrat) and he never wavers.

EVERY vote he makes he can back up 100 percent and you never hear him apologize for a vote, because he never makes mistakes.

A democrat would recognize when a president nominates someone who is not qualified to hold a cabinet or judicial position. Feingold pulled this crap that "Presidents should be able to pick the staff he wants" well I say bullshit when it's someone like John Ashcroft in question. No wonder Feingold voted against the Patriot Act. It was his "yes" vote for Ashcroft in Committee that allowed Ashcroft a floor vote and eventually awarded the Attorney General position.

I'd rather have someone like Joe Lieberman represent me because as much as I disagree with much of what Joe does at least I know how he's going to vote. Feingold is no better than a snake in the grass!

is Lieberman?

If you look, my reply wasn't to the original poster but to someone who did reply to the OP. Mine is saying that personally I don't trust Feingold and don't want him as my presidental candidate.

When I'm ready to reply to the OP I won't do it as a reply to someone else in the thread.

Nice attempt to distort what I wrote - but you'r way off base

I know your answer isn't Lieberman. You can share your real answer if/when you choose. :-)

The passion of his beliefs, the compassion and desire to helpt the least amongst us, the willingness to fight for what he believed in.

He was ruthless acting on his beliefs. I think we need some of that these days.

stuff.

She stood up for what she knew was right, even when she realized it would take a lot of work to achieve it.

Of course, that was before both major political parties were completely hijacked by the corporate-owned MSM.

John Edwards, Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown, Lynn Woolsey, Tim Ryan, Christopher Dodd, Dennis Kuchnich.

Seems reasonable to expect you to express your own view when asking for that of others.

because of what he tried to do as govenor of Arkansas, and did as President, and still you see the principles of being a Democrat in what he is doing now since leaving office.
In another post, I said the Dems should embrace the term "liberal" and use it, because it is hard to separate what a true Democrat stands for and the word liberal. The term liberal only became bad because Dems let the repukes use the word and no one stood up to them except Clinton in 92 and if you will notice they hardly if ever used that term in the 96 campaign.
Now because no Democrat will embrace that word, the repukes are again winning this battle because Democrats will not step forward and rebuke them on it and then apply it to democratic ideals and principals...

Seriously - I'm interested in knowing who embodies (or embodied, if a past one) your ideals, and why.

Smart, fearless - doesn't run from "liberal" and doesn't take S* from nubody.
That's what dems should be.

front, too. He's liberal enough plus can talk the values of the homespun American crowd and has superior military and diplomatic experience.

A true fighter for the poor and working class. Senator Edwards is a left leaning populist who speaks to our core values and does so, very well. ;)