An Objective Assessment Of How Candidates Of The Left Wing Of The Democratic Party Fared

How did candidates of the "left" wing of the Democratic party fare in the primaries and in the general election?


1948 - The left wanted Henry Wallace not Harry Truman.

1952 - The left wanted Adlai Stevenson...

1956 - See 1952

1960 - See 1952 and 1956. Thankfully they got John Fitzgerald Kennedy

1964 - Uncontested

1968 - The left wanted Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy but the former was certainly the candidate of the white liberal, intellectual elite...

1972 - The left wanted George McCovern ...

1976- The left wanted Gerry Brown or Mo Udall or even Hubert Humphrey who got back in their good graces

1980- The left wanted Ted Kennedy

1984 The left wanted Jesse Jackson or George McGovern (again)

1988- The left wanted Jesse Jackson

1992- The left wanted Tom Harkin or Gerry Brown (again)

1996 - Uncontested

2000- The left wanted Bill Bradley

2004- The left wanted Howard Dean

what more can be said.

He was almost a Communist.

And he was hardly almost a Communist.

DEMOCRATS supported FDR. The left (at the time) thought him to be another rich boy.

And didn't he call the dole a drug...

And as Arthur Schlesinger wrote, FDR was a small c conservative...He conserved capitalism by regulating it and tempering it... If FDR was anything he was a Keynesian...

You know that, Manny, but by acknowledging it you couldn't get off one of your patented, inane, talking points that you never stick around long enough to defend...

... he did not have the New Deal fleshed out during the '32 campaign. He was vague about what he proposed to do. Many people were voting against Hoover.

FDR co-opted some of the left's platform to keep them out of power.

In 1938, being disappointed with Roosevelt, left leader Wisconsin governor Philip La Follette tried to create a new third party, the National Progressives of America. However, in the mid terms that year, the Wisconsin Progressive Party and the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party suffered huge defeats, losing most of their congressional seats, and Republicans beat Philip La Follette in Wisconsin.

The Republicans gained 81 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, and 13 governorships (yes, that isn't a type). FDR responded by saying “We have on the positive side eliminated Phil La Follette and the Farmer-Labor people in the Northwest as a standing Third Party Threat.”

He said "I'll try anything and see if it works."

Who said FDR had a "second rate mind and a first rate temperament"?


It's a great saying but no man accomplishes as much as he did without being really bright...

...actually was. The "Leftist" FDR of popular myth only showed himself starting in the mid-30s when he decided to follow the continuing left-ward shift in public opinion.

favored FDR in 1932 because of his relationship with Leland Olds, who many on the right considered to be a "communist." Olds had worked for the Industrial Relations Committee during WW1, which led to his becoming a representative for the progressive labor movement in the research bureau of the American Federation of Pennsylvania. My family was well acquainted with him from the railroad strikes. He was actually shot during a police "crack-down" of one labor demonstration.

By the 1920s, Olds was a nationally recognized advocate for the redistribution of wealth in the US. He believed that key industries were gaining a level of ealth and political influence that was a threat to the Constitutional democracy. He called for public ownership of the industries that controlled resources including oil, coal, steel, and water. He wrote about the need to recognize the value of the individual above that of corporate profit motives.

In 1929, more than 85% of rural farms lacked electricity. Olds would work with General Electric's Owen Youngs to remedy that situation in a manner that would benefit the farmers and the corporation.

Olds was closely associated with FDR. He had been before 1932, and he would be after 1932. The "progressive left" saw Leland Olds as the champion of the common folks in this country, and as brave enough to confront the corporate interests that had begun to poison our democratic state. Thus, you are absolutely accurate in saying that the far left supported FDR in 1932, and those who dispute that are in error. I say that as I flip through the pages of a book on the close relationship of the railroad union leadership -- including several of my family members -- who were considered "radical threats" to the owners of the railroads and the steel and coal industries, and Leland Olds.

look closely at 1968, we see that there are factors that provide a more meaningful context than the OP provided. I recognize, of course, that the OP's intent was not an in-depth analysis, but rather an attempt to encourage discussion of an interesting topic.

In 1967, the progressive democratic movement in the USA combined a number of groups, including those associated with the civil rights and anti-war movements. The "Six Day War" would splinter the support that an important faction of both movements had provided. As noted in Taylor Branch's "At Canaan's Edge," the split resulted in that faction morphing into the neoconservative movement, which remains a significant part of the republican party.(p 620) It is also part of the conservative "neoliberal" democratic movement that promotes candidates that are generally closer to their republican counterparts than to those with traditional democratic values.

By late 1967, a large number of democratic leaders recognized that LBJ's policies were growing unpopular nation-wide. Many of those leaders urged RFK to run. Also, the leaders of progressive civil rights/anti war front were urging him to run. Other people close to him urged caution.

Eugene McCarthy entered the democratic primary, and did well enough in the first contest that folk lore has had him winning. He became popular with a large group of the progressive movement, including people who had hoped RFK would run. And, as we know, Senator Kennedy did enter the primaries. His entry did cause some friction within segments of the progressive community.

LBJ publicly announced he was not running; however, he did allowed some of his closest people to believe he would "accept" the nomination of a divided party at the Chicago convention. More, he played strange games with HHH, and also was in contact with Richard Nixon. LBJ's curious behavior was a ball & chain on the democratic party, and is one of the "big three" reasons we lost the election.

The two others were the assassinations of MLK and RFK. The deaths of those two men changed the course of American history.

I'd have to give the election of 32 a lot more thought...I think we would agree that the platform FDR ran on wasn't particularly liberal and certainly not communist as Mr. Goldstein suggested...

FDR is one of my favorite presidents...He provided the foundation for the welfare state or the safety net without which capitalism would be unbearable... The dislocations unfettered capitalism without a safety net would cause would not be tolerated...

the progressive left had faith in FDR because of his close andloyal association with Leland Olds, who was considered to be a socialist/communist by corporations. It is sometimes difficult for people today (including myself) to appreciate that how we evaluate things such as a candidate's platform in 2007 is not the same as three-quarters of a century ago. The progressive left was able to evaluate FDR largely on his actions as governor of NYS, which included appointing Olds as the head of the state power authority. Olds identified the need to pass over the old forms of capitalism while he was in the governor's administration, because of the threat corporate influence on the economic and political realities of the day. The progressive democrats of 1932 were fully aware of those conditions, and Olds was their champion. Hence, no matter what we think today when reviewing the historical record regarding FDR's platform, the progressive left supported FDR in 1932 because of Olds, who was viewed as a socialist/communist threat by his enemies.

in 1932 the far left wanted Norman Thomas.

:rofl:

I'm not 'way left,' I'm a progressive, moderate, who understands that sometimes, you have to be pragmatic and incremental, even when you'd like to be fiery and hasty--but I did like Howard Dean.

and I've lived here for 28 years. He was fiscally centrist and socially liberal. And his style was, well, Deanish. He pissed off nearly every faction in the state over his 11 years. And his foot in mouth disease was much worse during his tenure as gov, than during his run.

But even most folks can agree on subjective observations...For instance if I said Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are an attractive couple I think most folks would agree...

I'm not disagreeing with your take at all--just that some folks see a guy in a conservative suit and wingtips and make those assumptions!!! I had to laugh when I was given that little 'lesson' because if Howard, with his civil unions and level playing field for education dollars across the state is "conservative," well, I need to move over to where he's sitting formally, because I agree with much of his take on many issues!!!

that is true. What is not true is that he was the most liberal candidate, even if you ignore Sharpton, Mosley-Braun and Kuchinich.

I enjoyed Sharpton's contributions. He really did a good job in shaping the debate.

That's why I think all the moderate-bashing is stupid. "Moderate" is not a synonym of "DLC hack" and the Netroots is not synonymous with the far left end of the Democratic party.

To which I would say that Obama, according to Krugman at least, uses right-wing talking points on health care and social security, and, according to many here, spends too much time courting fundies. In which case, he should be fine, right?

that's just odd. This is simply a factual post, and although I believe the OP is for Clinton, it doesn't mention any candidate, let alone bash one.

Seeing things that are not there.

I just want to be reassured by DSB that my candidate isn't too far left to be President.

It could affect the quality of the rest of my day.

and I'm sure this won't help, but I think Obama would make a very good president and isn't at all too far to the left.

I was impressed , last night, when he said he wanted to add transgendered men and women to those who are covered by hate crimes legislation as he has done in his home state...

Hopefully not saying that those candidates were bad people.
Don't be dissing RFK, Eugene McCarthy or Harkin or Stevenson, now.
They were ALL good dems.

Hell, in retrospect Henry Wallace seems prophetic in some ways, though naive in others...

I would say Clinton was not the farthest right in 92, and not all progressives wanted Bradley over Gore.
And Kerry is a bonafide progressive who did quite well in the midst of the Bush worshipping media.
RFK might have won, and an eloquent leftist might have done better than Mondale or Dukakis.
We just don't know.

So, I think it is more nuanced than the OP puts it.
Interesting to think about, though. Kinda depressing.

We will never know his potential...But like his brother he was a liberal with brass ones...

So, do you give any weight to the theory held by some that HRC will govern more to the left than she could possibly campaign as?
This was a rumor going back to Arkansas days - that Hillary was more liberal than Bill.
Considering some of the endorsements, there is the possibility that there is some truth in that.
If RFK Jr, Wes Clark, Sheila Jackson Lee (one of Tx' best) et al are for her, there may be something to it.

Her record is more to the left than her reputation, and her supporters do try to bring that up.
Unfortunately, they also go out of their way to insult lefties every day.
If RFK was running today, they would likely treat him like Kucinich, or at least Edwards.

It is a weird contradiction that I have noticed.
I would prefer more honest discussion on this.

After campaigning with a known homophobe you think he's the left candidate? No way. He's moderate. Kucinich is the left candidate. Obama, Edwards, and Clinton, from left to right, are inches apart politically.

Broadly, on key issues, Obama, Edwards and Clinton are all just fine, and not very different from each other in policy proposals. But Kucinich is the "left" candidate.

That is the truth, and Edwards is to the right of all of them, considering what his past history in the Senate proves. All he's doing is sucking up to the left for purposes of competing in the Primary and so far no one in the country is falling for it except for some people on DU.

based on narrow dichotomies.

My daddy ,god bless him, had a ninth grade education but he was wise... He used to say, "Son, any fool can knock down a barn...It takes a bright man to build one..."

The left wing of the Democratic party never wanted Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton at the time they were running for their party's nomination...

Like "left" and "right" when the REALITY of the situations in historical context involve more complicated coalitions of interests and sets of policies?

Pigeon holing is innacurate- it misconstrues the various connections and factions over time- you'd need a longer (or more focused) essay or better yet a book to do something more than perpetuate stereotypes.

Probably not message board material.

this thread about the left.

From one election cycle to the next, the left denies having supported the "progressive" candidate from the previous cycles OR denies that candidate was the choice of the left.

It's too early to apply the lessons of history to the current field...

I think it's safe to infer that the "candidate of the left" sometimes wins the nomination (but) never wins the general... To be fair you would also have to infer that sometimes the "candidate of the center" doesn't win the general either... But you would have to be totally disingenuous to argue that the "candidate of the left" has ever won a general election...*


I do believe these terms are somewhat subjective but even reasonable folks can agree on subjective definitions...For instance I don't think anybody would argue a wing nut like Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter could ever garner a electoral plurality or majority...

picking candidates that weren't favored by the so-called left.

... then how would you expect them to win the General? There is no secret hidden progressive voting majority.

'72 was the abberition in that Sen. McGovern laid the groundwork for his nomination when he helped reform the nominating process several years prior.

The three elections we did win were with southern conservative in '76 and another southerner running as a 'New Democrat' in '92 and '96.

(please, don't drag out Ross Perot. He was no factor.)

but, obviously, our conventional wisdom candidates haven't been all that successful, either.

The elections we HAVE won since '68 have been with centrist or conservative Democrats. Carter, Clinton, even Gore.

Too cautious and non-ideological compared with our opponents; a Chinese food menu of policies and programs rather than vision. The nadir was probably Dukakis (the world's only passionless Greek), who wanted to make the '88 election about competency. One could argue that the tenor of the times required us to downplay government's role in our society, but, unfortunately, assertive government is what Democrats are supposed to be all about. Now that even Republican voters are seeing the dangers of turning everything (including the military) over to the ownership class, we have no more excuses to be timid.

1968 - RFK

1972 - I didn't have a dog in that fight...

1976 - Jerry Brown

1980 - EMK -Nostalgic

1984 -Gary Hart

1988- Gary Hart... Too bad he imploded

1992 - Bob Kerrey and Bill Clinton

1996 -Uncontested

2000- Al Gore

2004 -Wes Clark

2008- Hillary, Bill Richardson, Obama though Edwards and Obama are the only Dems I have contributed to....

I sumit my picks would have done a much better job....

'68 - the year I was born.
'72 - I voted to get my first bike.
'76 - Jimmy Carter (from my home state)
'80 - Jimmy Carter
'84 - Hart
'88 - Gore or Biden
'92 - Clinton
'00 - Gore
'04 - Clark

But since my mom was involved in Democratic politics I have been thinking about politics for a long, long time...

Gary Hart sealed his own doom by messing around (after) he announced he was running for president...I think the MSM doomed Gerry Brown by labeling him an "oddball"...

We have either let the Pukes frame the debate and/or shot ourselves in the foot with ideological puritanism and litmus tests that fanned the flames of culture wars created by the Religious Right. And thus the Pukes have been free to drag the debate on economic issues to the right while people screamed about God, gays, and guns.

to argue that point as it is something that actually happened, not suppose this or suppose that kind of logic.

Three candidates have effectively split the left vote - Obama, who isn't a leftist and supports such policies as social security companion accounts, welfare reform, and a roll back of other "Great Society" programs, - John Edwards, who may or may not be who is he says he is, and Dennis Kucinich, who is more convincing than Edwards despite prior support of flag burning amendments and being anti-choice at one point.

National Journal's criteria: the candidates' respective votes in 2006.

...when setting themselves up for them.

Now, I would certainly LOVE to go down a list with you of Obama's stated positions on issues and his votes on them over his career to see exactly how liberal he is.

The left, at first, deplored Bobby Kennedy.

Liberal ativists in the Dem party supported Bradley in 2000, a few broke ranks for Nader.

Pathetic show Ted Kennedy put on in 1980 after Carter won the nomination. Kennedy at first refused to raise Carter's hand in victory as is the tradition - and this was noted on national TV - further cementing the impression Reagan gave that the Dem party was weak.

I supported him and worked on his 80 campaign... Some of it was based on my reverence for RFK who I actually met and shook his hand when I was ten years old...I don't think there is anything Carter could have done to win re-election that year;inflation and the hostage crisis doomed his re-election candidacy...In retrospect with the weight of Chappaquiddick I don't think Ted Kennedy would have fared much better...

As an interesting aside there is much revisionism about Jimmy Carter on this board...Ted Kennedy ran in 1980 because the liberal wing of the Democratic party implored him to... It was said at the time that Jimmy Carter was the most conservative president since Grover Cleveland...


And RFK was a different kind of liberal...He was sui generis...

You can see Kennedy's behavioir at the '80 convention in archival footage and read accounts of his supporter's behaviour in several books (they were carring signs directed at Carter and his delegates that read "boll weevils go home.")

I disagree with your inferences that the contempt was unwarranted and that it cost Carter the election...

I don't think it cost us the election. It did contribute to the "conventional wisdom" that Dems were disorganized and weakened that had persisted since '68.

Whether or not the contempt was warranted, the national display of it was not, IMO. Members of my family - immediate and inlaws - fight like hell over things but we never let it spill out into the street.

And whether it was Jimmy Carter's fault or not, the country was seen as being in the crapper in 1979-1980...I have read convincing arguments that a lot of the problems that plagued the Carter administration were the residue from the inflationary economic policies of the prior Nixon-Ford administration...

...late into the night at the kitchen table of tea.

One of them talks about the '80 convention often. Fascinating to get first hand accounts.

Anyway, yeah, a lot of the problems that plagued the Carter administration was the residue from the inflationary economic policies of the prior Nixon-Ford administration... Some say we would have been better off had Ford won in '76. Then he would have inhereted that mess and we may not have had Reagan.

The country was probably at its' most depressed and dispirited in the late 70's than at any point in the post WW2 period -- except possibly for now.

By that time, the real distinctions between "right and left" had almost become superfluous because the entire country was worn down by a confluence of events -- many too complex to comprehend at the time.

Exhaustion from the social and political turmoil of the 60's and early 70's, Vietnam, shocks from the oil crisis and new "global economy," stagflation, excesses of the welfare state, Watergate, etc. had all taken their toll.

It was no surprise that the GOP and the corporate right wing were able to ride that to victory and usher in a new era in 80 with Reagan as its figurehead.

that it was George McGovern that stepped in and allowed his name to be put up at the 1968 convention in place of Bobby.

Bobby's supporters wanted it that way.

And it was Abe Ribicoff who gave the speech nominating George McGovern.

did not get as candidates and how many elections have the dems lost with DLC candidates such as Hillary. Could be the problem in not winning. Just an objective assessment.

1988 - DLC and New Dem candidates Biden and Gore did not secure the nomination
1992 - Bill Clinton
1996 - Bill Clinton
2000 - Al Gore
2004 - John Kerry.

have not been living in the WH for the last 8 years.

And do you believe in the laughable proposition that Bill Bradley or Howard Dean would have better GE candidates than Gore or Kerry?

Had Bradley or Dean gotten the nomination, we would not be having the "stolen election" conversations. Bush would have won in '72-like electoral landslides.

have won because they did not run as candidatess. Just an objective assessment.

And as far as who won or who didn't won, you can take that arguement forever and still it is going to be GWB in the WH for the past 8 years regardless. You can fight history, I chose to go with the future.

probably doesn't get it, you don't know anything about who would have won because they did not run as candidatess. Just an objective assessment.

Of course they ran as candidates. And it would be a severe leap in logic to suggest someone who couldn't win the primary battle among Democrats would do better in the electorate at large.

Right - GWB in the White House for 8 years. But with Bradley/Dean tickets, GWB eight years would be legitimate.

A primary result has no bearing on what would happen against a Republican in the general election. (Which is why I'm not quite sure what point the OP is trying to make.)

Just running as an Outsider/Governor would have given Dean an advantage that Kerry lacked -- one that the GOP/Euphemedia made much ado about. And Bradley's status as a sports celebrity could well have made a huge impact -- particularly in the white, male demographic that Dems usually stuggle in.

Sure, Bradley's Senate career could have offered similar attack lines as Gore/Kerry and Dean could have been too blunt once too often, but concluding they'd have done any worse (or better) against bushcheney is just sophistry.

Yes, Gore and Kerry both had their wins stolen. But Bradley or Dean -- not being "creatures of the beltway" -- may well have challenged those thefts (even succesfully) and the party wouldn't be so saddled with its current, electorally-costly, "spineless" reputation.

---

There is reason to believe that other candidates could have done better in 1974, for example, than Senator McGovern. I do not say that as an attempt to take a cheap shot at him because he lost by a landslide. Rather, just as an example of how wrong it is to say it is "laughable" to suggest that anyone other that the winner of the primaries could do better in a general election.

it is all based on what if, what might have been, etc. Who knows. Nobody knows what would have occurred if other variables were thrown in with two other candidates. The one thing we do know for sure is the DLC candidates have not had much success lately. Maybe it is time to grant the left their wish on a candidate and a shot at taking back the WH instead of a corporate candidate.

be fun to have just an open, good-natured discussion of some of these issues on this thread. There are dozens of other threads where one can call others' opinions "laughable." Maybe it would be good to just discuss some things without resorting to that.

I note, for example, the responses to post #2: one DUer states a belief on FDR, and three others dismiss that opinion as "wrong." I assume that they did this because they are sincere in their beliefs, not because they are "bad" or "dishonest" or "laughable." I did note one had expressed concern that the author of post #2 would not attempt to back up the claim made about FDR; thus, I provided some accurate information which supports post #2, but which is generally not found in today's history books.

I also followed that with a closer look at 1968, which included three unusual circumstances related to the loss of that election. If not for one or more of these, it is possible that history would have been very different. As you say, that involves speculation on "what if?," and can not be answered with any certainty.

the learning experience, you will always learn from other people's ideas and sometimes find out you are not always right. Hard to do on this board however. Usually in a lot of cases you will get attacked just for posting your point of view so you get started out on the wrong track.

FDR could in a lot of circumstances follow along some conservative ideas. However, it is so difficult to go to all of these different candidates as you are talking about different times, different people, different philosophies during the time, circumstances were different for the voters, income, religion, lifestyles, all these things play into politics.

They would as you say however, be interesting to discuss but again this entire post is based on speculation wherein as in philosophy, you are not going to get to the end but you can have some very interesting conversation about it.

What was the intent of the original poster of this thread? Would have to say that he thinks only our conservative dem candidate can win. Again, that is speculation isn't it. I would not call it an "objective assessment" however, but speculation on his part only that a candidate to the left cannot win, however, did not prove his speculation.

Off to the game, like your suggestion about discussion.

..considerably less liberal public?

A silly proposition think otherwise.

...about the left/right policy/ideology continuum, the way political junkies and primary voters do. At least 20% self-identify as independents and use a variety of criteria, often surprising and/or inexplicable (even silly), to decide.

But even on "the continuum," a Bradley candidacy may well have garnered virtually all of Nader's 3% in 2000 -- particularly his tens of thousands of (now regretful) Florida voters.

In fact, the sillier proposition may well be this "considerably less liberal public" you presume.

---

But even on "the continuum," a Bradley candidacy may well have garnered virtually all of Nader's 3% in 2000 -- particularly his tens of thousands of (now regretful) Florida voters.

Retroactive electoral extortion. Who knows? If the DNC had bucked the will of the primary voters and nominated Bradley, the 2% left may have graced us with a win in 2000.

As for your link, your presumption is I implied the public was conservative. I did not. The public is overwhelmingly centrist.

As yours has shifted from certainty to "Who knows."

---

He never would have been taken down by a bunch of toothless inbred fucks like the Swift Buttplugs For Rove. Furthermore, had the election been close - which it wouldn't have - Dean would have paid a personal visit to Uncle Tom Blackwell's office and made him count the votes by hand.

"Recount, motherfucker!! YEEEEEEAAAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!"

than every candidate running in 2004. His lifetime voting record was just 3% off of Wellstone's. Even Kucinich's record was to Kerry's right. Even more interesting since Kerry's was accumulated over a 19 yr span at the time while Kucinich's was over 11 yrs.

Take a look around our country. Happy with what you see? You think it's a good thing we won elections only to lose our Constitution?

If what you say is true, then it was more moderate Democrats who won elections throughout recent history, yet, throughout recent history we've seen the gradual destruction of our Constitution and the rights which were once (naively, I guess) stated to be "unalienable".

So, while you're cheering about winning elections based on a strategy of moderation (or pragmatism or whatever other "go along, to get along" word you'd like to use), take a look at what those moderate Democrats have participated in during recent history.

And let me ask you again, how's that workin' out for ya?

in every single instance of progress for the working, lower, and common classes (however you wish to define them) throughout history, the "radical left" has proved to be right while the "moderates" accomplished nothing but continued misery and suffering.

From that radical subversive Jesus Christ who voiced his "outrageous, left-wing" notions that it might be better to stop hating and killing each other and instead love each other, cooperate, and try to understand one another (ideas for which all those "moderates" were more than happy to have him tortured to death so that the false claims of royalty could be maintained by their appeaser candidate, Herod) up through the present. The "moderates" have always been wrong and the "liberals" have always been right, and it usually takes a long time for the, inattentive, ignorant, uninvolved, and the gatekeepers, to finally catch on.

Isn't it ironic that the last two lurches toward equality in this nation have been accomplished through the back door by class traitors from the same family? Each of whom were installed with the idea that they would mollify and contain the masses to avert the tide of change and, once in power, turned on the masters.

Aside from boiling down complicated multi-faceted political situations at specific points during those years, you also seem to imply that "the left" is some unchanging, fixed group.

The whole "left/center/right" template is far too simplistic to describe the complex, and often contradictory, interplay of different issues, including economic policies, civil rights, war and social issues.

For example, President Ike, who could be called a conservative in many respects, also held views and positions that were actually harbingers of the beliefs of the "new left," such as his warning about the Military Industrial Complex.

LBJ's credibility was undone by his pursuit of the War in Vietnam and other foreign policy issues. Domestically, his agenda was very liberal and progressive.

Likewise, Humphrey was opposed by critics of the Vietnam War despite the fact that Humphrey had been in the forefront of civil rights and other liberal/progressive policies.

There is much more to it. Thankfully, the discussion below your OP do reflect these complexities.

However, a list of random candidates who have been the preferred choice of some phony label of "the left" over the years to prove that "the left" only backs losers is a misleading cheap shot when used as an attempt to discredit "the left" as a viable political faction.

Even if the definitions of the left and right change over time those candidates were considered part of the left at the time they ran...

I could probably do the same exercise with the GOP and demonstrate with the possible exception of Regan the candidate of the "right" is not generally successful in the primaries and general elections; Robert Taft, Goldwater, Alan Keyes come immediately to mind...

It was certainly not my mission to discredit the left...After all I have worked for some rather liberal candidates but to demonstrate that whatever the main stream is in any particular election year , candidates stray from that main stream at their peril...

I differ between empirical observations ( the way things are) and normative ones (the way things ought to be)...

The impact of Reagan was not a fluke, although it was unusual in its scope.

In 1980, the nation was at a tipping point. At that point, liberalism and moderate traditional Republicanism were largely discredited. The public was tired of the previous "conventional wisdom" and were looking for something that was fresh and different.

What Reagan and the right did was seize the moment to bring about a fundamental change in the whole political spectrum by offering a break from the past.

The GOP could have played it safe in 79-80-81 with a "safe" platform and message and run a candidate who promised moderate change. But rather than timidly adhere to the "center" and stay safely within the familiar "mainstream" box of the time, the Reagan Right launched a full-frontal assault with a new message that a disgruntled electorate embraced -- and which transcended and obliterated previous coalitions of Democrats.

In the process, the Reagan Revolution succeeded in pushing the entire political spectrum significantly to the right -- a victory that lasted for almost three decades. It also changed the perceptions of "liberal" and "conservative."

Today, IMo, the nation is at another tipping point. Corporate and social Conservatism has run its course, and is now exhausted and discredited. The nation is primed for another fundamental swing of the pendulum -- This time from right to left.

It is not simply a matter of the "left' yelping from the margins.The new malaise is more deep-seated and bipartisan. Many moderates and conservatives have the same sense of anger and frustration with the status quo, and are receptive to a liberal and progressive approach to problems.

The Democratic Party CAN seize this moment, and help to bring the nation back to a true center of balance again. However, in my opinion, that will only happen if we emulate teh Reagan revolution, and seize the moment by actually speaking to this impulse for change, rather than timidly attempt to pander to a "mainstream" straightjacket that no longer exists.

American politics oscillates back and forth between 15-25 year periods of liberalism and 15-25 year periods of conservatism. We are currently transitioning from a conservative period to a liberal one.

assumption by you only.

simply a list by you of words only with nothing behind them.

And they both lost pretty spectacularly...

All of the major economic and social benefits in the past 200 years have been fought for and won by the Left.

Women rights. The moderates and conservatives at the time thought women couldn't be equals
Labor laws. The moderates and conservatives were on the side of business. For the most part they still are.
Youth rights.
Equal race laws.
End of slavery.
Universal male suffrage.
Universal suffrage.
Gay rights.
Freedom of the press.
Separation of church and state.
End of the Vietnam draft.

I don't want to wait for you guys to catch up in 30-50 years. I want freedom and justice now.

Also, what is right and left today is a far cry from yesteryear.

I read your earlier answer. While it may be true, the "stolen elections" excuse is an excuse. When an election is so close that a few thousand votes can make or break the results, we are failing to resonate.

Also, during Clinton's initial run for the presidency, he won over many liberals. The primaries were not nearly as divisive as they later became. Coming after 12 years of Bush-Reagan, he seemed positively populist and progressive that year.

The frustration with Clintonian Centrism only grew due to his performance after his election. In 96, Clinton was the default candidate as an incumbent, and there weren't any really serious challenges to him in the primaries.

By 2000, a lot of people on the "left" had become so frustrated and angry with the Corporate Clinton/DLC that they wanted an alternative to Gore, who was running basically as "More of The Same." ASnd, in a larger sense, if the Ckintons had been so wildly popular and successful, the election should not have been close enough to be stolen by Bush. Also, enough on the left defected to Nader that the election became even closer. The lesson there is that the Democrats ignore their "base" at their peril.

In 04 Kerry was hobbled by his personality and by the fact that Democrats were afraid to bring up core domestic issues in a meaningful way -- instead they tried to out-macho Bush.

... until AFTER the nomination.

the "stolen elections" excuse is an excuse.

Not to most of us.

When an election is so close that a few thousand votes can make or break the results, we are failing to resonate.

Good thing someone who could not even win among Democrats didn't somehow get the nomination. Then the GOP would have wiped the '72 floor with us.

Also, during Clinton's initial run for the presidency, he won over many liberals.

As the nominee does every cycle. Can't count the number of "progressives"* who said they'd never back Kerry in his way to getting the most votes of any Democrat in history.

The primaries were not nearly as divisive as they later became.

The primaries have ALWAYS been divisive. You just haven't had the internet as a reference. See '48, '60, '68, '80, 2000, '2004.

The frustration with Clintonian Centrism only grew due to his performance after his election.

After the election Clinton tried to address traditional liberal issues - gun control, civil rights, health care. Frustration DID grow, but not among the left. Clinton ran as a DLC Democrat. His TV commercials called him a 'New Democrat.'

You're trying to revise history in regards to the left's view of him pre-'92 election.

In 96, Clinton was the default candidate as an incumbent

Ha ha. No shit.

By 2000, a lot of people on the "left" had become so frustrated and angry with the Corporate Clinton/DLC that they wanted an alternative to Gore, who was running basically as "More of The Same."

Yeah, we wish Gore had run as "more of the same." Gore ran AWAY from Clinton's record. But the left, being as "my way or the highway" as they ever were, saw an opportunity for a power grab. Too bad you thrust Bush II on the world.

if the Ckintons had been so wildly popular and successful, the election should not have been close enough to be stolen by Bush. Also, enough on the left defected to Nader that the election became even closer. The lesson there is that the Democrats ignore their "base" at their peril.

Red herring. Clinton was wildly popular among the electorate, which creates apathy on the side of the the popular person. It also energize the partisan opposition. Another example of this was the '48 election when the GOP was so confident Dewey would win, turnout in key states on the GOP side was low.

In 04 Kerry was hobbled by his personality and by the fact that Democrats were afraid to bring up core domestic issues in a meaningful way -- instead they tried to out-macho Bush.

In '04, Kerry was doing fine until he decided not to fight back against the GOP smear machine. His strong national security stance was an asset, not a hindrance.

>>>>>Good thing someone who could not even win among Democrats didn't somehow get the nomination. Then the GOP would have wiped the '72 floor with us.<<<

It was a close election in a time of perceived peace and prosperity, even though the GOP ran a complete and obvious moron. What's wrong with this picture, eh?

>>>Yeah, we wish Gore had run as "more of the same." Gore ran AWAY from Clinton's record. But the left, being as "my way or the highway" as they ever were, saw an opportunity for a power grab. Too bad you thrust Bush II on the world.<<<

Can you get your stories straight? Either Gore won among the Democrats or he didn't. Which was it? You're being a bit contradictory on your history there.

>>>...As the nominee does (win over Democrats) every cycle. Can't count the number of "progressives"* who said they'd never back Kerry in his way to getting the most votes of any Democrat in history.....In '04, Kerry was doing fine until he decided not to fight back against the GOP smear machine. His strong national security stance was an asset, not a hindrance.<<<<


Again you are being a bit inconsistent. Sure kerry ultimately got more Democratic votes -- The alternative had been proven to be so awful that he benefitted from the reaction against Bush.

A strong national security stance can be an asset. But Kerry's national security stance was murky because Kerry was not being true to himself and was trying to be a "centrist" hawk, instead of acknowledging that the war was a terrible mistake from the beginning. His lack of response to the GOP smears only intensified the perception of him as a "flip flopper" and the larger perception of the Democrats as gutless wonders.


>>>>The primaries have ALWAYS been divisive. You just haven't had the internet as a reference. See '48, '60, '68, '80, 2000, '2004.<<<<

You're right. I did gloss over previous divisiveness....I think though, that with exceptions like the Viet Nam elections, it is usually more political infighting, rather than deep seated clashes of cultures and values.

>>>After the election Clinton tried to address traditional liberal issues - gun control, civil rights, health care. Frustration DID grow, but not among the left. Clinton ran as a DLC Democrat. His TV commercials called him a 'New Democrat.' You're trying to revise history in regards to the left's view of him pre-'92 election.<<<<

You are not acknowledging that in the early 90's, the "left" as an oppositional force had faded into insignificance. Clinton may not have been the first choice of progressives, but -- as I said above -- he was seen as a breath of fresh air by most people of liberal inclinations after so many years of Bush/Reagan.

Clinton's "centrist" approach actually fueled the growth of an oppositional left. As one who had started out with high hopes when Clinton took office, I shared the same frustration of many as we saw Clinton either ignore or oppose progressive and liberal goals and instead advance the growth of corporate power.


Clinton made some token gestures to the liberals and progressives, but he swung to the right very easily. The Clintons' effort to pass managed competition (a code word for "let's keep the insurance companies in the drivers' seat") should have been the first round in an effort to reform heralth care. Instead, they walked away from the issue. Not exactly a Profile in Courage.

If Clinton and the so-called centrists of the DLC had actually looked for ways to work with liberals and progressives against the common enemy of the GOP Right, there would have been much more support and enthusiasm among the so-called "left" (a term which also includes many moderate liberals).

Instead the "my way or the highway" arrogence of the DLC and Clinton helped to drain a lot of the vitality and enthusiasm from a significant share of the "base" of the Democratic Party.

It was a close election in a time of perceived peace and prosperity, even though the GOP ran a complete and obvious moron. What's wrong with this picture, eh?

It WAS a time of peace and prosperity. It was also a time of poisoned politics - a time where the ultimate success of the Clinton administration made the right wing hate him and his legacy more. Of course, the left contributed to this as well.

Can you get your stories straight? Either Gore won among the Democrats or he didn't. Which was it? You're being a bit contradictory on your history there.

Are you on crack?? Gore OBVIOUSLY won among Democrats. He was the nominee, wasn't he. Maybe you don't know this, but there are TWO elections in a presidential campaign - the primary and the general. During the general, Al Gore did not run on the Clinton economic record. That is a fact.

Again you are being a bit inconsistent. Sure kerry ultimately got more Democratic votes -- The alternative had been proven to be so awful that he benefitted from the reaction against Bush.

Which shows the inconsistancy of the left. They whined they'd never vote for him... but did.

A strong national security stance can be an asset. But Kerry's national security stance was murky because Kerry was not being true to himself and was trying to be a "centrist" hawk, instead of acknowledging that the war was a terrible mistake from the beginning.

And you know this how? Did Kerry say he wasn't being true to himself? That's just another left wing magic eightball statement.

His lack of response to the GOP smears only intensified the perception of him as a "flip flopper" and the larger perception of the Democrats as gutless wonders.

How could not responding give a "flip flop" perception. You have to SAY something to flip flop. :crazy:

You are not acknowledging that in the early 90's, the "left" as an oppositional force had faded into insignificance.

I have not said anything on that one way or another.

Clinton may not have been the first choice of progressives, but -- as I said above -- he was seen as a breath of fresh air by most people of liberal inclinations after so many years of Bush/Reagan.

ok... of course.

Clinton's "centrist" approach actually fueled the growth of an oppositional left. As one who had started out with high hopes when Clinton took office, I shared the same frustration of many as we saw Clinton either ignore or oppose progressive and liberal goals and instead advance the growth of corporate power.

Of course it did. The left, having never won any meaningful power, resented Clinton's success because he didn't do it their way. The right, in turn, resented Clinton's success because he knocked them from power and was successful.

The left, who can't win a national election, is always left to snipe at those who can.

Clinton made some token gestures to the liberals and progressives, but he swung to the right very easily.

No, he ruled for the common good.

The Clintons' effort to pass managed competition (a code word for "let's keep the insurance companies in the drivers' seat") should have been the first round in an effort to reform heralth care. Instead, they walked away from the issue. Not exactly a Profile in Courage.

The Clinton's were defeated by the left and the right on this. As always, nothing is ever good for you.

If Clinton and the so-called centrists of the DLC had actually looked for ways to work with liberals and progressives against the common enemy of the GOP Right, there would have been much more support and enthusiasm among the so-called "left" (a term which also includes many moderate liberals).

What a silly statement. It's like someone who owns 2% stock in a company demanding the company bend to their will. No, the left are purists. "My way or he highway." No compromise with them - as is demonstrated over and over.

And you have no idea who the "base" of the party is. The left's notion of it is laughable.

>>>>Of course it did. The left, having never won any meaningful power, resented Clinton's success because he didn't do it their way. The right, in turn, resented Clinton's success because he knocked them from power and was successful. The left, who can't win a national election, is always left to snipe at those who can.<<<

Either you are defining "the left" much more narrowly than I am, or our political compasses are so out of synch that we are on different planets.

My idea of the left ranges from Tom Harkin to Ted Kennedy to Russ Feingold to Bernie Sanders to Pat Lahey (on judicial matters) to Paul Wellstone to Hubert Humphrey to Howard Dean (a moderate almost centrist)to radio host Tom Hartman to Dennis Kucinich to John Edwards 2.0 to Sen. Sherod Brown to Sen. Dick Durbin......Well, you get the picture maybe.

The "left" by that definition, actually won meaningful power in the 1930's and basically held on to it until sometime in the 1970's. And it wasn't a member of the "left" who was the incumbent president who lost reelection in 1980.

have proven our point.

this ridiculousness post of which ended up getting a lot of perceptive comments he probably hadn't counted on. Nobody else is trying to prove anything other than commenting on the post and the posters attempt at a negative on the left.

... that got a lot of educated response void of left wing revisionism.

I would explain it to you but I don't want to get banned from here in the exchange.

I'm not going to waste the time to shoot this missive down point by point, but I have to point out that Humphrey and McGovern were both torpedoed by the reich-wing corporatists within the Democratic Party, ensuring that they had no chance in the general at all.

We have to disabuse ourselves of the idea that The Democratic Party is anything other than the illusion of choice given to the flock to keep them quietly chewing their cuds, while the wolves that rule go about their bloody business.

How did centrist/conservative Democratic candidates fare in the primaries and in the general election?

Since most elections have many primary candidates representing a wide spectrum of views, it's easy to make any type of list to fit a viewpoint.

1948 - Senator Richard Russell

1952- Senator Richard Russell

1956- Averell Harriman

1960- George Smathers

1964 - uncontested

1968 - Hubert Humphrey

1972 - Henry Jackson

1976 - Birch Bayh

1980 - uncontested Carter incumbent

1984 - John Glenn

1988 - Michael Dukakis

1992 - Bob Kerrey

1996 - uncontested Clinton incumbent

2000 - Gore incumbent(VP)

2004 - Joe Lieberman

Gary Hart and the 1988 version of Al Gore were certainly to the right of Mike Dukakis...

That would be BEYOND the Florida spoilage. If you don't even accept the 2000 theft, all your historical comments are deeply flawed.

As a Floridian I will go to my grave believing that if everybody who went to the polls intending to vote for Gore would have had their votes counted, Gore would have won by tens of thousands of votes...

His main problem was that, since he was Vice President and his boss was LBJ, he couldn't really criticize the war.

we should run them out of the party and out of the country

Instead of the above damned commie liberal socialist vermin, we got NAFTA, the destruction of organized labor, endless "war," multi-trillion-dollar deficits, a destroyed dollar and 28 years out of 40 of repuke rule and 32 out of 40 of unimpeded corporate rule.

:thumbsup:

who were so afraid of being called cowardly they voted to invade a country that was no danger to us having been bombed for 11 years by a Democratic president.

Bottom line: we were right and they were wrong.

Moderate Dems like Bob Graham opposed this fiasco...It was liberal Dems like John Kerry and John Edwards who got us into it... Being moderate and being wise are not mutually exclusive...

Bill Clinton was approving of the invasion, and he never spoke up against it.

So please don't try to spin this thing.

We are stuck there because the of the DLC policy of trying to look tough on national security.

Right Side Of History...

Kerry and my senator, Bob Graham, are interesting cases... As you know Bob Graham supported Gulf War One and John Kerry opposed it.... Bob Graham had it right then... Graham opposed Gulf War Two and Kerry supported it... Kerry got it wrong again and Bob Graham got it right... Kerry opposed the right war and supported the wrong one...

I'm beholden to no candidate, just my conscience... That's why I call it the way I see it...

As for Bill Clinton I would argue he was agnostic about the invasion... I know his Sec of Stare,Madeline Albright called it a war of choice...

.

Bob Graham is a very good man. He did have the courage of his convictions. The others, they relied on advice from a source they trusted.

So accusing the "left"...those of us who were actively opposing the war..of being losers is not wise.

A candidate can lose a race without being a "looooser"... I don't think Adlai Stevenson or George McGovern were bad men... They just lost an election...

Yes some did, Kerry for example but JE sure as hell wasn't even remotely liberal during his Senate tenure. I can rattle off a dozen liberal Dems in the Senate who opposed it, and many more in the House.

Ted Kennedy
Tom Harkin
Barbara Boxer
Patrick Leahy
Barbara Mikulski
Paul Wellstone
Jon Corzine
Russ Feingold
Ron Wyden
Mark Dayton
Carl Levin

Most of the Centrist dems voted for the IWR- and several of the liberals did as well.

.

That being said, Kucinich, Clark, and Dean were the darlings of DU in 04...

He was the classic Mass. Liberal

Dean anti-single payer health care.
Dean was pro-death penalty.
Dean was pro-NRA.
Dean was pro-"free" trade, pro-NAFTA, pro-WTO.

I'm not complaining about Dean, but I supported Kucinich and switched to Kerry before the Iowa caucus in '03-'04 because they were both further left than Dean.

"Dean anti-single payer health care.
Dean was pro-death penalty.
Dean was pro-NRA.
Dean was pro-"free" trade, pro-NAFTA, pro-WTO."

Dean was evolving in his health care plans, trying to think of one that could get through congress. He was NOT anti single payer, and actually came out in support of some aspects.

He was only pro death penalty in some cases...I agree with him. He thinks some cases, and I believe he referred to the serial killer types...deserve it. I do as well.

He is, you are right, against most gun control. He was though serious that the automatic weapons ban be renewed for the safety of the law officers.

He was pro-NAFTA when he was governor, as it benefitted his state. But he did put in safeguards in many areas. I have written about a lot of it. He soon recognized what NAFTA was doing to the country, and he became an advocate for FAIR trade instead.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/745



You just made yourself look bad by misrepresenting what Dean stood for.

"I do not believe in free health care or free anything," he says. "If you want to totally reform the health care system, I'm not your guy. Just expand the system we already have to include everybody. I'm not interested in having an argument about what the best health care system is."

Source: Citizen's Guide to the Man Who Would be President, p. 26 Oct 1, 2003

***

KUCINICH: Dr. Dean's plan would leave 10 million Americans out. It's important that all Americans be covered, alternative medicine, a prescription drug benefit, vision care and dental care and mental health care, and long-term nursing care- all covered under one Medicare For All, single-payer program. I'm the one who has that plan. I'm the one who's offering it. I'm the only one on this stage who can say that.

DEAN: In all due respect to all the candidates here, these folks have been in Washington a long time and talked about health insurance for a long time, and we have very little to show for it. In my state, 99% of the kids that are eligible for health insurance who are under 18, 96% have it. Everybody under 150% of poverty, all our working poor people, have health insurance. And a lot of seniors have prescription benefits. This does need to be a system that's built on what we have. We've done that in Vermont. I'd like the opportunity to do that for the whole country.

Source: Debate at Pace University in Lower Manhattan Sep 25, 2003

***

Q: How is your proposal for health insurance superior to the Canadian National Health System?

A: I don't propose a single payer system because I do not believe it would pass the Congress. What I want is the system based on what I did in Vermont, where 99 percent of our children under 18 have health insurance and 1/3rd of our seniors have prescription benefits.

Source: Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A Nov 6, 2003

***

This is just the way it was in 04 and since. Dean was very sensible in his postions on those things, and Kucinich supporters in their idealism did what Dennis said and gave their caucus votes to Edwards.

I will no longer stay silent when people just post stuff and claim it is right.

You need to get over yourself.

You misrepresented his stances on 4 issues.

Shame on you for not being honest.

Guess what? That means he is pro-death penalty! Even George Bush, who has executed more people than any living American, is "only pro death penalty in some cases." The people who are anti-death penalty (like me) are anti-death penalty is all cases.

Next, you agree with me Dean was pro-NRA when you said "He is, you are right, against most gun control." I didn't say he was a Ted-Nugent-loving gun-Nazi -- I said he was pro-NRA. Should I show you the quotes and the NRA endorsements Dean has made and received?

Also you agreed with me "He was pro-NAFTA when he was governor." All I was saying is that fair traders (like me) had better options in the 2004 primary. There are a ton of pro-WTO quotes and pro-NAFTA quotes from Dean. Do I really need to post them?

Finally, on health care I gave you the quotes.

I like Dean. He's doing a GREAT job.

My point was that Dean was running to the right of Kucinich, Sharpton, Mosley Braun, and Kerry. Do you dispute that each of those four candidates were generally running to the left of Dean?

And flat out said he was for or against.

I am a mixture of many different views, and it is one reason I supported Dean.

You started it by presenting a set of facts which were not correct.

etc.

I'm fine with Dean, but it is inaccurate to say that he was running as the most progressive candidate in 2004. Kucinich, Sharpton, Moseley Braun, and Kerry were all left of Dean.

He was and is pragmatic, and basically into what is the best thing for the people of the country.

Kerry made a point of going as far to the right as possible between 2000 - 2004.

DEAN:










KERRY:



On the issues seems to think they are pretty close. Kerry is anti-NRA and anti-death penalty where Dean is pro-NRA and pro-death penalty. On balance, I found Kerry more liberal than Dean.

You simply create a cartoon chronology that has no merit in fact or in the depth and complexity of the more progressive wing within the Democratic Party and it really only illuminates one thing: your own misreading of the progressive movement.

Still, you inclusion of the hideous assassination of the great Robert F. Kennedy in your so-announced "objective assessment" of how the Left "fared" is insulting and disrespectful to the man and those that loved him.

Oh, You might want to edit, if you can, your narrative as Former California Governor Gerald Brown, Jr. goes by the name "Jerry", not "Gerry".

Self edited: I confess that I approached your thread with anger as I felt it diminished many great American progressives and the causes they embraced during those years. I still am uncomfortable with such simple chronologies which do not take into account the complexity of the Left.

The Left is not a monolithic community and never has been. It is, at best, a coalition of progressive interests that include labor, minority rights advocates, socialists, marxists, environmentalists, anti-globalists and more. During the years of your chronology, the Left broke with each other during primaries within the Democratic Party.

I will grant you that, from 1968 on, your list is about 90% spot on as to who I supported in those contests. The only regret I have during those years was having supported Ted Kennedy against Jimmy Carter here in the California Primary in 1980 as it hurt President Carter in the General Election. I also supported Al Gore, not Bradley, in 2000.

You should have checked my avatar first... My mom walked precincts for John Kennedy in 1960...She took me to the front of a rope line to shake Robert Kennedy's hand when I was six years old and he was running for senator from New York... I walked around with a transistor radio glued to my ten year old ear to see if he would survive Sirhan Sirhan's bullet...My mom and I worked for Ted Kennedy in the 1980 primaries and my mom caucused for him in a Florida Democratic party straw poll...

If I report that the New York Jets beat the Miami Dolphins today does that mean I hate the Miami Dolphins?

"1968 - The left wanted Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy but the former was certainly the candidate of the white liberal, intellectual elite..."

RFK was winning primaries because he was getting the lion's share of the African American vote... That's why Ethel Kennedy said ,after RFK's win in the Indiana primary, " I wish everybody could be black."

Timing and name recognition tilted the Left to RFK from McCarthy.

Had Eugene McCarthy not challenged LBJ and humiliated him in New Hampshire, there would never have been a Bobby Kennedy candidacy. McCarthy made RFK's run for the office possible. It wasn't just "white liberal elites" (whatever the hell that is) that had problems with LBJ.

That said, once Bobby was in, it was all over for McCarthy regardless of race. It was Bobby's time and it was, of course, stolen from him and all of us.

You make Eugene McCarthy seem like a product of rich white liberals. That was not the case. And to say so does a great disservice to the man who was courageous enough to challenge the first Texas warmonger to reside in the White House.

I honor both Bobby and Eugene and will to the day I die.

I did see your avatar before posting.

I sense some jubilation in your conclusion.
It's a very depressing list.
I was explaining a Rue Paul supporter that Bill Clinton was a centrist and all the other presidents were to the right of him.
Considering the state of elections in the past 10 years or so, you only tell me of corruption, not of the will of the electorate.
We know 2/3 of the people in this country want the war ro stop, yet all the candidates prancing out there (covered by the MSM that is) want to keep it going.

:rofl:

I reached a certain level of irritation stumbling into way too much Paul stuff - so, this is my therapy: Rue Paul (whom I actually like a lot, but they must resent on so many levels)

:hi:

For the record I think all those men were good and decent men... As for RFK we will never know his true potential...Anyway he wasn't the darlimg of the left...Eugene McCarthy was... The ironic thing is Eugene McCarthy never forgave Bobby Kennedy for challenging him...You would think Bobby taking a cap behind the ear would have made him think about burying the hatchet...

As for Adlai Stevenson the Kennedys detested him...They thought he was soft...Evidently the disrespect was mutual... All Adlai Stevenson could think of, according to Arthur Schlesinger, on the day JFK was martyred , was that he would have better relations with Lyndon Johnson...

Again, if I say the Miami Dolphins are the worst team in the National Football League, ergo:


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/standings

does that mean I hate the Miami Dolphins?

A loss is a loss, nothing more and noting less...

DSB

for Bush and DNC let them do it....again.

John Kerry who voted to the right whenever possible from 2000-2004 was.

Though I'll agree that Uncle Tom Blackwell stole Ohio, and that Judas Carville helped him.

I volunteered for Kucinich since 1972 and suppported him in every election he ran in - even when most of my Dem friends in LA called him a DINO for being pro-life and supporting flag-burning amendments. I knew he was a liberal in his heart and he finally proved me right by 2002.

John Kerry was someone I also supported for many years BECAUSE of his commitment to open government and to open books. There isn't a lawmaker in DC who has uncovered and investigated more government corruption than John Kerry has and it's a damn shame that there are so many Democrats who haven't a clue about that or pretend it doesn't matter.

Cluephone: If Kerry's investigations hadn't been deep-sixed throughout the 90s by OTHER Dems there would have BEEN NO Bush2. No. 9-11. And NO Iraq war.

I don't know what to do with those records, but I see that the party machines/media will never allow an anti-war, truly progressive candidate to get even close to winning a primary. Look at Gravel. Look at Kucinich. Plus what they did to Clark in 2004.(ex: CNN REFUSED to announce his Oklahoma win, NY Times kept announcing Edwards ahead of him in the New Hampshire results until forced to retract and correct)
I never believed in the 2 party machines working together. Until the lamont/Lieberman race.

through weapon inspections and proving force was not needed. He repeted that opposition throughout the campaign and along with Dean, Clark and Gore repeatedly called for Rumsfeld to go, especially after Abu Ghraib.

His solutions and plans to bring in UN and NATO immediately after the first Iraq election so that US troops could start returning home by June 2005 was hardly a pro-war position.

Of the top 3 front-runners I would think that they prefer 1) Edwards, 2) Obama and far behind 3) Hillary. Since I think that no one can successfully run this country from the left because it's not a one party dictatorship, I prefer a moderate candidate who knows how to navigate the system and could actually get Congress to find common ground on issues such as health care.