MEMO: TO THE NEW BOSSES OF THE PARTY – WE ARE GOING TO NEED A BIGGER BUS.

MEMO: TO THE NEW BOSSES OF THE PARTY – WE ARE GOING TO NEED A BIGGER BUS.


A LITTLE PERSPECTIVE

When the contemporaries opened their newspapers and read about the ‘Missouri Compromise’ they probably thought that a great conflict was avoided. They didn’t realize that the conflict had been in fact narrowed and that the state of Kansas would run deep in blood and the divisions of the country cemented making conflict inevitable.

Those passengers on that bus had no idea that Rosa Parks’ tired legs and stern constitution was going to ignite the moral outrage of a community, the thrusting of leadership to a young pastor and a great social revolution.

CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP

We are on such a bus now.

This is not just a generational change of leadership in the party. It is not even an ideological one.

It is a change of ownership. The bosses that juice this campaign wouldn’t fit into a smoke filled room. They wouldn’t fit into a stadium. They would overflow the State of Rhode Island.

Next week some lucky American citizen will become the 1,500,000th boss of this campaign. It is a campaign that has way out raised its budget and people still line up to give a little bit more.

And so the bosses are not giving up until we reach 2024. Fine. I checked with the other 1,499,999 of us and we can wait.

A CONFUCIAN PARADIGM

Our new bus driver keeps talking about change and everybody thinks he is talking about Bush but he actually is talking about everyone including us. First we change and then we move it up the scale – change from the bottom. Very Confucius. Change your home and you change your community, change your community and you change your state, change your state and you change the nation, change your nation and you change the world.

And he actually says it if you listen carefully.

And while we are counting our delegates and trading our barbs and conducting micro surgery on what such and such’s surrogate said while having his cat neutered about the need for changes in the national weather administration the driver on the bus is taking us down a new road.

A NEW REALITY HAS ALREADY BEEN ACHIEVED

The corporate ownership of the greatest democratic political party in the world has ended.

If it was necessary and I mean absolutely necessary for us to raise ONE BILLION DOLLARS (apologies to doctor evil) we could do it in ten days. We could.

Really the funniest moment in the whole campaign is when a bunch of former bosses wrote a letter protesting Speaker Pelosi’s desire to have the nomination go to the winner of the most elected pledged delegates according to the rules, and they threatened with their pocket book. That was just embarrassing.

OBAMA KEEPS SAYING THAT WE ALSO HAVE TO CHANGE

Now that we are the bosses and we own this party we have to begin to prepare ourselves for a General Election campaign and for Taking Control of the Government.

He has given a couple of examples of what is different in this bus.

One) Use Legislation to legislate and not for posturing and political stalemate.

He says that we have to avoid ‘poison pill legislation’. Legislation that a large majority of the country wants but one party puts something objectionable in it causing it to be defeated allowing the party to go back to its base and get more support while bashing the opponents in the media and never intending to pass anything.

The Republicans do it by not making an exception for the health of the mother for late term abortions. I suspect that we do it on Social Security. We could negotiate a good deal (not perfect but good) but would rather smash the other side over the head in the press and make the base angry. Our old leaders never wanted this one to be solved.
Too many easy headlines, too many easy slogans, too many easy points

Two) He says that we will actually have to listen to each other, including Republicans. Actually listen and not jump to impugn their motivations immediately when they say something. He says if we listen to them they will start listening to us.

Well this is going to be an interesting challenge for DU to say the least.

THE PREDICTABLE: NOT TOUGH ENOUGH AND NOT PURE ENOUGH, ALREADY STARTED.

Obama doesn’t have the nomination yet and there are already threads that he isn’t tough enough for the Republicans (confusing entirely the difference between having a family argument with a fellow Democrat and a no holds barred fight with the third Bush term).

He hasn’t been sworn in yet and there are plenty of folks who say that they are entirely unhappy about his overly moderate tact on policy (while ironically the Republicans will be framing him as the most liberal Senator in history).

WELL I DON’T LIKE THIS CHANGE BUSINESS

This change business don’t like it, never have. Hate it when somebody wants me to get out of my comfort zone and try to do something differently. Try another approach.

But given the fact that he was able to take control of the party away from the old entrenched bosses, given the fact that corporate America – even the good ones – no longer are underwriting our Presidential candidacy – I am willing to listen to this guy and if he wants me to change well I will try it.

If he can get 1,500,000 new bosses lined up to push out corporate ownership, if he can push out the old powerful dynasty, if he can get 10 million or maybe 20 million new voters registered this summer – and I think that is what his next plan is – then I am willing to let him have the benefit of the doubt.

If he is able to do this then I will see about the changes he wants me to look at, after all I have waited forty years for this bus and I’ll be damned if I am going to miss this bus ride.

Oh and remember the new bus driver’s #1 rule:

NO THROWING ANYONE UNDER THE BUS.

Nice

and I have a feeling Indiana is going to make us all proud on Tuesday.

to mail postcards for OBAMA!

I sent 400 to Indiana and now my friends are doing 400 more for the next Primaries. :bounce:

I was writing postcards while watching Obama at the dinner in NC last night.

Wasn't he spectacular!

:bounce:

:)

grantcart for President :)

K&R

and I am not missing this bus.
thanks Grantcart, great read.

We know where the DLC stands...aka the Democratic Leadership CORPORATION.

If change looks like this....

BUSH......CLINTON......CLINTON......BUSH......BUSH......CLINTON......CLINTON

WHERE IS THE CHANGE IN THAT ???????????



Meet the new boss......same as the old boss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN_nQOHj__s&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/2/93316/53926/838/507664

Its not just the Clintons that are hanging on for dear life its the whole apparatus.

There is a reason that Carville is fighting so hard against Obama.


If Obama wins his whole style of politics is over. He is out of business. That is why they don't give up. Its not just the end of a campaign it will mean that they are out of business.

his Repub wife Mary = JAMESandMary Demoplicans

Morning Joe and Pat Buchanan = Sweep out the door.

This is their last stand and they are not giving up,we have got to rock their boat and rock it good.

doing deep house cleaning, we are. Even dusting the attic and sweeping the basement. Open the windows and shutters. Let in some fresh air and sunlight. Clean under the sink and sort out the closets. The people will own the houses on Capitol Hill and at 1600 Pennsylvania.

:kick:

:kick:

It ain't easy being a Democrat form Idaho - but I'm not complaining - not this year!

That's it! The tandem bus tour!

Great post once again, my friend.

I'm off to North Carolina with my bride to go door to door this weekend.

I've been waiting 45 years for this bus.

No WAY I'm gonna miss this ride!!!

:bounce::yourock::bounce:

:hi:

Y'all got some fearsome chops, Grantcart - keep it up, please, your perspective balances out my own natural hostility and disgust with the current ownership.....

And you write real purty, too....

:headbang: :headbang:







:patriot:

and looking forward to being on that bus.

:kick: & REC'D!!!

:kick:

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

5 Thumbs!



4 Stars!

We also have to change!

:toast:

you dont sit and write a long piece often enough for me to catch them but i sure like reading you when i do catch one

good job

His #1 rule is no throwing anyone under the bus?

LOL!!!

Absolutely priceless!

Obama and his supporter's hypocrisy is limitless. Yes they can!

pundits, commentators,and the vast majority of Clinton supporters all say that it was Wright that threw Obama under the bus, to use a tired cliche, and most feel that Obama waited to long to do so.


But thanks for your contribution even though it had absolutely nothing to do with the OP.


You did however mangage to find the metaphor which was in the Title.

and he was willing to coldly, and rather nastily I thought, trash his friend and mentor on national TV to do it.

Anyone who saw Obama's press conference knows exactly who threw who under a bus, after Wright had said nothing more about Obama than that he is a politician and as such is constrained in what he can say, unlike a pastor.

Obama did this simply so he wouldn't have to answer questions about the teachings he and his wife have followed for twenty years, and now take their children to be steeped in. That's the simple truth of what happened. Don't bother trying to pretend otherwise, whether pro-Obama pundits think it was a good thing or not. Obama did it. Both ways: 20 years in and trashing a friend to try to get out.

Republicans aren't going to let Obama get away with either his beliefs, or his low-character attempt to divorce himself from them.


And now Obama supporters have the gall to pretend they're on the high road and people shouldn't throw others into the garbage, as Obama has just done in such a high-profile way. Yes you can. Invert reality and actually believe it.

in trying to interject your personal agenda on to a discussion between other folks.

If you feel that the subject in your reply hasn't been covered and needs further comment why don't you start your own thread.

Or you could make an attempt to resond to the issues that the other 50 people in this thread have addressed.

Rule #1 is in direct contradiction to the biggest story in the news over the past week.

The hypocrisy couldn't be more relevant right now.

You see things in black and white, with us or against us, glasses. Yes, no throwing people under the bus, but pu-lease, a man has right to defend himself. It was Obama who after the first time gave an eloquent and powerful speech on race relations, and explained Rev. Wrights behavior as past anger without throwing him under the bus. He gave him an out.

Only after Wright reignited the flame in a pompous and bitter retort where he knowingly re-raised conspiratorial theories and acted like a buffoon, mocking President Kennedy etc. KNOWING FULL WELL THAT IT WOULD COME BACK TO BITE OBAMA, was Barack's hand forced to slap him down.

Maybe Monica Lewinsky should campaign for Hillary? She should be welcomed to be the 'mouth' of the Clinton campaign, no?

not even interested in compromises with the right wing of the democratic party. obama wants to "reach across the aisle". can't go for that. they call that collaboration.

problems with reading comprehension.

Are you also against Obama's adding 10 - 20 million poor voters and adding them to the democratic party?

If he can get 1,500,000 new bosses lined up to push out corporate ownership, if he can push out the old powerful dynasty, if he can get 10 million or maybe 20 million new voters registered this summer – and I think that is what his next plan is – then I am willing to let him have the benefit of the doubt.


The point is that we should stop playing stupid political games putting in 'poison pill' ammendments to legislation that really has strong majority support in the country.

We do not live in a parlimentary system where having obtained a solid majority in the legislative branch you also obtain power in the executive.

When you make an idiotic statement that you are not interested even in compromises with the right wing of the democratic party (without defining what you mean by that) you simply are revealing that you want to be a cheerleader for causes but never actually govern.

The system of government that we have in our Republic requires compromise and every progressive leader from FDR to MLK has known that and used it effectively.

The question is not whether or not we compromise but

first how do we run a general election campaign to gain the leaverage to have the most power

secondly how do we create the atmosphere for a more honest debate of the issues in the electorate and

thirdly what are the issues that are worth compromising on and what are the issues that are not. Given that the minority party can bring the government to a stalemate with 40 votes your attitude is childish.

I am happy to compromise with those Republicans who are interested in bringing our involvement in Iraq to a conclusion.

If the Democrats, for example, are firm on 18 months but there are a significant number of Republicans who are interested in joining legislation that would bring them home in 24 months then that would be a good and acceptable compromise.

We are also going to be unable to pass immigration reform without Republican support. Your strategy of no compromise would mean that no legislation would ever pass on important issues.

What makes your comment particularly vacous is that you are against compromises without having seen what we gain and what we give up.

Your position as stated means that even if a compromise was agreed upon where the Democrats got 92% of what they wanted and the Republicans only got 8% you would still be against it - even though everyone else in the party was for it.

there's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. there is something wrong, however, with your level of political astuteness and ability to read BETWEEN the lines. i'm smart enough to know that the idyllic compromises you foresee are NEVER going to happen. you're still laboring under the american delusion that we have two parties.

Almost all of the "old entrenched Democratic party bosses" have endorsed Obama.

and I will be happy to supply you with a detailed response.

You don't really get it do you - Clintons are the head of the old gang in control.

How do we define the "old gang in control." I am not trying to pick a fight with you, or even disagree with you, it just is not clear to me that the Obama campaign is a to-the-death struggle with some old guard. Don't people such as Kerry and Kennedy wield any power? Are they not old guard? Had they endorsed Clinton, would they then be deemed old guard? You know the list of long time powerful Democrats who are backing Obama as well as I do, no?

A bunch of those inside-the-beltway consultants - Carville for example - are on Clinton's team, yes, and they need to be tossed from positions of power and influence. The Penn connection is symptomatic of the corporate control over our politics - I posted extensively about that at one time, and was certain that it would sink the Clinton candidacy.

Who do you see as being in power, and how? (Sincere question.)

If your talking about politicos who are old guard I picture those that run machines like Governors who run big bureacracies as having more power at the state and local level Rendell, Strickland, Corzine and Spitzer until he left.

But my point was that the whole paradigm has been turned upside down. Candidates used to have to be beholding to big contributors and Obama has changed the equation completely. His 1.5 million contributors have given him a blank check and that has liberated him of not having to tailor his message or his itinerary to fund raising.

I think that Obama's plan is simply doing on a national level what he did in Chicago in 1993

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-1993/Vote-of-Confidence/
A huge black turnout in November 1992 altered Chicago's electoral landscape—and raised a new political star: a 31-year-old lawyer named Barack Obama.

By Gretchen Reynolds

A huge black turnout in November 1992 altered Chicago's electoral landscape-and raised a new political star: a 31-year-old lawyer named Barack Obama.

In the final, climactic buildup to November's general election, with George Bush gaining ground on Bill Clinton in Illinois and the once-unstoppable campaign of senatorial candidate Carol Moseley Braun embroiled in allegations about her mother's Medicare liability, one of the most important local stories managed to go virtually unreported: The number of new voter registrations before the election hit an all-time high. And the majority of those new voters were black. More than 150,000 new African-American voters were added to the city's rolls. In fact, for the first time in Chicago's history-including the heyday of Harold Washington-voter registrations in the 19 predominantly black wards outnumbered those in the city's 19 predominantly white ethnic wards, 676,000 to 526,000.


He is doing exactly what he said he was going to do - changing the equation from the ground up. He started with fund raising and in states where he had primaries after Super Tuesday there is always a two step campaign. Step one voter registration.

He has recruited interns - we don't know how many could be thousands to work full time this summer on what can only be - voter registration.

So to summarize I think he has a two step plan to change the fundamentals of political power 1) change the financing 2) bring in 10-20 million new voters. Typical Democrat voters in ethnic, urban, college, and poorer demographics that haven't particpated in past elections.

Its not that he is replacing Carville and Penn with his own versions - he is playing a completely different game.

Two friends make a wager they are going to place on a friendly game. The first guy goes to his neighborhood and rounds up a bunch of guys that can play touch football. The second guy goes and brings a bunch of guys that are 6'3" and play basketball all day.

The second guy has the ball and the facility lined up and so they go play basketball.

Obama isn't just changing the players he is changing the way the game is being played.

First - Money
Second - Tone If you saw his terrific speech at the JJ dinner in N Carolina he was very determined in making very specific points and one of them was that he was disappointed that sometimes they had gotten off message and dragged down in 'gotcha politics'
Third - Change the demographics.

Yes he is open to better relations across the aisle, but and this is a big but, first he wants to add 10 million new voters so that we have better leaverage.

I think that the question on whether this election will be won big or by a landslide will be what Obama does in June July and August in voter registration drives.

And so, if Obama does in voter registration what he did in fund raising, then he will have the power. He will have put together a new broad based coalition along the lines of FDR. When people compare him with Kennedy I see it from a charisma point of view but in terms of changing the equation big time he has the potential of having the impact of FDR. Its just that living as contemporaries during the change its hard to see what significance it has - like the fellow riders in Rosa Parks' bus.

Thanks for clarifying your sincere question








http://www.mywire.com/pubs/USATODAY/2008/05/02/6370337?&pbl=7

Coincidentally just found this USA Today story

Presidential campaigns are typically fueled by contributions of $2,300, the maximum allowed from an individual donor, but the Internet has made it easier to build huge campaign treasuries in small bites.

"Donating to campaigns for so long has been the exclusive domain of an elite few," said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics. "This election seems to be the first one to indicate that's changing."

Since the 2000 elections, the percentage of small donations to presidential candidates has doubled.

The trend is driven by Obama, who has used the Internet to shatter many fundraising records.

Since January 2007, Obama has collected more than $101 million in small donations -- an amount that far surpasses the $68.4 million raised in small increments by all 10 Democratic presidential contenders at this stage in the 2004 campaign.

The Illinois senator's fundraising haul also is more than double the small donations collected by all presidential candidates -- Republican and Democrat -- at this point in 2000, Campaign Finance Institute data show.

We can hope that this narrative is true - certainly the Obama campaign has done a good job of marketing the idea that "everything has changed." My understanding is that the way Obama's campaign is being funded, and the sources of the funding, are not significantly different or new.

"Tone" is a subjective thing. The "tone" of the candidate doesn't resonate with me, nor do I think it is an important political consideration.

I do not agree that voter registrations equal "put(ting) together a new broad based coalition along the lines of FDR." That sounds good, but I don't think the FDR coalition was originally built with pep rallies, clever marketing, and innovative ways to describe his fund-raising.

I don't know that I am right, and time will tell. Maybe what you see is real. I am saying that I am a long way from being convinced. Not that it matters much, since I will work and vote for whoever the nominee is. Must we also believe in the narrative, or is working like dogs to get this politician elected sufficient?

Carville is one mean machine and gets down and dirty with the best of them.
He just happened to marry one of the mean machines true insiders for the Bushes.

When you sleep with the enemy it is difficult to know who you are when morning comes.

the liberal backbone of the party, I'll take them.

"Next week some lucky American citizen will become the 1,500,000th boss of this campaign. It is a campaign that has way out raised its budget and people still line up to give a little bit more."


:smoke:

Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours -- :cry:

:kick:

:kick: