Look, "we" are not going to win the WH in 2008.

Will the Democratic Party candidate win? Maybe, but as a progressive movement, we do not have enough power to field a strong candidate by 2008. At this point it seems like the front runners are Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. I know there are quite a few Clark supporters out there, but in my opinion, he is unlikely to win the primary at this point.

I have seen a constant stream of infighting on which one is the perfect candidate since December. Lets face it people, they are not perfect and they never will be. No matter how much you study these people, they will never be you. I have seen too many posts abandoning one candidate for another based on a single statement or issue. Guess what happens after that? Another issue or statement comes out and people abandon that candidate. We are going in circles.

We are not going to have "our candidate" running in 2008. I think we need to look at all the issues, foreign and domestic, keeping in mind that the president tends to control foreign policy and the congress domestic policy. Of course, congress's foreign policy affects the president (unless your Bush) and the president's domestic policy can strongly affect the congress. The point being that all issues should be looked at. You don't have to make a decision today and I guarantee you will feel better deciding to be undecided until more is fleshed out between these candidates over the next 2 years.

The more important note here is that since "we" do not have a candidate for 2008, we must concentrate on our influence in the Senate and House. The House has the potential for some gains, but the Senate is the most vulnerable right now. They are only up for election every 6 years. You have to make these elections count. By gaining more influence in congress, we will have more say over domestic policy and foreign policy as well. With those people who reflect our principles having more experience we can hope for a great candidate for 2012 or 2016. I know this may seem far off, but things don't change overnight, especially political parties and the people with power in them.

that the "front runners" and eventual winner will never be very progressive.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

and he'll be smart to not enter until the last cat dies too

think anybody ever wins thinking like that?

at this point, I don't see that happening

Now is the time for all of us to jump into the race and be citizen activists. Work on anti-war stuff, work for impeachment, hell, work for Kucinich. But I will have no respect for you if you give up just because you don't have a candidate you like in the race who will get out there and say everything you believe. You have a voice as well, you can make a positive effort.

Frightening lack of it in the press. Not a "rock star" I guess.

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

If you promise that's the last time we get to read you offer slogans or litmus tests in lieu of debate, then I am happy and DU has just become a smarter place for your restraint. So thank you.

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

to run a third party campaign again. After all only the purest of heart deserve our vote.

www.kucinich.us

Anyone who really thinks he can win needs meds.

Sometimes this place is just so oxymoronic.

WWWD? He'd support Kucinich.

Wellstone was in the Progressive Caucus...he would support Kucinich.

I sincerely believe this is true. Of course, right now the chances of a fair vote count don't look very good.

And I disagree that there are no good Dem candidates. I think the field is full of good candidates, tho some are as yet unannounced: Clark, Edwards, Gore, Kucinich, Obama, all are "good" candidates. And even some of the apparently bland or middle-of-the-road candidates could turn out if they were in the WH to be quite progressive: HRC or Vilsack or Biden, etc.

How many good candidates do you want?

And there may be others who might decide to give it a whirl as well, who knows? I'm going to support Kucinich until he either wins it or loses it. I'll support whoever gets it for the Dems naturally, as any sane person would do it seems to me after the experiences of the past 6-8 years.

:cya:

I also advocated concentrating on the House and the Senate. Who's talking about quitting?

It is way too early WAY too early, to say things like We are not going to have "our candidate" running in 2008. We have no idea what is coming up in even the next week, let alone the next 6 months. The situation could very well be very positive for the progressive cause when all the bad things this administration has done comes out.

:eyes:

Democrats would have to do something horrible not to win the WH. Its ours to lose and we just have to keep the Republicans from "Swift Boating" our candidate..And even that wont convince the voters to elect a Republican..

I'll bet she gets more progressive things done than even a Dennis Kucinich would in office.

The same factors that preclude a Kucinich from getting elected President are the same factors that, even if by fluke he did get elected, would water down and stymie his agenda throughout his tenure.


LBJ did so much. The Great Society was the biggest thing since the New Deal thirty years earlier, and forty years since.
Because he was a progressive who knew how to play politics.

Hillary is a progressive, who can play the game.

I don't doubt that Senator Clinton would be tons better than even the most moderate of Republican presidents. But I'm just not ready to give up on democracy just yet. Plan B is to accept an American history book with a list in the index that reads "Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton". Plan A is to support the spirit of that old small-r republican principle of rotation in office. No Jeb in '16, no Chelsea in '24.

d

manifest what you want.

We have a president that hardly anybody approves of conducting a war that only a rabid hard core continues to support, and we have no reasonable chance to remove him. Because we don't matter. We're polled over and over and less than 30% of us approve of this clown. Yet he remains in office by constitutional design.

The best we can do is assert his political illegitimacy in counter-public spheres. I am thinking about something like the "people's impeachment hearings" Howard Zinn has proposed. I think it's a good idea, and I think it needs to be coupled with some sort of push for proportional representation in the legislative branch and and a no-confidence mechanism that is less insurmountable than impeachment.

I agree that the elections matter, that the perfect ought not to be the enemy of the good. Al Gore as opposed to George W. Bush matters. John Kerry as opposed to George W. Bush matters. And I know there are limits to what these people can do within the system without committing political suicide or making promises they cannot possibly keep. But elections aren't enough. Bitching about these candidates not being good enough is a dead end. Thinking that if Kucinich were in there (by some miracle of miracles) everything would change is naive. He would be thwarted at every turn. He would get even less cooperation than Jimmy Carter did. The problem is systemic and they system's political legitimacy needs to be contested by a reawakened public. That's it. We need to take a republican (small r) turn in this country. This country is too damn big and conditions are too unequal to have a functioning democracy. The Anti-Federalists were right. We need people to be as into making their own government as they are into making their own beer or doing their own home makeovers.

Roughly half of the adult population just doesn't give a fuck. Some interpret that as a rejection of the system, but it could just as easily be interpreted as a tacit endorsement of democratic despotism or at least a sense of resignation to the general feeling that their attempts to contest political issues in the public sphere is hopelessly ineffectual. That's what we have.

Unless I move to an early primary state or become a campaign worker or play with the checkbook, by the time the primary train rolls to my state the nomination is long sown up.

I am blissfully uncomitted and see all this current posturing as nothing more than a high school popularity contest that will have little to no shelf-life when it comes to the first primary vote being cast a year from now. I enjoy the large field as it shows a dynamic party with many perspectives...now I want each and every candidate to sell me. I'll decide what's bullshit and what's possible and don't need proxies and filters to tell me what I should be thinking rather than what I've learned. And, most important, I'll keep an open mind as to all candidates positions and qualifications but with an eye toward the incredibly hard job that awaits whomever will have to try to clean up the messes of the past 6 (and then 8) years. The best test of what person this will be will play out as this popularity contest turns into an endurance race and we see who stands up on their qualifications and issues and who is trying to pander and play us for fools.

I think your assessment is premature. Let's see where we are in 6 months or a year from now to determine if Progressives and Liberals are shut out of the '08 electoral process. The netroots have proven that we do make a difference on the state and local level (and it'll be even bigger next year) and I believe our presence is yet to be felt either financially or as a political voice in the upcoming election cycle.

Local, state, and federal elections should be concentrated on.