Daily Kos

There will be a recount of the presidential vote in Ohio!!

by pf99

Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:55:02 AM PDT

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/1115-06.htm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOVEMBER 15, 2004
12:46 PM
 CONTACT: Green Party of the United States
Blair Bobier, Media Director, 541-929-5755

Recount in Ohio A Sure Thing; Green Party Campaign Raises $150,000 in 4 Days, Shifts Gears to Phase II

WASHINGTON -- November 15 -- There will be a recount of the presidential vote in Ohio.

On Thursday, David Cobb, the Green Party's 2004 presidential candidate, announced his intention to seek a recount of the vote in Ohio. Since the required fee for a statewide recount is $113,600, the only question was whether that money could be raised in time to meet the filing deadline. That question has been answered.

"Thanks to the thousands of people who have contributed to this effort, we can say with certainty that there will be a recount in Ohio," said Blair Bobier, Media Director for the Cobb-LaMarche campaign.

"The grassroots support for the recount has been astounding. The donations have come in fast and furiously, with the vast majority in the $10-$50 range, allowing us to meet our goal for the first phase of the recount effort in only four days," said Bobier.

Bobier said the campaign is still raising money for the next phase of the recount effort which will be recruiting, training and mobilizing volunteers to monitor the actual recount.

The Ohio presidential election was marred by numerous press and independent reports of mis-marked and discarded ballots, problems with electronic voting machines and the targeted disenfranchisement of African American voters. A number of citizens' groups and voting rights organizations are holding the second of two hearings today in Columbus, Ohio, to take testimony from voters, poll watchers and election experts about problems with the Ohio vote. The hearing, from 6-9 p.m., will be held at the

Courthouse, meeting room A, 373 S. High St., in Columbus. The Cobb-LaMarche campaign will be represented at the hearing by campaign manager Lynne Serpe.

A demand for a recount in Ohio can only be filed by a presidential candidate who was either a certified write-in candidate or on the ballot in that state. Both Green Party candidate David Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik will be demanding a recount. No other candidate has stated an intention to seek a recount and no other citizen or organization would have legal standing to do so in Ohio. The Cobb-LaMarche campaign is still exploring the possibility of seeking recounts in other states but no decision has been made yet.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 346 comments

  •  Recommended! (4.00 / 4)

    I wish I could go to Ohio to help with this effort.  I urge all kossacks who are in or near Ohio and can help to get involved with this, finding out what happened in Ohio may be the single most important thing anyone can do for the progressive cause right about now.

    Voting rights are our most important rights because all the other ones depend on them

    by markusd on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:53:38 AM PDT

    •  My wish (4.00 / 2)

      I wish I could find the garage where Repugs are marking blank ballots to give to Kenneth Blackwell before the recount takes place.

      The Daily Show Blog. Get Daily Show transcripts.

      by political on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:11:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wouldn't put it past them (4.00 / 2)

        to pull such a stunt, but is there any way to verify legitimate ballots?  If not, how can we possibly defeat that kind of cold-blooded mendacity, because faking ballots is EXACTLY what I'm afraid will happen.  It is so hard holding on to optimism, but I just can't quite give up on the country yet, ya know?

        One way or the other, at least we will know we didn't meekly acquiesce to Bushco but fought back hard.  Isn't it something that the money raised for the recount came in small amounts?

        People power. Fuel for optimism!!!

        (This is my second post, by the by. Hope I get better at it! :)

        by MojoBombay on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:48:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What, exactly... (none / 0)

      ...can we do to help out?

      Yes, in fact, I do drive a Volvo.

      by KTinOhio on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:39:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How we can help (4.00 / 7)

        (1) Volunteer to help in the recount as an observer, county coordinator, etc. They urgently need volunteers who can donate their time, particularly people with legal training or experience as election officials.

        (2) Donate toward the costs of food and shelter for volunteers and other mobilization expenses.

        (3) If you live in Ohio, Volunteer to offer food and shelter to the Ohio Recount volunteers.  That helps stretch out the money.

        More information about how the recount is going is on the home page of the Green candidate, David Cobb.  You may also be able to find info on the website of the Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik.



        Thanks to the thousands of people who have already donated toward the initial filing fees and expenses, they have already met that goal and can now move forward with the actual mobilization:

        by Sycamore on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:07:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yay! (none / 0)

          Thanks for posting this list.  I just went and signed up.  Hopefully, they can find a place for me to observe the recount (since I offer no other skills, unfortunately) right here in town, since I live in the county seat.

          I've felt completely useless and angry ever since 11-3.  I live in Knox County, OH, where all the Kenyon students got screwed and were forced to stand in line til 4:00 am to vote.  Somehow, I feel like if I'm able to participate in the recount, that will be my own little bit of revenge.  :)

          Bush/Cheney - in your guts, you know they're nuts.

          by Lufah on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:38:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'd like to hear more about this. (none / 0)

            I don't see how this is possible given the size of Kenyon College.  Damn, what did they make you do, copy out the ballot by hand?

            I hated Bush before it was cool.

            by daveriegel on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 02:17:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not a student (4.00 / 3)

              And I didn't even realize what was going on until MSNBC mentioned that people were still voting in Franklin and Knox counties in Ohio after midnight.  I think CNN and NPR reported on it as well.  I was confused - I had voted by absentee ballot, but everyone I talked to reported about 45 minutes-1 hour standing in line for voting.  I had no idea where in Knox County (which only has a population of about 50,000) this could be going on.

              I found out about it the next day.  Students waited in line until 4:00 am to vote.  There was a crappy article in the local newspaper about how it was all just an unlucky confluence of events, blah blah blah - they said they had 2 polling stations open, but one worked very slow for about 3 hours until it was fixed.  It was a whole bunch of "Not our fault!!  This happens!"

              Except Gambier (where Kenyon is located) is pretty much the only reliably liberal area in this county, and they were the ones to have this problem?  Also, in the months preceding, there was a scare campaign directed at the students to try and stop them from registering to vote in Ohio - telling them they could be committing a felony, etc.  The local Dems did their best to correct this disinformation, but enough crap has happened directed at Kenyon that the whole thing feels wrong to me.  Just like this whole election feels wrong to me.  :)

              Bush/Cheney - in your guts, you know they're nuts.

              by Lufah on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 02:26:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You ought to report that here ... (4.00 / 3)

                http://www.votersunite.org/

                If it isnt already. Lots of complaints logged by states on the site.

                And that goes for anyone else who knows of irregularites, fishy occurrences.

                Might be worth checking it out.

                Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

                by NYCee on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 04:44:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Difference between (none / 0)

                fraud and gaming of the elections.

                I've no doubt these stories are true (or that they effect impact of election), but this kind of thing, deplorable though it is does not constitute fraud.  Its the way the party in power GAMES elections which should indicate to people that elections aren't a clear, direct reflection of the electorate's will.  Like any information collection system (what else is an election?) it can be skewed, and often is.

                The problem fraud folks have is that this kind of gaming isn't illegal.

                Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

                by a gilas girl on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 05:31:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Gaming is illegal if (none / 0)

                  it has racially disparate effects.

                  by white blitz on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 05:53:53 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  It damn well ought to be (none / 0)

                  There's a Constitutional amendment I could get behind!

                  Oyez, oyez!

                  Any efforts made to coerce, intimidate, discourage, or disenfrachise voters or otherwise interfere with the casting, counting or handling of ballots shall henceforth be considered a capital crime under federal law and those convicted shall be hanged by the neck until dead.

                  So say all of we!

                  by Disenfranshit on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 10:09:34 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  While I agree it ought to be (none / 0)

                    it isn't.  And pointing to these examples are as instances of fraud, even though they are easily fraudlent in a moral sense, doesn't consistitute proof of any legal definition of fraud.  I think that's what's hard for people to come to grips with: there's a great deal of the following kind of thinking, since we know that the Repubs game the system that's enough for me that they also commit fraud. While its not hard to believe they might (or even likely do), its not enough to demonstrate that they have committed fraud, simply because we know they have turned gaming elections into a science.

                    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

                    by a gilas girl on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 06:22:59 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Same thing happened at Univ. of Miami in Florida (4.00 / 3)

            My wife and I were Kerry volunteers in Miami-Dade County, Florida.  Exactly the same thing happened at the University of Miami as happened at Kenyon College, except that it for some reason only seemed to make the local news.  They provided a total of either 2 or 3 voting machines for the precinct which covered the University, supposedly on the basis of poor turnout in the primary (which was held after the Presidential nomination was decided).  Students were still standing in line long after midnight, and long after the state had been called for Bush.

            Much the same thing happened in Little Haiti during the early voting, when the polling place there had less machines than those in some other neighborhoods, despite lines that were at times longer than 4 hours (as compared with much shorter lines at polling places with more machines that just happened to be in heavily Republican areas).

            "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

            by leevank on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 04:05:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I suggest the same to you as above. (none / 0)

              http://www.votersunite.org/

              This is a good site that has tons of complaints (irregularities, appearances of malfeasance, suppression) logged next to states.

              Maybe yours has not been logged.

              Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

              by NYCee on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 04:48:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The same sort of thing... (none / 0)

              Happened in Franklin County, OH. I was volunteering with Just Democracy at the OSU student union polling place, which covered the entire university (50k people, unsure how many registered voters), and I believe a few other precincts. Either two or three machines were provided. Early in the day, the line was somewhere between an hour and a half and two hours. Around 6 or 7, the line appeared to have doubled. I have no idea how long the people at the end of that line ended up having to wait, but I did see a number of people leaving because they didn't have the time or patience to wait. On the other hand, however, it was very encouraging to see so many of my fellow students giving a crap enough to wait so long in line to vote. I talked to one girl who had been given the run-around and sent to 4 different polling places (each polling place would tell her no, she was in the wrong place, go vote here), and was still trying, and a few people who waited in line for an hour and a half only to be told they were at the wrong place and they'd need to go wait another hour and a half to vote somewhere else.
              I was surprised, though, that the county didn't send over some more machines or something. It seems like someone made the reasonable assumption that a lot of students, of all people, would not be willing to wait very long, and since they go overwhelmingly Democratic, this might be strategic. I'm not trying to be a conspiracy theorist, and I understand turnout has been incredibly low at the student union in the past, but it seems like the county should've been more prepared to alleviate long lines. This could be a bureaucratic oversight, or it could be that someone is in someone else's pocket.
              That said, Just Democracy is nonpartisan, and man, was it hard to be nonpartisan for 3 hours.

              Mamas and grandmamas love you, 'cause that's all they know how to do. But you never planned on the bombs in the sand, or sleepin' in your dress blues.

              by Jello2028 on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:20:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Same Thing at University of South Florida (none / 0)

              Precinct 353 at the University of South Florida had the same exact thing happen.  I can't find the link to the article anymore and tbo.com took it down. But basically, the lines were so long with only 3 voting machines that they brought in a 4th at 3:30 pm. They also moved another of the campus precincts to a mobile home off to Skipper road and it was locked behind a chain link fence, alot of students had no way to get over there and if they were able to, met the locked fence. They also stated they weren't informed of the precinct change..of course, our Republican SOE said of course they were, the same guy who left a Democrat County Commission Candidate off a precinct's ballot. I wish I could find that link.

              "Doing My Best to Piss off the Conservative Right..."

              by MelvinFrohike on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:16:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  They are having hearings, (none / 0)

            I think they started today. Be sure to go an testify - what they did was illegal and should result in criminal prosecution.

            Victim of the *other* war America is waging.

            by nephalim on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:33:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I think the excess above the $110,000 (4.00 / 2)

          does go to expenses for volunteers.

          Havent we ponied up enough for the time being?

          We paid for the total asked for. Let's not be excessive, ie, openended 24/7 ATMs.

          We did our job moneywise. Now let's see some action.

          (Skinflint student dying to see PERFORMANCE, not requests for more dough.;-)

          Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

          by NYCee on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 04:55:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Here are some places to go/Things to see: (none / 0)

        To record any suspect, suppressive, irregular occurrences you know of. There are a multitude listed next to the states where they occurred. All sorts from large to small.

        http://www.votersunite.org/

        Here is an action center with alerts, contacts (relevant Congressional members, Jimmy Carter, media, etc) and info from Jonathan Simon of Verified Voting. In it he rebuts an argument made against the NC anomalies diaried yesterday.

        http://www.donotconcede.com/

        He is here, too, on Scoop.

        http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/archive/scoop/stories/29/4c/200411111345.8ffc617c.html

        Chart of Florida touch screen v scanner discrepancies by counties.

        http://www.ecotalk.org/Florida2004.htm

        Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

        by NYCee on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:57:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I worry about the media coverage (4.00 / 5)

      I still don't see enough media coverage on the subject and I wonder what happens if the recount happens to turn the election around, however improbable that is.
      If the media doesn't cover it enough, people who voted for Bush and learned he won, and now returned to their everyday worries, might not react too well to such a surprise, and before you can say a "we won", Karl Rove will be crying "they are stealing the election!"
      So in a way it would serve us better to have more media speculate about the integrity of the election before Bushco cries foul, even though he'd be the one implicated in fraud if the votes go the other way. But you know how they do it.

      by Political Poet on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:50:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fox is on it (Brit Hume) (none / 1)

        I was reading this story about a guy that set himself on fire
        outside the White House:

        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138621,00.html

        and on the right side of the page is a "Politics" video headline
        set of links, one of them is:
        Online Conspiracy?
        Online conspiracy theorists think Kerry may have won the presidential election after all

        with the author of "Stealing Elections" John Fund

        by blueherring on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 02:24:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's a relief. (4.00 / 2)

          I'm sure they'll do a great job getting to the bottom of it and reporting on it in fair and balanced manner. I can finally get some sleep. :)

          Thinking Caps ON!

          by Patsy Stone on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:51:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  If you google, you find just a few (none / 0)

          If you google for "ohio recount" you get a few links, the first being a cluster of 27 "related" links. No other major clusters. And the links are from other liberal news blogs and papers, no major names.
          If you google for "Powell" you find lots of links from today, the first cluster containing 1668 "related" links.
          So, I don't think it's "really" being covered in the media.

          by Political Poet on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:13:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  This is a helpful site for info and actions (none / 0)

        It has the argument re North Carolina anomalies, Ohio actions, lots of contact information for related sites, media actions, Conyers/GAO; Congressional contacts; Jimmy Carter, etc.

        Do Not Concede

        Here's more of Jonathan Simon's (Verified Voting) analysis:

        Verified Voting

        Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

        by NYCee on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:30:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually.... (none / 0)

        once the counting begins, the media will be all over this.  They won't want to be left behind if things do get weird and fraud is found.

        However, we should be watching the rethugs to see what they do.  If they get real edgy, then we know we've struck too close to home.  If FOX starts the big noise machine, then we know we have to keep at it.

        If we begin to hear the Rethugs on Capital Hill calling for measures to stop the counting, then we know we've caught them.

        Fasten the seat belts.  This may get very crazy before it's over.

        Kleeb ~ Powers

        by NYBri on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:38:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What news from the north? (none / 0)

      Is there any word on the progress of the provisional vote count? I haven't heard anything new in 3 days?

      by bamapookie on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:16:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  here are some tables re: the florida controversy (none / 0)

      touch screen versus optical scan results

      http://www.ecotalk.org/Florida2004.htm

      Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

      by NYCee on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:52:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lovely (none / 1)

        was e-mailed a table by BBV, can't confirm or deny reality, but it showed that same spectacular R turnout in several NM counties.

        http://lnvb.westside.com/NewMexico/NewMexicoByCounty.html

        So, take a peek. There are tabs at the bottom.

        I haven't been able to find out what's with this, if it's that old "absentee ballots assigned to counties thing" or not.

        Thinking Caps ON!

        by Patsy Stone on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:09:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Holy crap. (none / 0)

          Are there dixiecrats in New Mexico, too? They have results just as shocking as the so-called dixiecrat counties.

          Victim of the *other* war America is waging.

          by nephalim on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:38:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting though the NM numbers may be... (none / 1)

          ...They're VERY misleading, since they are not at all indicative of "turn out."  There are a couple hundred thousand "other" registered voters, and what you see is that a large number of them ended up voting republican.  As well as a large number that voted democrat.  The difference from 2000 has a lot to do with there being more registered voters, higher turn out all around (including the registered republicans), and there not being a strong third-party candidate.

          You can't assume (as this chart does) that "Other" registered voters in NM only vote for "Other" candidates.

          I think there's a lot of suspicious evidence coming out of NM; unfortunately, this is just math based on bad/misleading assumptions.

          by marengo42 on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 04:52:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Google some of the counties (none / 0)

            I did the other day as I was trying to figure stuff out.  Definately odd things went on there.  At one pueblo, the official closed the polling location until after sundown as he declared it was a religious holiday.   Alot of other examples like that.

            There are strange things though even with the 'Other' category.  From the tallies I looked at we should believe that a significant number of voters in the 'other' category moved from Gore to Bush since 2000 in a few counties.  Possible but odd.  And definately worth our time to research either way.

            by DanD on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 06:33:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Not only interesting (none / 0)

            I agree that the explanation may not be as simple as suggested, but I think you may be oversimplifying a bit, as well. You don't have to assume that all "Other" registered voters only vote for "other" candidates to find oddities.

            An example is Eddy County. Using updated data from the NM SOS web site (slightly more votes than listed on the chart on this diary), the following votes were recorded:

            • Bush 13,268
            • Kerry 6,880
            • Other 122

            The total number of presidential votes cast is 20,270. The total number of registered voters on the NM web site matches those listed here:
            • Republican 9,702
            • Democrat 15,261
            • Other 2,963 (includes "No Party," which is an option in NM)
            Let's assume that the 122 votes for the "Other" presidential candidates came from the "Other" voters and see where that leads. Assume that every single registered Republican turned out and voted for Bush (9,072). Further assume that every single "Other" registered voter also turned out, and the ones that didn't vote for one of the "other" candidates also voted for Bush (2,963 - 122 = 2,841). Again, assuming that every single non-Democrat registered voter (other than our 122 odd votes) turned out and voted for Bush, that makes for a total of 11,913 votes for Bush.

            That still leaves us 1,355 votes shy of the total for Bush (13,268 - 9,072 - 2,841 = 1,355). As far as I can see, that would mean that the registered Democrats in Eddy county behaved thusly:

            • 6,880 (45%) voted for Kerry
            • 1,355 (9%) voted for Bush
            • 7,026 (46%) did not cast a presidential vote

            As I see it, any other scenario would involve fewer registered Democrats voting for Kerry, even though this already shows more registered Democrats not voting for Kerry than voting for him. None of this adds up to a smoking gun by any means, but I think it's valid to ask the question of whether a "Dixiecrat" phenomenon also exists in NM. It certainly seems unlikely, wouldn't you agree?

            This phenomenon of votes cast for Bush outstripping the total number of registered non-Democrat voters (taking into account votes for "other" presidential candidates) also occurs in the following counties: DeBaca, Guadalupe, Hidalgo, Quay, Rio Arriba, and Union. These are all very small counties, just as in Florida. It's worth taking a good long look at. If any possible (possible!) manipulations were "too successful" in these smaller counties, and they can be uncovered, there might be issues in larger counties where the numbers don't stand out quite so much.

            If you can't laugh at yourself ... we'll gladly do it for you.

            by btrain on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 07:14:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  This is great news. (4.00 / 17)

    I believe the Greens and Libertarians have just found a way to make themselves EXTREMELY relevant to our process.  Not only do I salute them, I'm sending  each of them a contribution today.

    I only wish our Demo leaders had demonstrated the courage to make our votes count by counting our votes.

    by Kevvboy on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:00:59 AM PDT

    •  The big problems with the Democratic Party (3.09 / 22)

      Guys like Kerry, Clinton, McAuliffe, Vilsack, Carville, Begala, Lieberman, etc., etc., etc., all benefit from the system the way it is.  They have power and influence, and most importantly, money.  So they lose in 2004... so what?  They're happy because they still have their money and power within the DNC.

      This is why we need a Dean or a Rosenberg to become the new DNC chair.  We need someone who will speak for our interests instead of focusing on their own.  All of the old guard of the Democratic party is dead to me.  So will my Senator Hillary if she runs in 2008.  We need a party run by the people and for the people.  Not run by the select few for the select few.

      Isn't a centrist just someone who doesn't have the balls to be a fanatic? -- Stephen Colbert

      by Muboshgu on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:55:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you believe that? (3.76 / 26)

        That's such a load of crap.  You're going to tell me that a man who gave up 2 years of his life going to bullshit chicken dinners and mortgaging his house and subjecting himself to brutal personal attacks doesn't care that he lost the presidency.  

        You think that these moderates believe what they do because they've got their hands in the cookie jar while your righteous underdogs only have the 'common man's interests' in mind.  

        Honestly, this is about as sophisticated as W's proclamations: "Yer with us or yer against us?", "evildoers?", or maybe the DLC is an "axis of evil"

        Please try to deal with the complexities of the world.  Sure, the weak-kneed leadership of the past 10 years has failed us over and again.  But also remember that the DLC has won us the only Democratic presidency since 1976.  

        I'd prefer Dean as the head of the DNC but you're not doing us any favors by slandering the Democratic leadership.  (except for Lieberman, go ahead with him...)

        McCain?

        by Preston on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:15:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Clinton's political genius (4.00 / 4)

          won us the first Democratic presidency since 1976.  The only thing the DLC sontributed was money.  Other than that, the DLC has led us into a messageless wilderness and presided over the largest decline in the party's history.  Clinton won and we lost EVERYTHING else.

          DLC=RNC-30years

          by hardleft on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:22:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (none / 0)

            How do you figure that the DLC only contributed money to Clinton's campaign?  Clinton is the epitome of a DLC'er.  Remember Dick Morris?  David Gergen?  Welfare reform?  

            McCain?

            by Preston on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:26:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  partly true but (none / 0)

              remember the countervailing power of Congress. Clinton vetoed the wacko stuff Gingrich sent him many times and was overridden. The stuff he finally signed was not his bill.
              Tip O'Neill arguably mitigated Reagan a bit too, not so much as I'd like. Today the wackos have taken over   totally.

              by annalivia on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:04:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Clinton was DLC (none / 0)

              but all the DLC brought to the table was money and support.  The concept was to coopt the Republican agenda. In the process they legitimized it and lost congress and the state houses.

              DLC=RNC-30years

              by hardleft on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 07:32:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Perot won us the Presidency in 1992 and 1996 (3.70 / 10)

            Perot split the demonstrably insane vote from the Republican party.

            The DLC wants to run the 1992 campaign again and again, but they are missing what made 1992 unique -- a moderately popular 3rd alternative that appeals to the Republicans.

            (-7.38,-2.51) 76% of dKos readers think I'm a secret wing-nut operative!

            by Gustavo on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:55:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's George Bush, Sr.'s Spin (3.80 / 10)

              He always blames Perot.  The data don't support his conclusion.

              The exit polls in 1992 suggested that the pro-Perot vote would have split evenly between Bush and Clinton.  Clinton still would have won.  As far as 1996 goes, Clinton almost had an absolute majority, so I don't think Perot's voters who split for Dole could have added enough to make a difference.

              Change you can Xerox! Yes, we can!

              by DCDemocrat on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:09:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I was about to post that, but... (4.00 / 4)

                Numerically the exit polling suggested that Perot voters would have split for Bush and Clinton.  But Perot's candidacy allowed for a double-team against the status quo and (somewhat) insulated Clinton from a Atwater/Rove style character assasination (at least to the extent of destroying his campaign.)

                McCain?

                by Preston on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:18:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Interesting. (none / 0)

                  I hadn't thought about it in terms other than the sheer statistics.

                  Change you can Xerox! Yes, we can!

                  by DCDemocrat on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:37:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I remember... (none / 1)

                    ...looking at the data from the 1992 election.  If we assume that every Perot voter would have had to vote for either Clinton or Bush, Clinton would have had to receive at least a third (more or less, based on state-by-state results) of those votes to win the election.  And this would not have been impossible.  Perot might have been a fiscal conservative, but he was also a social liberal who favored abortion rights and gun control.  A lot of Republicans wouldn't have voted for him because of these issues.

                    Yes, in fact, I do drive a Volvo.

                    by KTinOhio on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 02:43:59 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  You and most of the rest of (none / 0)

                    the people who make comments about elections in this country.  One of the problems with peole who make comments (publically) about elections in this country, if you ask me.

                    (But you didn't, I realize.  oops!)

                    ;)

                    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

                    by a gilas girl on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 05:40:04 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sure, I asked you (none / 0)

                      Isn't any comment on dkos an implicit invitation to the Kosmos to rain down fire and brimstone.  Every post here is open invitation to an array of joys and sorrows.  I try to be careful when I post since I am adverse to pain.

                      Change you can Xerox! Yes, we can!

                      by DCDemocrat on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 08:29:40 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Clinton ain't no genius, it's PEROT stupid (4.00 / 6)

              I couldn't agree more.

              We need to get a new third party full of right-wing wackos.  We need to get the constitution party functioning in all states with close senate and house races.

              In Penn, the hard-core right-wing Sen. candidate took 4% of the total vote.  John Kerry sure could have used a 3rd party right-wing wacko candidate to take 4% of the vote.

              "Cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom" - Barack Obama

              by pacified on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:53:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  76% of DKos members (none / 0)

              think you're an egomaniac

              Do we have any figures on how scared they are? ~ MPFC's 'Mr. Neutron' episode

              by itsbenj on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 02:56:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  True (none / 0)

              And Nader won Bush the presidency in 2000.

              Bush didn't even win in 2000. If Gore had gotten his legitimate title, the dems would be in great shape now.

              by deminjapan on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:28:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Clinton's political genius (3.00 / 2)

            I'm interested in the meme that exists here that Clinton only won the Presidency because of his "political genius" and not his political positions.  First of all, what does it mean?

            More importantly, it seems to me that this renders all of our discussions meaningless if any sweet talker can win the Presidency.

            Regarding Kerry:  what would a non-DLC Kerry would have done substantially differently to win this election.  (This leaves out "I voted for it before I voted against it" which I feel might have cost him the election)  How would these differences won him states?  

            I wish Kerry had spread out an emphasis on his biography to include his time as a prosecutor, a Lt. Gov., a Senator, and even a war protestor, in addition to the hours and hours of talk about his time in Vietnam.  And I wish that Kerry could have hit Bush harder on his positions (though he did to an extent...)

            But this is tactical, not politics.  The implication here is that if Kerry were not DLC he'd have this populist position and support that would sweep him to victory.  But I can't figure out what that position is.  

            McCain?

            by Preston on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:07:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Agreed - problem left siders cant yet accept (3.00 / 5)

              Part of all these discussions is the same... but they have one problem... the discussion is how do Dems get a majority... and the problem is you can't.  America is overall is dominated by right leaning values.

              America is spiritually fundamentalist.

              America is anti diversity - this includes the Whites, the Blacks, and Hispanics, and the Jews.  We all hate each other and are distrustful of eachother.  I think the Gays might be the only loving people around, and everyone hates them... used to be the Jews, but its switched.

              Wow -- this post could stir things up -- I better be careful.

              America is anti-intellectual - beer guzzling seudo macho dick head mentality abounds in cities and in rural areas.

              America is anti-labor - its a very agressive country with a lot of fronteer mythology about making it on your own.  Even, or maybe especially if you are Labor or Union.  Amazing, but this is one of the core things that makes progressive tear their hair out.

              So you have this fundamentally conservative country, with pockets of intelectual liberalism, and people running around saying we only lost by 3 votes, or whatever.  But the fact is is that this presidency is a frick'n DISASTER, its as close to Facism as you can get in a functional Democracy.  The War, the taxes, the health care, awful awful awful.  The lies, the blatant lies, so bad!  REALLY, and with all that of the past four years, with TORTURE!  In your living room!  With planes hitting buildings, Anthrax, more than a thousand dead soldiers all the opposition can muster is 48!  With all of that the opposition would have screemed and cheered with just an electoral college vistory, not even a popular vote vitory!  With all that?!!  Are WE INSANE?!!!

              THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN A LANDSLIDE!  A LANDSLIDE - LIKE minimum 65% to 35%!  MINIMUM.  This is as bad it can get without really being simply turned into subjects.

              So.

              These problems are very big.  There is nothing Kerry could do better.  Thats why people have been in bed for two weeks now.  If you can't win in these conditions when can you?  Not for a long time on the national level for the values most around here seem to espouse.

              onnyturf.com - Political and Community Coverage of NYC

              by atomicBirdsong on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:33:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  why is this? (none / 0)

                Could it have something to do with our educational system, covert class warfare, the divisive nature of labels and focus groups? Maybe media influences people? ys, i am being sarcastic. People need to be reeducated. First of all we are all human's. Yes even the conservatives. We all eat, we all sleep, we all love our kids. Remember the study where the teacher divided her class into two groups and told one group they were better than the other. Eventually the group who were told they were better started to mistreat the other group and the "inferior" group let them. We need to find a way past this us and them ideology, that is what we need to beat. If we can find a way to overcome this then we will be able to overcome the neocons.

                We the people

                by coconutjones on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 04:48:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Except that (none / 0)

            Clinton, Gore ARE the DLC.

            Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

            by a gilas girl on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 05:35:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Clintonism has Left No Lasting Dem Legacy (none / 0)

            Even Clinton's home state of Arkansas went decidely Red this year.  Personality, even in politics, only takes you so far.

            The Dude Abides

            by Voting Dem on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 06:57:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I think that Kerry (2.58 / 17)

          was in it for himself and his own personal benefit before the well-being of the people and the party.  I don't see Kerry making any inroads anywhere that could help the Democratic party down the line, only those that might make him viable again in 2008.  Sure, Dean has gotten alot of personal gain from his campaign and DFA and the book, etc., but he has also contributed to grassroots politics like noone else before.  What has Kerry gotten us, or any of the other Democratic leaders of late?

          I don't think I'm slandering the DLC and other DNC higherups, I think I'm rightfully criticizing them.  Alot of the things they have done, going back to running as Bush Lite in 2002, have astounded and offended me.  Whether or not you think they are doing so to keep their own power, you have to admit that it hasn't worked and has in fact hurt us in our contests against the Republicans.

          Don't take too much pride in Clinton winning.  Everybody hated Bush I and Clinton's charisma clicked.  The track record of the DLC has been fairly abismal even including Clinton's win.

          The truth is Clinton's time, and the times of all the higherups in our party, has passed.  Our losses in 2000, 2002 and 2004 demonstrate that it is time to clean house and bring in a new perspective with new ideas and a fresh start.  We can't keep the status quo any longer.  We need to retool.

          Isn't a centrist just someone who doesn't have the balls to be a fanatic? -- Stephen Colbert

          by Muboshgu on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:25:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree, sort of. (3.00 / 2)

            I'm just as frustrated by a GOP-lite strategy as you seem to be but what states to you plan to win?  I don't believe that progressivism starts at the top- it will take the grass-roots to push for a candidate and a message that can win the presidency.  Right now- it doesn't exist.

            BTW- I think that Kerry was in it for himself and his own personal benefit  That sounds like slander and is crap to boot.  I regret that he had lost/ didn't have/ didn't want to reveal the ability to clearly state positions on Iraq but to state that he didn't care that soldiers are losing their lives for a mistake seems wrongheaded.  

            McCain?

            by Preston on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:33:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Agree to Agree and Disagree (none / 1)

              We're both on the same side here, and it's great that we can discuss these details without troll ratings going around.  We both agree that things have to be changed.  The big difference is that I hold McAuliffe, Daschle, DNC, DLC etc. at a certain level of contempt for the way I feel they have mismanaged the situation.

              I never said Kerry didn't care about the Iraqi soldiers, so please don't put words in my mouth.  I don't think he fought strongly enough when the Swiftboat Liar ads came out, when W called him a flip-flopper, when it came to addressing the economy and Iraq, and he didn't fight the election abnormalities strongly enough by conceding as quickly and repentantly as he did.  Though I commend him for keeping lawyers in Ohio, I'd like to hear from them.

              I question the reasonings of Kerry and Daschle and Reid and all the other senators who voted for the Iraq war.  They were misled by W, but they could have fought to put off the war resolution until they had more facts to put it beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Dick Durbin put up an amendment to change "continuing threat" to "immediate threat", which was defeated but the right thing to do.  And it hasn't hurt his political career.  He is the new Whip and I would have liked to see him become Minority Leader instead of Reid.

              Daschle et al. seem to be afraid of every political fight they get into.  Why is that?  I think it is because they are afraid to lose what they have.  And that's the wrong way to go about politics.  Daschle kept trying to play it safe, and in fact he lost his own senate seat in all of this.  Dean fights like he has nothing to lose, and that sort of thing plays very well with the electorate, whether or not the perception is entirely true.

              Isn't a centrist just someone who doesn't have the balls to be a fanatic? -- Stephen Colbert

              by Muboshgu on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:17:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Tactics (3.00 / 2)

                I guess I feel most of your comments are tactical and stylistic- and I agree with you on that point.  I think we need to be aggressive and progressive.  

                But I'm not sure that this is a DLC issue and I'm quite sure that I disagree with the point that the Democrats you mentioned are passive because they have been bought off or something.  They are passive because they have won re-election that way.  However we need national Democrats who are willing to take the risk of taking the fight to the GOP (Mr. Lieberman need not apply).

                Because you really don't mention issues I assume we're in agreement there.  I'm definitely to the left of most Democratic Party positions (but to the right of some here).  However, while I think we need to be more forceful, I don't feel like we can afford to move far to the left- I don't see that as a winning move.  (I'm also very skeptical of a move to the right)

                McCain?

                by Preston on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:29:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Tactics it is (none / 1)

                  We are more to the left of the party and most people.  You say you are to the right of some here, I don't think I am.  I'm not for going to the far left, calling for a ban of all guns or legalization of gay marriage or anything.  We also shouldn't do the Clinton and move to the middle.  The people won't respect us for giving in to the Republicans, and by giving ground, they'll just try to take more.

                  I'm not saying we should change our stances on the issues.  I think we need to clarify them and find a better way to present them, and that includes continuing our grassroots mobilization and changing some of the leadership.

                  We need to take the fight to the GOP.  We agree. I guess I'm more critical of the people up top than you are.  I think some of them bear responsibility for our parties failures and may need to go to fix things.

                  To anyone out there who's troll rating me on the earlier comments: first, thanks for my first 0's and 1's!  Second, are you troll rating me because you disagree with my stance that some of our top Dems are at fault here?  It's my opinion, and not shared by all, and not indicative of me being a troll.

                  Isn't a centrist just someone who doesn't have the balls to be a fanatic? -- Stephen Colbert

                  by Muboshgu on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:25:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Very Funny (none / 1)

                    From your earlier comments I would have assumed we agree about very little but I think our ideas for a new direction are very similar.  I really don't feel we should move ideologically.  Like Kos, I feel like gun control can reasonably be downplayed as an issue (as long as crime keeps declining it's a decreasingly important issue)

                    You're right, though, I do hold less animosity to the Democratic leadership.  Though I think they've failed, I don't think it is malice or corruption.  They simply repeat bad habits that they can personally overcome in their own races but hurt weaker candidates nationwide.

                    Kerry's lack of clarity is one example.  Lieberman's over-concilatoriness? as a reaction the right's hyper-partisanship is another.  Daschle's fence-straddling another.

                    However, part of the blame go to progressives everywhere though.  We have not done a good job in creating an effective alternate vision to the conservative view of the world.  Lakoff and his followers are beginning and institutions like the Center for American Progress may help to get this message to a wider audience but we've been running uphill for nearly 3 decades and have only chosen to change the playing field in the last several years.

                    McCain?

                    by Preston on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 04:32:16 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Guns and Roe (none / 0)

                      Interesting you should say we can afford to let the gun thing go, as long as crime continues to drop.

                      The single biggest factor in the decline of violent crime in the last few decades is Roe v Wade.

                      Wonder what will happen after Roe is overturned, and society has a new crop of unwanted children and dysfunctional families to deal with.

                      by sharman on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:46:06 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  all i'll say.. (none / 0)

                        The single biggest factor in the decline of violent crime in the last few decades is Roe v Wade.

                        That was theorized but there is no knowing what caused the drop in crime rates.  Surely, doubling the number of people in prison (even for victimless crimes) must have had some effect.

                        McCain?

                        by Preston on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:58:32 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  they weren't mislead. (4.00 / 4)

                everyone knew bush was full of shit back then. the academics knew it, the people at the top knew it. the reason they went along is because the people didn't know it and they were afraid to oppose bush because he was so popular at the time and because he destroys his opposition.

                they trapped the congress by never bringing the war to a simple yay or nay vote. they put authority up for a vote, something you could hardly vote against, and they put funding up for a vote. funding was the real yay or nay vote, but they knew they could accuse everyone who voted against it of being anti-military and that's what they did.

                that's how it happened.

                to dispel any previous confusion arising from the sig before this,
                i'd like to reaffirm that this account is indeed dedicated to justice.

                by Tacoma Narrows on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 02:50:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I think Kerry is a true Patriot (3.75 / 8)

            I was proud to watch John Kerry in the debates holding Prez. Bush accountable for his collosal failures.

            I think he opened the door for many more of us loud-mouths to have more courage to speak up.

            I don't think Dean would have even gotten 48% of the vote because the right would have skewered him more than some say the DNC did. (of course that's my guess)

            There is a treacherous political landscape these days. I'm of the opinion that Kerry improved our position as democrats somewhat.

            We have structural problems in the democratic party. We don't have a broad enough of a coalition to win.

            I'm increasingly of the opinion that we (Clinton?) sold out our base (outsourcing & nafta?)

            In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

            by yet another liberal on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:39:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I enjoyed the debates too (none / 1)

              but clearly they didn't matter.  How can anyone lose three debates and still win the presidency?  Like it or not, you have to admit that Kerry failed to close out what should've been a sure thing.

              I don't question Kerry's heroism in Vietnam, he made that point clear in the convention, but then he failed to respond to the Swiftboat liars in a timely fashion.  That is questionable.

              Kerry did not open up the door for criticism on Bush, Dean did.  Maybe Dean would've beaten Bush, and maybe he wouldn't have.  Dean was on the record in opposition of the Iraq war when Kerry voted in favor of it, and tried to defend his vote all the way to the election in a way that many Americans just didn't understand.

              I do agree that Clinton sold out some of our positions on outsouring and NAFTA, and his recent suggestions that we should've done more to oppose gay marriage are delusional.  We need to stick to with our issues and not give an inch.  And it's really hard to oppose the Iraq war when you voted for it.  We should have nominated the best candidate, not the 'most electable'.  A candidate who could have better articulated the argument that Bush was wrong to take us to war (Dean and Clark) could've made the argument alot better than Kerry did.  (Note I said 'could've', not 'would've')

              Isn't a centrist just someone who doesn't have the balls to be a fanatic? -- Stephen Colbert

              by Muboshgu on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:34:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Despite the fact that you are getting marked down (none / 1)

                here, what you are saying is what was expressed by Ohioans in a post election focus grp on Cspan (can be accessed on the site for viewing).

                Some of the Bush voters were emphatic that Kerry appeared just in it for the win, the presidency. They felt he was trying to please everyone and couldnt trust where he stood. They felt he didnt get the struggle of the working man (of course, they had a warped idea of Bush, believing he could identify, but hey, Kerry did not give them an equal impression, despite his issues being more clearly working people-friendly to people a tad more clearheaded, like you or I)

                So people can mark you down to high heaven, or low hell, as the case may be. They might do better to watch that focus group. It'll make you tear your hair out sometimes, but it will also give a clearer picture of what we are dealing with, which I believe a diarist expressed quite strongly in a recommended diary, post election, titled something like: "Okay, Blame Kerry/Edwards"

                In other words, these Bush voters couldnt rise to ABB, as many of us could, those of us who preferred Dean or Kucinich over Kerry (and over all the other establishment sorts in the party). And they were well aware of the ABB argument and scornful of it. They said Kerry hadnt convinced them to vote FOR him. One was a woman who struggled until she got in the voting booth. (Yes, they do exist) She voted Bush.

                Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

                by NYCee on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:10:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think that a man who advocated such a (3.50 / 4)

            massive commitment to health care and refused to endorse the gay marriage bans on state ballots to get more votes was in it just for his own political gain. If that were truly the case, Kerry could have made any number of adjustments to pull more towards the center. It just didn't happen that way.

            Man of Red Earth A Voice for Progressive Political and Christian Thought

            by manofredearth on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:41:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How about (none / 0)

              "We are going to win in Iraq!"  That wasn't centering?

              onnyturf.com - Political and Community Coverage of NYC

              by atomicBirdsong on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:12:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Iraq (none / 0)

                I thought that was about being realistic and taking responsibility.  It was bad enough to have started the war, but to leave things in the state they were in and "cut and run" would have been to deny any responsibility for it.  I think if Kerry had won, he would have had a chance of bringing others into the conflict and possibly restoring some sort of stability.  What were the other Democratic candidates' solution?  I honestly don't remember.  Since his name comes up so frequently, what was Dean's position on ending the war?  Was he going to just pull out?

                Government can't restrict free speech, but corporations can? WTF

                by kyoders on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:06:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I do think it was a centering attempt (none / 0)

                  Because I think the country is pretty "hawkish", as another commenter wrote below.  But it was also very simple.  I think Kerry tried to keep to a message of "We are going to win".  However, I dont think that was what he was really thinking.  I mean, I think he wanted to make relations and conditions in the mid east better, and better for the people there.  His interview in the NYTimes about two weeks before the election was very interesting in which he discussed how to really deal with terrorism.  But most of the country just can't seem to deal with thinking. Again he got pounded for speaking his mind and trying to be smart - thats the one they pulled terrorism as a nuescence (crap my spelling) from.  But its actually a reasonable idea... vs "were spreading freedom" and "we are going to win".

                  So I think Kerry said it "centeringly", and any Dem would have had to, but actually had a more thoughtful position.

                  So we probably agree more than my comment seems.  Sorry for starting some rabble. Pledge to self: I'm not going to post one lines anymore.  I doesn't help anyone.

                  I dont think Dean got that far or was asked at that point -- but I could be wrong.

                  onnyturf.com - Political and Community Coverage of NYC

                  by atomicBirdsong on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 12:56:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  No, that's not "centering" (none / 0)

                that's "hawkishiness", something the Democratic Party also suffers from, even (sometimes, especially) its liberals.

                We still don't have very intelligent discussions about foreign policy politics around here.  There isn't really any such creature as "liberal foreign policy".  Before Bush and the Neocons the range of official positions in mainstream US politics on foreign policy is relatively narrow. Yes there are differences, but they are primarily differences in questions of performance rather than objective (i.e. differences in how to reach what are basically -- again absent Bush and Neocons -- shared objectives).

                I've argued for years that this is one of the problems with the Democratic Party, not that they are "soft" on national security (the wingnut spin that has even convinced Democrats) but that the Democrats choose to make their differences from the Repubs on wonkish levels of funding or the nerdy distinctions between multilateralism vs. unilateralism, rather than on something more fundamental.  

                Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

                by a gilas girl on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 05:50:42 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Kerry is the Opposite of Clinton (4.00 / 4)

            They represent completely different ideologies and personal styles and backgrounds.

            Clinton is basically a liberal Republican, stimulating business to spread out some benefits everywhere. He's the best the DLC has to offer and is incredibly charismatic, with an ability to convert voters who don't even agree with his policies through sheer force of X Factor. He's willing to dump any idea or nominee that he can't put together a majority for without yielding tokens. He's willing, it seems to me, to take money from anywhere to support his mission.

            Kerry was one of two progressive candidates who ran for the nomination this year, unyielding on his own core beliefs, a highly consistent voting record during his time in the Senate (if you look at rating groups, such as Sierra Club or Americans for Democratic Action or Americans for Constituional Action, etc., you'll see scores -- high or low -- that are as unchanging over time as anyone in the Senate), close to zero charisma, and doesn't bend readily. He's willing to take on a cause that's a sure loser, even one that degrades his "electibility" if he has conviction in it (Iran-Contra hearings, BCCI hearings, etc.).


            I don't agree with all Kerry positions nor his vote to authorize the War on the Iraqis nor his concession speech. But he is farther left of a DLC Dem than a DLC Dem is from the Republican middle. What is it in your thinking that lumps them together? I'd like to read your thoughts; it seems, on the surface, simplistic to me, but please elaborate if you will; I might learn something.


            I agree the DLC string is tapped out. It only works if the individual is charismatic in the Clinton or Obama zone (and white). It counted on being able raise money from and returning favors to the same mainstream corporate interests that fund the Repubs, but by moving the opposition to the right, the corporatists don't need to be careful any more...they can reach farther with the revised Repubs.

            by Big Jack Stark on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:29:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  4 for 5 (none / 0)

            WE did not loose the election in 2000..We Won...The 2002 GA senate race was stolen..and if you take notice of the thread you are posting on it seems pretty clear that there is a least a possibility that we won again in 2004.Dont get me wrong; I would love to see either Dean or Rosenberg take the helm at the DNC but overreacting helps no one except the right...The way i see it ;even if Kerry lost we still have won 4 out of the last 5 presidential elections

            by temanu on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:15:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  A close election against a dimwit is not a victory (none / 0)

              Especially when coming off a period of prosperity like we had during Clinton (even though I dont think it was all Clinton's doing).  Just like Bush-1 road on Reagan's tails, Gore should have easily followed.  But Clinton kind of messed things up and Gore did too. And Clinton's ego was not the DNC's fault, but Gore's inability to get a message across was.

              So even if FL went the other way - like it really did - it was not a huge victory - it was a squeak.  I want more from the DNC.  I want the Senate, the House, the Presidency and 65% of the Governors.

              onnyturf.com - Political and Community Coverage of NYC

              by atomicBirdsong on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 01:30:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I gave you a 4 to mark you up because ... (3.66 / 3)

            those points need to be expressed, even though you may be a bit harsh and absolute in saying Kerry was just in it for himself. I think that is partly true. Maybe a lot true. But it's too absolutist for my taste. I think he also really wanted to change things, enact sounder policies. But his calculatedness at times was so obvious that its no wonder he came across as in it for himself. And some people ... many .. werent ABBers like us, and that bugged them enough to vote Bush.

            That's why I raised you a few. ;-) My 4¢

            (I still think Kerry may have actually won, though. I want those investigations. But Bush should never have gotten as much as he did. The people were not smart enough to rise to ABB in the face of Bush's radical shit. That's a shame. But we have to work with what we got.)

            Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

            by NYCee on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:34:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  thank you NYCee :-) (none / 0)

              I think Kerry may have won too, but I don't want to put too much stock into that, cause even though Gore won, that wasn't enough.  Even if the recount gives it to Kerry, there are still major structural and procedural problems within the party that need to be fixed.

              Not everyone will agree with me, maybe I'm just especially oppositional today :-)

              Isn't a centrist just someone who doesn't have the balls to be a fanatic? -- Stephen Colbert

              by Muboshgu on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:33:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Good comment (none / 0)

          I would add that a measure of levelheadedness regarding Colin Powell would make the dkos narrative appear to be a bit more well thought out.

          My guess is we will be missing Mr. Powell's own levelheadedness in the Bush Cabinet very soon.

          by Donkeytale on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:41:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Colin, levelheaded? (none / 0)

            What levelheadedness? He threw a fit and then did as he was told. My guess is it wouldn't matter one way or the other. Bush replaces a token moderate with a token concubine liar. Who cares? Both are equally ineffective, and this is just more rope for the neocon noose.

            by whitenoise on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:13:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Psst... (none / 1)

          hit troll here so we may all focus on the recount.  

          (Sorry man - more important things to worry about).  

          Tug

          Impeach Cheney now.

          by Tug on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:24:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  troll? (none / 0)

            strong infrastructure and fair play

            by pyrrho on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:54:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Excuse me? (none / 0)

            Troll rate me?  I'm no troll, although some people seem to think that comment was.

            I'm a troll because I'm critical of the way Kerry went about the campaign at certain points and I fear our Dem leadership is selling us out?

            I'm not detracting from the recount efforts, I've given money to the Cobb/Badnarik effort.  But all voting 'irregularities' aside, there are serious problems within the DNC and DLC that need to be addressed before 2006.  These issues are just as important as paper trails, auditable machines, etc.

            Troll rate trolls, not me.

            Isn't a centrist just someone who doesn't have the balls to be a fanatic? -- Stephen Colbert

            by Muboshgu on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:41:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I agree with Preston (3.75 / 4)

          and will add Kerry was slandered and trashed for a year. His response..  I can take it..

          I respect and admire that. I also believe he clobbered Bush in the debates...  people noticed even in Republican land.

          Kerry showed he was a man who could take the high road..   he didn't attack the Swift Boat guys   he call them  tried to reason with them but didn't trash fellow Vets.

          A class act.

          Polly

          by pollyusa on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 02:17:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well sort of.... (none / 1)

          But these guys just don't feel an election loss in a visceral way, and I think thats why your parent here is saying and that is why what is needed at the top of the DNC is a real reformist.

          I think the thing is that the foundation of the party is skeptical of the Dem/DLC/DNC's motives.  What do Blacks really get when they show up for the Dems? <crickets churping>  What does the lower class get?  Welfare reform?  Nice.  What do gays get?  Dont Ask Dont Tell?  The Middle Class?  Higher Regional Sales Tax because the Dems wont reverse Regans huge tax repeal of the upper class tax bracket?  

          And if Kerry lost his house, he wouldn't be homeless.  The guy married laterally.  Its not a problem.  Bu