Skip to main content

As a member of the Commonwealth Club of California, I was delighted to see that our very own Markos was a featured speaker last Friday at the club's San Francisco office, as part of the Inforum ("we're not all just old fogies, let's bring in some hip young cats (or is that young hep cats? pootie!) to show that we can 'dig it'") program. I thought it would just be a great way to hear Markos for more than the brief airtime he got at the SXSW panel, show support, warm up for this week's yearlyKos, etc. Little did I know that I would learn that Markos nearly went to work for the CIA instead of the Dean campaign.

You can wait 'til the expurgated version airs on public radio ("will they bleep that on the radio?," Markos inquired)  or via podcast, or venture below the bar for selected transcript-style details (and exclusive photos in an update once I find my card adapter USB reader thingamabob), on this waiting-for-the-CA-primary-results kind of day.

The highlights for me were:

  • Markos nearly went to work for the CIA but joined the Dean campaign instead because he didn't want to work inside the beltway
  • The CIA is really a very liberal place, Markos says, interested in stability, not bombing or taking over governments.
  • Venture funds are building the "vast left-wing conspiracy"
  • Markos "would love for the rational right to take back their party" even though it would make our job harder, it's worth it "for the good of the country." He's not a fan of third parties - they're "doomed", as conservative efforts in that area have shown.
  • Markos is not a fan of Nancy Pelosi's leadership, but "she's getting better"
  • Gore is not going to run, according to Markos.
  • "What do we do about Hilary?" is the real question audiences are asking. "She really fails the electability question".
  • The failed war in Iraq "pisses me off," Markos said, because "it cuts off the opportunity for social-economic advancement" inherent in national service.
  • public-elections-funding can be "welfare for consultants." "I have a problem with my tax dollars going to pay for somebody's nasty, sleazy attack ad."
  • sustainability (in environmental terms) isn't yet a key issue in elections; Kos sees high prices of organics as an obstacle to widespread adoption of this "lifestyle."
  • kos likes the blurring of the line between journalism and blogging: "one of the beauties of this is it forces people to actually think." He is confident in his own lines on the matter. "I have one thing going for me when I blog -- it's my credibility. I'm not going to surrender [it] to something that is unsourced."
  • Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is the conservative thinker Markos most respects (he had a couple of conservative friends, but they eventually "flipped," he said. "One worked for Enron.") "McCain wishes he was a really a straight shooter like Hagel is. [...] I respect him. He's unafraid to stand for what he believes in. But that doesn't mean I'd vote for him."

There's already a diary up with a review of the event:

"He was (and I'm sure still is) terrific.  [It] mainly was a call to action for the liberals (I guess the word now is progressives). [...] He stressed the importance of individual involvement and said the Democrats need to emulate the Republicans by making politics and political meetings a social affair. [...] His command of the nation-wide political scene was impressive, and in spite of the fact that he sounded like he was in the throws of a head cold, he had an upbeat, organized, clear method of speaking.

For me, the big disappointment of the evening was not being able to show off my "You're Pegging My Logic Meter" T-shirt from the Scotty Show. But that's not what you're here to read about, on this California Primary "waiting for the news" day. On to the juicy bits!

Bizarro World dKos: CIA Front?

The most dramatic revelation (at least to me) came early in the evening, in response to a question about the changing relationship between liberals and the CIA, as it has evolved from loathing (if not fear) in the 60's to a vigorous defense these days.

"A secret I don't think I've ever written about," Markos recollected, was that in 2001 when he was under/unemployed, picking up "a little contract work" to help survive in the "horrible world" after the dot-com crash, he started down a career path that could have led to a radically different dailyKos, or kept it from happening at all.

"I applied to the CIA, spent six months interviewing, and got to the point where I was going to sign papers. It was at that point that the Howard Dean campaign took off. It was going to be a tough decision. Then the CIA insisted that my first duty assignment would be in Washington, D.C.. Six years before I could go overseas. I hate D.C."

I have to admit that learning this set off a whole train of thought that I expect will greet this thread: Maybe he really did take that CIA job, and this whole site is a plot to keep us all busy... but no, MetaJesus intervened, and they wouldn't do that, because the CIA is a liberal place, really!

CIA: Infested with Liberals?

"What was really amazing about that experience," Markos continued, "was that every person I talked to [at the CIA], in six months, every single one of them was a liberal."

(laughter from the crowd)

"They're talking about my website, agreeing with me on everything, saying (post-9/11 and pre-Iraq-invasion)  'man, they're gonna take us to war, the evidence isn't there, it's crazy.'"

His sense of why? "In a lot of ways it does attract people who want to make the world a better place, as opposed to bomb the fuck out of [it]. [...] Are you going to have to bleep that out on the radio?" He doesn't waste any time with trivialities, refusing to restate it, with so much more to say. "I don't give short answers," he said later.

"I think, as an instrument, the CIA is interested in a stable world. I think a lot of conservatives would paint that as evidence that the CIA is out to undermine bush, but ultimately I don't think it' sa very partisan thing to want a calm and stable world."

As far as past hostility towards CIA plots against Democratic administrations, "[that] was before my time, I've never had a problem with the CIA." However, he reminded us "keep in mind I came to this country in 1980. From a modern persepctive obviously things are a little different."

The problem with Dems: They Lose

"In politics one thing matters," Markos said. The Democrats doe nothing but lose. There's no self-reflection, no attempt to clean out the ranks, changing processes to accommodate a changing political and media landscape. We have a closed-in bubble in D.C. These people have their turf, their consultancies, their power bases. They don't care where the world is going."

The corrupted structure is the issue, he re-iterated, in a refrain familiar to readers of this site or the book. It's about "kissing rings": "even in the minority they have a certain amount of power. There is a complete obliviousness."

Peeking behind the Gates: 'debate' just an act
When Markos went on CNN's "Reliable Sources" show, he was in the green room with Bill Press [sp?], a "liberal radio guy", and Bill Bennett, a "Bloviating Blowhard" ("and they say Michael Moore is fat", Markos commented). In the greenroom, they're all pally-wally, "'hi, how's the kid? let's do lunch!' On camera, they're screaming at each other. Off camera, they shake hands, say "let's hang out". For them, it's a game. They don't really care that their policies and the way they do business has real-world repercussions for millions of people across America."

Dean: A sign of change?

Markos was asked whether the election of Howard Dean as DNC chair was something that wasn't "business as usual", a sign of change, blowing in the wind, so to speak. He was quick to point out that one person isn't going to solve the problem, and that it's a sign of our influence, not our dominance. "He was not elected because of Washington, D.C. It was a coalition of bloggers, grassroots activists, and state party people. There was a lot of real-world politicking by state party chairs that helped Howard Dean."

He spoke admiringly of Dean's resistance to assimilation by the beltway bourgeoisie. "Howard Dean does not in the course of business spend any nights in D.C. That's probably a good thing. He would be assassinated in his sleep, not by Democrats or Republicans but by a covert-ops special team of them working together."

Dean can't go it alone, Markos emphasized. "The DNC is a bureaucracy. Really all the party committees are run by consultants. All the nuts and bolts are run by consultants. The people who get the contracts are going to be running the next party [election] cycle. It's kind of a revolving chair system. Howard Dean is doing what he can. Ultimately it's just part of the process. One of the things we advocate is realizing that we have to take over our state parties' local practices. If we hit at both sides we can eventually clean up the place."

Building the vast left-wing conspiracy

Markos kept saying that we are going to do this, we are going to do that... so of course the interviewer asked the logical question: "who's 'we'?"

"A leaderless amorphous people-powered movement" were the first five words I was able to capture, but the context kept on coming fast and furious, setting the stage for who we are. "It was inspired by Dean, and even Kerry", it's about getting people active in politics on an ongoing basis. After losing yet another election, "people would not think about politics for three years."

Not anymore. "Things are changing. People are getting involved. People are putting money into venture funds to build the vast left-wing conspiracy. [laughter] You laugh, but we ain't got nuttin' [compared to the right]"

Who's making this investment? "It's a lot of the reform labor unions, the SEIU's [Service Employee International Unions] that broke off when they were realizing that labor politics was failing. They realized that the best way for labor to help Dems win is to make more union members.

Agreeing with the critics

"Our critics say we're 'a bunch of bloggers', 'a bunch of left-wing radical whackos', 'they want to purge the party [of moderates]."

"We do, but not in the way they think," he cautioned. The Democratic party infrastructure, consultants, et al that are thoroughly tarred and feathered in Crashing The Gates get the same treatment here. "There's no accountability. That's what we demand."

Third party: The Reform Collapse and Conservative Cacophony as Cautionary Tales

"Why not a third party?," Markos was asked.  It's not practical, he responded: "A lot of people have romantic notions of the rise of a third party, because [in their fantasy] it would agree with their positions 100%. However, that would be a third party of one. The notion is actually quite fiction. Look at the Reform party, which broke into Buchanan, Perot, and Jesse Ventura factions. Byt he time they were done suing each other there was nothing left, just a hollow shell of a party."

Could it happen? "Perhaps if there was someone apolitical in many ways, they could transcend party. With the Web, it's within the realm of possiblity. But not probability."

Drive the nail into the coffin, why don't you: "Third parties are doomed. I like to learn from the conservative movement. In 1964, Barry Goldwater was absolutely trounced in a an election, and the Republican party re-established control."

Of course, conservatives then were a little different than the ones we have to deal with now. "Remember, Nixon created the EPA and OSHA.There were vicious battles, a big debate within the conservative movement."

There are fewer intrinsic associations between parties and values these days. "A party today is basically a shell. It does not have [its own position, ideology. It reflects the idology of those who run it. It's easier to take them over and make them your own.

We can rebuild it, better, faster [than the Republicans did]

"When they started building [the new Republican machine] in 1964 they didn't have thinktanks, et cetra. It took them 30 years." We don't have to take that long. "We can build ours in a lot shorter time, because of technoogy, how things advance."

For example: "conservatives have created three brick-and-mortar institutions that look for media bias. They write papers and deliver reports to their media machine, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the 700 Club, Wall Street Journal Editorial board, and so on. That was very effective back in the 80's, 90's, and even earlier this decade."

We can follow a more direct route: "We have Media Matters, one organization. Their pushback is instantaneous. Within an hour of a Rush Limbaugh show, they have rebutted all his points. We don't have to match them institution for institution or even on size and scope. We can build organizations that act more efficiently and get info out more effectively."

Getting beyond single issues, looking at reality

Clearly the interviewer had read "Crashing the Gate"; he lobbed a softball question about Kos' penchant for getting past the single-issue groups that dominate our party's discourse. He responded passionately about the futility of that approach: "On the Left, in the kind of more progressive issue groups, there's this notion you can kind of negotiate with the right. Once upon a time you could."

Kos waxed nostalgic for the golden years of the Reagan era! "There was a time the republican party was interested in what was best for the country. In his first year in office, Reagan made the largest tax decrease in U.S. history. In his second year in office, they saw it wasn't working, and did the largest tax increase in U.S. history. It was an administration interested in looking at reality, and adjusting its behavior accordingly."

Quite a contrast from what we've got now: "This administration is interested in one thing only: ideology." He cited several examples, "Mission Accomplished" and so on. "There's no desire or willingness to look at reality. They're not interested in reality, only ideology There's a well-developed conservative noise machine that makes it easier to live in that bubble."

It almost defines who we are: "That's what it means to be progressive: evolve with the times, times change."

The problem comes when we try to negotiate: "Now they are interested in one thing: the destruction of everything we hold dear. Even though they're a trifecta (controlling all three branches of government), why are they so angry? Because we still exist. The fact that we exist pisses 'em off."

In this context, there's no room for negotiation, compromise. "In that kind of environment, there' s none party that will stand up for what we agree on, and one will seek to destroy it. They're both big-tent parties.

They're not all evil

"You have people in the Republican part who are not horrid on choice, the environment, et cetera," he pointed out. "What matters at the end of the day is the leadership of the party in charge."

For this reason, single-issue voting is ineffective. "You have [PA-Sen candidate] Bob Casey, an anti-abortion Democrat. If he wins and he helps us win back the Senate, we will have a party in charge that will prevent anti-abortion legislation to begin with. The issue will never come up for a vote."

So it's important not to be too ideological. "We're not going to get perfect Democrats up and down the ballot. Because we're all individuals, we all think for ourselves. We're not gonna let a leader tell us what to believe. We're gonna disagree at times," he predicted, on issues like free trade, "a lot of things. We have to be cognizant of that and tolerant of that."

So why should single-issue groups be looking at the bigger picture? "There's a party that will protect these things in the aggregate. The NRA does not endorse Democrats at the national level. Yet our groups continue to think that if you reach out you can create bipartisan support for our positions."

Here's an example: "Chaffee is a pariah in his own party. Yet he's voted for every single Bush judge except Alito, and there he voted for cloture which is all that mattered."

yKos: Energize America as Dem Energy Platform?

My question ("longtime kossack, increasingly less-frequent lurker, thanks for getting me active") and one that followed (from Abendigo of SustainLane) were about energy and sustainability, whether the Energize America plan developed here and to be presented at yearlyKos would get adopted as the Democratic energy policy. "I know they're looking"

As far as organics and eco-whatever, Kos was cautious about the costs. "I don't know how much of a winner it is as a political issue." To me, this sounds like an opportunity for anyone who feels otherwise to diary about why they feel otherwise. "The problem right now is cost. A sustainably-built home could be a lot more expensive, solar power isn't cheap. A lot of the components of living sustainably are still out of reach of the average American. I don't think you can mandate those."

The real value could be in terms of collective identity. "As a philosophy, it helps people feel better about themselves [...] Like anything else cutting-edge, the barrier to entry can be  high. As more farmers use more sustainable practices, obviously market forces come into play, make it more affordable. I don't think anybody hates recycling, or at least nobody who would say so publicly."

The exception? When government threatens the lifestyle. "It's more a lifestyle change than a political/ballot box issue except when the FDA tries to weaken organic standards. That's where it becomes political. As more people get into these things, it's gonna get tougher and tougher for those efforts. It's like efforts to regulate the internet, it's one of those things... we need the government to protect what we have, and not have the telecommunication companies impose roadblocks on the issue.

Blogging "vs." Journalism

In explaining why he joined the amicus brief in the Apple-vs.-blogger case over the right of bloggers to protect their sources, he applauded the blurring of the line between journalism and blogging: "There's so much fixation on blogging. It's counterproductive. It's a tool like a word processor, just the internet as a much bigger communications tool."

"In the political world we talk about 'netroots'," and even in a world with sites with lower standards, no fact-checking, insufficient attribution, it's all good: "one of the beauties of this is it forces people to actually think." He is confident in his own lines on the matter. "I have one thing going for me when I blog -- it's my credibility. I'm not going to surrender [it] to something that is unsourced."

He specifically named the current controversy around TruthOut as an example. "Jason Leopold wrote that Karl Rove was already indicted." He wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole. "It would turn out to be true by coincidence rather than knowing what he was talking about."

You can't conclude a bloggers-vs-journalists thread without attacking right back: "In journalism, there may be ethics on the books but nobody follows them. It's a cesspool, full of ideological biases."

The advantage of the 'net is the scrutiny it provides: "Now people are watching what [Fox news is] doing. It makes it a lot harder for them to peddle their stuff as fair and balanced when it clearly is not. I don't have a lot of respect for traditional media in that sense."

He does have sympathy for journalists in the trenches. "A lot of problems are what big corporations are facing: years of layoffs, the newsroom is decimated. It used to be that people wrote two stories a week, now it's a piece every day or two, they don't have the time to do more than writing warmed-over press releases or accepting right-wing spin."

Originally posted to raines on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:32 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar for infrequent diariers getting active (144+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Malacandra, katiebird, wozzle, JekyllnHyde, tsackton, sj, TheC, Donna Z, tmo, pine, Upper West, jotter, Maura in VA, JustWinBaby, RonV, catfish, RunawayRose, mikedallas23, Shockwave, LynChi, cotterperson, meg, Motor City Canuck, rhubarb, GayHillbilly, strandedlad, terminal3, Rat, d3n4l1, DFWmom, WI Deadhead, logorrhea, Bob Friend, storme, Desroko, Poika, nightsweat, perro amarillo, sardonyx, joynow, bronte17, wonkydonkey, megs, sfgb, rhp, OCD, mytribe, buckhorn okie, Ignacio Magaloni, peraspera, peeder, L0kI, Fe, Glinda, bustacap, David Boyle, navajo, high uintas, oldjohnbrown, Eddie in ME, brainwave, besieged by bush, 2liberal, ourprez08, Catte Nappe, tabbycat in tenn, papercut, Pennsylvanian, Liberaljentaps, ChiGirl88, Sam Loomis, mattes, nonconreformer, Grahamdubya, Irish Patti, MichDeb, mrmango, Tami B, Tonedevil, Simplify, Far left coast, Valtin, Clem Yeobright, Cmyst, Ranting Roland, kldave, suskind, Viceroy, JoieDe, CarolynC967, Mr X, jmonch, rpm5250, bmaples, Warren Terrer, Floja Roja, sodalis, gpm, Tuba Les, Team Slacker, Shiborg, viscerality, Ace Sigma, milkmit, mspicata, keefer55, trashablanca, The Crusty Bunker, BobzCat, Keone Michaels, Fasaha, Mat in IL, Kingsmeg, rgdurst, BlueInARedState, leo joad, HoundDog, Ellicatt, buhdydharma, dougymi, Encriptical Envelopments, Magnifico, greenearth, goodasgold, jlove1982, ormondotvos, birdbrain64, nilocjin, OneCrankyDom, hypersphere01, condoleaser, MO Blue, CTLiberal, BarbaraB, fezzik, righteousbabe, MarketTrustee, Dreaming of Better Days, One Pissed Off Liberal, dotsright, donnamarie, bobbobgirl, Haningchadus14, aelurophile

    See y'all this week at yearlyKos!

  •  thanks for the update (6+ / 0-)

    winning takes work -- a lot of work, and if all who love the ideas of Markos work, then we will win.  Its that simple

    "Ah, what an age it is when to speak of trees is almost a crime for it is a kind of silence about injustice" (Brecht)

    by tsackton on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:28:54 PM PDT

  •  Paying for Sleaze Ads-- (15+ / 0-)

    A big part of the reason they succeed is that they dominate.

    With public funding, I can run my positive counter-ad at parity with the sleazes.

    Without public funding, dollars equal both speech and elected office.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:32:28 PM PDT

  •  excellent diary ,thanks nt (6+ / 0-)

    -8.63 -7.28 He was carrying a skateboard on his back, a red rose in his fist, and the war.

    by OneCrankyDom on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:36:53 PM PDT

  •  What to do about Sen. Clinton (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    meg, Ranting Roland, tamman2000, Ace Sigma
    Go to:

  •  Recommended! Thanks, that was great. (6+ / 0-)

    Like Colbert said..."reality has a liberal bias!".

    The official attack on Social Security/Medicare has now formally started. Will you trust two oil men to fix that, too?

    by mattes on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:44:53 PM PDT

  •  Great Contribution raines. Thanks. n/t (4+ / 0-)

    Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

    by HoundDog on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:46:34 PM PDT

    •  the problem is that I want to write this daily (8+ / 0-)

      but it took me four days of crammed-into-odd-hours-here-and-there writing/editing to get it into suitable-for-exposure condition. Hard when my journalism "training" was on the job at a weekly newsmagazine with deadlines by the hour, so my instinct is still to try to publish in a timely, newsy fashion.

      •  Worth the wait ... and (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        How many diaries are really required?  How many Georgia10s? Jerome a Paris?  Booman? can we survive.

        But, this was truly excellent.

        And, excellent in the window on Markos -- for whom I (and all of us) have such great gratitude for establishing the site ...

        But boy, this demonstrates some serious WTF is he talking about ... and he needs to learn.

        RE building a home sustainably and that solar is so expensive.  It really is a matter of what one means by those.  For example, if "solar" means solar photovoltaiic (PV) electricity -- he's right, with the exception of states like California or areas like Long Island with great tax benefits/subsidies, this is horribly expensive.  But, on the other hand, to build a home with passive solar as part of the design can actually be cheaper (good insulation and good design can lower the required HVAC system so that less money needs to be spent on that equipment.  In addition, active solar hot water heating and active solar heating are relatively inexpensive options that quickly pay back for themselves.  Similarly, 'sustainable' construction does not necessarily drive higher cost.

        And, of course, there is the serious question of what is "cost".  A home built well in terms of energy design (which should include passive solar design elements) does not necessarily cost more to build -- but will cost substantially less to own / operate.  

        The easy analogy:

        •  Incandescent lightbulbs cost tens of cents, last perhaps 1000 hours, and use four times as much electricity as ...
        • Compact flourescents that cost  perhaps $2.50-4 and should last perhaps 4000 hours.

        With a Walmart $.99 mentality, the incandescent looks cheaper ... but, in fact, it will cost many times more to actually own and operate, a fact that is invisible when you buy the bulb if you aren't thinking.  

        When it comes to energy and sustainability issues, Kos does not seem to have done the same degree of thinking as he has given to the political infrastructure at this time.  Hope that he goes to the Energize America panel and listens ... might help.

        •  Perhaps it is age ... but does he really believe w

        9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

        by besieged by bush on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 07:37:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  thanks for posting this! (8+ / 0-)

    I was there too, but have been too busy to type up the notes I made.

    I was very proud of Markos and his poise and humor.  And equally proud when I saw him and jerome on Russert the next day, just as cool and confident as he was in person at the commonwealth Club.

    "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" -Stephen Colbert (-6.38/ -4.21)

    by wonkydonkey on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:51:31 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for posting this (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sj, cotterperson, meg, raines, mattes, Floja Roja

    I laughed out loud at this:

    I have to admit that learning this set off a whole train of thought that I expect will greet this thread: Maybe he really did take that CIA job, and this whole site is a plot to keep us all busy... but no, MetaJesus intervened, and they wouldn't do that, because the CIA is a liberal place, really!

    "A Government that makes peaceful revolution impossible, makes armed revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy

    by CTLiberal on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:54:42 PM PDT

  •  I don't think public funding will need any of (0+ / 0-)

    that.  Consultant welfare or whoring???  Either way, they get our money.

    ....although the future is unknown, it will not be unblogged. David D. Perlmutter

    by dkmich on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:57:53 PM PDT

  •  When did the CIA become liberal? (4+ / 0-)

    Seriously. Have I been reading the wrong books???

    ... we now know a lot of things, most of which, we already knew... (-dash888)

    by Tirge Caps on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:02:08 PM PDT

  •  If third parties are doomed to fail... (4+ / 0-)

    Why have they suceeded?

    Or are we still trying to decide whether  the next president will be a federalist, or a whig?

    "How is it pro-family to prevent people from getting married?" -Me

    by tamman2000 on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:04:49 PM PDT

    •  Long time ago (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Desroko, raines

      Not since 1856, in fact.  Populist?  Bull Moose?  Dixiecrat?  Reform?  All gone.

      lime rick "...blow them all away in the name of the Lord." -- Jerry Falwell on CNN, 10/29/04

      by mspicata on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:23:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  2 parties--not (4+ / 0-)

      necessarily the SAME 2 parties. Didn't seem to think that distinction needed to be made, but...

      It doesn't seem that our political system can handle more than 2 major parties at a time--perhaps because it's so based on outright majorities, rather than coalitions.

      You might have more luck trying to replace one of the two current parties than actually having the system function with 3 or more major parties.

      2006--win or get out of the way

      by JMS on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:29:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  exactly right (0+ / 0-)

        I have read game theory papers on this.

        Our system creates a race to the center, but I think the actual center and the percieved center do not overlap.  This leaves the opportunity for a 3rd party to come in (I think it would be on the left), and get a reasonable number of votes from currently disaffected voters.  This would cause many liberal democrats to join the third party, and the DINOs would join the republicans...

        I think that we are overdue for this type of cleaning out of the machinery...

        "How is it pro-family to prevent people from getting married?" -Me

        by tamman2000 on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:56:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Plurality tend to foster (0+ / 0-)

        two-party systems, which in turns encourages smaller parties to join an ideologically-similar ally - if they know that they can't form a majority on their own, and that the major parties have little need of coalitions, the rational course is for them to take the initiative in joing a major party and trying to affect it internally.  

        Nationwide elections, such as ours for President, also have a (smaller) contributing effect.

        Some people like to point out Canda, with its four major parties. I would remind them that, in its 150-year history, no party other than the Liberals and the Conservatives, or their direct antecedents, has won a majority. Also, Canda lacks certain features of the American system, like a nationwide contest, and America lacks certain features of Canada, such as a strongly culturally-distinct region such as Quebec.

        •  Third party potential. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I agree it's not likely a third party will become a significant factor in American politics.  But if it were to happen, it might come about something like this:

          By forming an alliance with one of the major parties.  The most likely pair are the Dems and Greens.  The terms of the alliance could be something like this: Until the last week of October, the Dem nominee and the Green nominee pursue their separate campaigns.  During the last week of October, whichever of the two candidates has the least support in the opinion polls will withdraw from the race and endorse the remaining alliance candidate.  In return for the endorsement, the withdrawing candidate will be allowed to name one (or two, or three, or whatever) cabinet secretaries if the other candidate wins the race.

          The minor party would have to realize that for the first several election cycles, it will be their candidate who withdraws.  Thus, they have to be in it for the long term.  But it gives them a real shot at some influence now, and building a base for the future.

          What's in it for the major party?  Two things: (1) Attract more voters, of course. (2) Expand the range of ideas in the public mind.  It will be hard for Repubs to make the "liberal!" shibboleth stick to Dems when the Greens are even further to the left.  The Dems would look like centrists, and the Repubs would look like they're far on the right.  In other words, things would come into their proper focus.

          -4.25, -4.87 "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein

          by HeyMikey on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:32:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A couple notes: (0+ / 0-)

            As mentioned, shifts in partisanship and the like just don't happen - it takes major events and/or explosive issues for that to happen. The Federalists didn't just all go away - the Republicans managed to co-opt much of their ideology while retaining their Jeffersonian posture, they failed to utilize mass organizations like the Republicans did, and they opposed the War of 1812, which turned out to be very popular outside of New England.

            Another - the major parties have resisted wooing third-party organizations (not necessarily voters) because they both know that they can win without them. If the Dems were so badly hurt that they had little chance of regaining the House, Senate, or White House without appealing to a third-party consituency, then it might happen. but even then, the more likely scenario is that the Dems would try to absorb voters away from a certain party, instead of formally aligning. There are psychological, cultural, and practical reasons for this.

            And I don't see how the Dems allying with the Greens would inoculate the Dems against the "Liberal!" attack. If anything, it opens them up.

            •  All of that. . . (0+ / 0-)

              . . . is why I began by saying it's not likely.

              But -- 2000 and 2004 were particularly painful losses for Dems.  If a Green-Dem alliance had been in effect in '00, Gore would be Pres today, and Nader or some other Green would be head of the EPA, or Secretary of the Interior, or Secretary of Energy -- maybe all 3.  Surely those should be powerful incentives for Dems and Greens to think about new ways of doing things.

              -4.25, -4.87 "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein

              by HeyMikey on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 03:01:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  There is one major case of a true third-party (0+ / 0-)

      becoming a major party, and even then, most of the Republicans of the 1850s-1860s had previously been Whigs, with a scattering of antislavery Dems and Free-Soilers.

    •  Third parties have to build from the bottom (0+ / 0-)

      And I mean the very bottom. County and state secretaries, land commisioners, school board members, then up to state legislators and mayors, and then up to the big time. Give it 10, 15 years.

      As it is, third parties have no core of qualified, proven people to run the government. Who the hell was Nader going to get for his cabinet. Or Perot (actually, there are probably very scary corporate answers for that). Who would carry their agenda through Congress?

      Third parties are made up of hacks that couldn't hack the big pools. There are horror stories in the NM Green Party, which was even briefly successful compared to other states. The guys running for top seats have nothing to run on but hope that voter disgust will propel them to victory.

      The only other option is a mass defection of existing candidates, which is extremely unlikely given the incredible power of the two existing parties to get people elected. If you have a vision and a major party will support you, why on earth ditch that for certain poverty and failure in a third party?

  •  Been known for years (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That most C.I.A. employees are moderate liberals in their own politics.

    •  See my comment below - not true (0+ / 0-)

      That's been a great story for years, and patently false on the covert side, for years.

      •  When I was in college years ago (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        besieged by bush, think blue, Dianna

        About the only people the C.I.A. approached for job prospects were in general liberal in politics. I know I was when the professor who was recruiting for them did. They tended to avoid conservative students no matter how smart they were. It was explained to me that conservative personalities tended to be unable to get outside of their own conservatism to think in a manner that someone else would think. They tend to make bad analysts, and in a lot of ways not very good covert operators either.

        Sort of like actors. A conservative has a hard time playing roles as a liberal or radical. But a liberal has no trouble playing a convincing conservative.

        The few people I have known in the C.I.A. have not seemed to be particularly conservative at all, but rather moderate Democrats in fact.

        I bet who it were possible to find out the political affiliation of a lot of these guys you would find a majority to be registered Democrats. Remember Phillip living in Havana.
        He was not particularly unusual in his political leanings, just went very overboard.

        •  Remember E. Howard Hunt (0+ / 0-)

          and the rabid right-wing Anti-Castro Cubans working for the CIA?

          See the other comments - "liberal" as in well-educated, not "liberal" as in peace loving, honest, generous, compassionate, etc.

          •  Dont tell ME about the Cubans (0+ / 0-)

            I lived in Miami for 27 years.

            Cuba was rather the acception than the rule.

            The reason that they FAILED so dismally to get rid of Castro, why every operation regarding Cuba has been an overwhelming failure, IS linked to the fact that in order to select operatives for Cuba, they had nothing to choose but RABID, right wing anti-Castro Cubans,at least in Miami and those who were without much imagination, and no ability to think outside that right wing box.

            Again, your tendency to take a few cases and apply them to the who agency is typical of another bad mindset. The person who is stuck in a paranoic, left wingnut frame of mind who cannot think outside of that left wing box  either.

            I was told what IMPRESSED the recruiters about me is that they would watch me at the student union, arguing the positive points for Socialism and Communism, and absolutely tear holes into any argument that the rather uniformed Young Republicans might make...

            Then I would walk over to the Student Communists, and blow away their arguments for the superiority of communism.

            They liked that flexibility of mind set, because it enabled a person to see how the opponent was thinking and then extrapolate what the opponent might do next.  But politically, I was fairly left of center.

            There were many in the C.I.A. who thought that the U.S. would be better off supporting more moderate socialists or liberals in Cuba and for Cuba, than the far right brigades that they ended up supporting.

            Just as there were many in the C.I.A. who didnt like Bush's cherry picking of the intelligence on Iraq. Those guys pointing out that the Iraq intelligence was not all that reliable were NOT all that right wing not, were they?

            Again, you have to remember WHOSE presidency Hunt and that Cuban crap occured in. Nixon viewed the failures of the last years of the Eisenhower regime to shore up Batista as one of HIS failures and Nixon was just not the sort of guy to accept that sort of failure.
            The White House action officer on the Cuban situation in 1959 WAS Richard Nixon.

            Which was pretty much why these right wing operatives operated AGAINST the orders of John Kennedy, while he was president. They simply set up their own agency within an agency.

            Porter Goss was made head of the C.I.A. simply to clean up what tended to be a center liberal leaning house.

            We are lucky that those who are NOT QUITE IN SYCH with neo-cons in the C.I.A. were able to make Goss look ineffective enough to go.

            So Bush has had to get tougher and send in military intelligence to mop up the C.I.A.

            Even the Pentagon and the various defense intelligence departments are not overwhelmingly right wing. After all Wesley Clark WAS fairly highly placed in the Penatagon was he not.

            And at many meeting of Congress when the president is addresing them, you WILL find considerable numbers of uniformed figures with stars on their shoulders sitting on the Democrat side of the aisle. Lot of symbolic protocol involved in that.

            •  Talk about jumping to conclusions! (0+ / 0-)

              Well, you certainly jumped to a pretty ridiculous conclusion based on a couple of comments! You say this about me:

              Again, your tendency to take a few cases and apply them to the who agency is typical of another bad mindset. The person who is stuck in a paranoic, left wingnut frame of mind who cannot think outside of that left wing box  either.

              Little did you know I had just sent this to a private list, earlier today:

              [early part of message not relevant]...But I'm pretty appalled by their lack of understanding. Especially re the CIA.

              The CIA has:
              • overthrown democratically elected gov'ts in many countries around the world and installed near fascists in their place
              • protected some of the worst perpetrators of Nazi atrocities
              • experimented in heinous ways on American citizens amounted to physical and mental torture. Some people in the mind control experiments were literally tortured to death.
              • routinely employed torture
              • corrupted the labor movement at home and abroad - paid people off (or killed some) to shift the agenda to agency-desired positions
              • routinely broken the law to serve Agency and personal operative needs (Jim Angleton told the Church committed it was "inconceivable" that a secret agency would have to obey the laws of our country, e.g.)
              • deliberately covered up or misrepresented stories in the media to serve their agenda
              • illegally spied on American citizens, using the information for blackmail (Allen Dulles spied on Capitol Hill and talked about it the next day with Angleton in fishing terms. They used that to blackmail people who wanted to rein in the agency.)

              I'm no fan of the agency. That said, however, I'm a BIG fan of many of those who work there, who honestly believe they are serving their country, who work hard to keep us safe. I take the negative side because the positive one gets plenty of play. If everyone in the media was ragging on them incessantly, I'd probably take the opposite side and argue their necessity.

              To me, the real problem is oversight. How can you possibly oversee an agency when the most you can do is ask people what's up and hope they give you straight answers, when they're sworn to protect the secrets of the agency more than the laws of the government?

              •  Again nope (0+ / 0-)

                The CIA has not been involved in that sort of stuff for decades and the government had to set up an entirely separate non intelligence related organization to fund political opposition to party's it does not like.

                The last time the CIA was actively involved in the overthrow of any legally elected was in the mid 1950's with Iran, Guatemala and few others.

                It was Truman who told the agency to not get involved with the overthrow of Mossadegh when the British started pressuring him to do something about the Iranian desire to nationalize their own oil production when the Brits didnt want to offer Iran a larger cut of the profits. The Brits wanted 80 percent and offered Iran 20 percent. Truman didnt give a rats ass because the U.S. was a major exporter of oil at the time and didnt care.

                It was not until EISENHOWER was elected that HE started directing the CIA to start the operations to overthrow Mossadegh. But at a price, The Brits got 40 percent, the U.S. got 40  percent it really didnt need, and Iran settled for 20 percent asoriginally planned.

                The CIA is responsible to provide the president with intelligence nad carry out the orders of the president of the United States. That still does NOT make the majority of employees of the CIA RIGHT WING FANATICS.

                There is where you lose your sense of proportion and start to REWRITE history.

                A REAL historian does not start with an assumption, and then try to make the events FIT their belief.

                After that the various DEFENSE
                department. like the ONI  were largely involved with things like the overthrow
                of Allende. Everyone thought it QUITE STRANGE that the U.S. Embassies had admirals hanging around, and even more unusual that they ahd them in land locked countries like Bolivia.

                You have some strange idea that members of the Democratic Party do not also involve themselves in interferring in the political situation in various nations around the world.

                A REAL historian scientifically observes events and attempts to interpret them within the context of the time, place, political and social milieu that they occured in.

                Your assertions are basically anachronistic.

                And NONE of the things that you have attributed to the CIA are in any way particular to Republicans or the right, within the time frames and political environment they occured in.

                You are projecting the current ideas of what the Democrat party stands for back to a time and world that these position did not exist in.

                That is the prime definition of historical anachronism.

        •  Fascinating. (0+ / 0-)

          Hi again Uncle Ho. It's true, it's about imagination and empathy, many things in life.  We conversed earlier...hope all is well, cheers...

          •  Its not so much empathy (0+ / 0-)

            But the ability to get into the head of someone who has a point of view radically different than your own.

            Conservatives just seem to lack that ability.

            Now can you see Charlton Heston or CLint Eastwood EVER being able to play a super liberal or communist. No, I doubt it.

            But Alan Alda CAN play a fairly believable conservative as could Ed Asner.

            Moderate liberal mindsets tend to be more flexible.

            Conseravtives are not.

            Extremists on either the left or right side are not either.

  •  'Gore won't run' (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FredFred, ormondotvos

    "and I (Markos) will do everything that I can to make sure he won't run by excluding him from the political process on my website. If I say over and over again that he won't run (even though I don't have a crystal ball or anything, I can say it with utter certainty, because I'm in charge), and I exclude him from my polls and call him a fantasy candidate, maybe I can make it a self-fulfilling prophecy by discouraging enough of his supporters so that he will decide not to. I'm Markos and I can decide who "won't run."

    Pipe dreams are not an exit strategy.

    by TrainWreck on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:22:58 PM PDT

    •  huh? (3+ / 0-)

      Gore himself says he won't run. I've heard him say it in at least three different interviews.

      Howard Dean has a posse (buy my t-shirts so I can afford YearlyKos!)

      by Jett on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:28:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Cites, please, (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shpilk, Scout Finch, NeuvoLiberal, jiml, Dianna

        because I've never seen a quote of him stating categorically that he will not run. Everyhthing I've seen is notable for the fact that he leaves himself wiggle room.

        Pipe dreams are not an exit strategy.

        by TrainWreck on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:33:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not categorical, but.... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jett, GayHillbilly

          Jun 4, 11:44 AM EDT

          Gore Says Don't Count on a 2008 Run

          WASHINGTON (AP) -- Al Gore, the Democrats' nominee for the White House in 2000, says he has all but ruled out running for president in 2008, saying the best use of his time is to educate people about global warming.

          "I haven't made a Sherman statement, but that's not an effort to hold the door open. It's more the internal shifting of gears," said Gore, referring to Civil War-era general William Tecumseh Sherman. "I can't imagine any circumstances in which I would become a candidate again. I've found other ways to serve. I'm enjoying them."

          (emphasis mine)

          Don't get me wrong, I would vote for him in a hearbeat if he got the nomination, but I think the best use of Gore's skills is outside the beltway. Sort of a Representative-at-Large.  Speaking up for important issues without worrying about election or re-election.  
          I'd argue the Carter's best years were post-presidency.  And like Carter, I think Gore can best serve us all without needing an office.

          -8.38, -6.21 If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention

          by Mat in IL on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:32:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Gore is still young--he's only 58 (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NeuvoLiberal, Mat in IL, ormondotvos

            for goodness sakes.

            It may be too soon to count him out --especially considering his expertise. No one comes close to him.

            <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

            by bronte17 on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 03:31:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  By no means am I counting him out (0+ / 0-)

              I didn't mean to imply that his political life is over.  Like I said, if he gets the nomination, I'm totally behind him.

              However, given how much more at ease he is now that he's not running for office, and given the effect he's showing us he can have without an office, perhaps this new venue is a better stage for him to speak from.  

              He's picked a topic that sorely needs more attention in this country, and he's having an effect (in the top 10 this weekend, while only on 77 screens?!).  Get him to pick a couple more planks from the Dem. platform, and let him do his thing.

              -8.38, -6.21 If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention

              by Mat in IL on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 10:28:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  No you haven't. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        You have heard him say that he does not plan to run. You have not heard him rule it out.

      •  Candidates are always facetious. (0+ / 0-)

        That's the standard line, up until the moment they strategically enter the race.

    •  LOL (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cotterperson, SensibleShoes

      Are you being funny, or are you just sad?

      SoapBlox Colorado - The Daily Kos of Colorado

      by pacified on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:29:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do what now? (0+ / 0-)

      I don't think Markos has that kinda power, ackshly.

      -9.0, -8.3. The less a man knows about how sausages and laws are made, the easier it is to steal his vote and give him botulism.

      by SensibleShoes on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:34:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, let's see, (0+ / 0-)

        he owns the biggest non-establishment progressive blog on the web, the meeting place for the activists that I think are most likely to propel a Gore candidacy, and here 'kos excludes Gore from being treated as worthy of serious consideration as the Democratic nominee for 2008. I think the types of comments Markos makes about a possible Gore candidacy are capable of supplying a significant dampening effect on pro-Gore enthusiasm at the very place that enthusiasm could catch on.

        No, I think Markos has quite a bit of power. At least he doesn't remove pro-Gore comments and blogs, AFAIK, so far, anyway.

        Pipe dreams are not an exit strategy.

        by TrainWreck on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:49:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Markos was just saying that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Gore is having too much fun now... someone brought up that he would run because he knows what it's like, but Markos thought that was the reason he wouldn't run!

    •  Yes, Kos doesn't have a crystal ball (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pine, bronte17, Dianna

      but he did include him in the recent "fantasy" poll where Gore got 68% of the vote, and with a 53% margin of separation.

      And Kos is NOT discriminatory at all towards pro-Gore commentary.

      Kos should continue posting a poll which includes Gore alongside his regular poll, and not issue denials on Gore's behalf (he can state his opinion as anyone else, but he should cast it in such a language, especially when making media appearances).

      •  and in fact that 'fantasy' poll (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        got media attention that did more for the Gore-aholics than anything Gore's said or done lately.

        I class myself in the "wouldn't-it-be-great" category but what would really be great IMHO is such a strong draft that involved such strong taking over of the party and grassroots connectorizing that there wouldn't be a choice in the matter, that's what success would look like. Accept no shortcuts!

    •  Draft Gore (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Gore will run if enough people demand it. Markos is of course free to manipulate the debate here, it is his site. But Hillary is unacceptable, Feingold has some problems to overcome regarding electability, and Gore is fast becoming the choice of most Dems.

      Markos, you can give up on him, but expecting the rest of us to do so is wishful thinking. Gore/Feingold and Gore/Obama are possible winning tickets.

      If you want to dampen enthusiasm for Gore, show us an equally qualified, electable candidate. Hillary has embraced the right wing and her position on Iraq is not acceptable. She is the one who should be eliminated from the stack. I'm sure that many Kossacks, like me, will not vote for her even if it means the White House remains red. It has nothing to do with Bill or various petty issues. She is a war-mongerer with no respect for free speech. This is purely about issues.

      So who else? If you want us to give up on Gore, you have to present an acceptable, electable candidate to support. Your move.

      I'm a linguist, licensed to use words any way I want to!

      by MakeChessNotWar on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:10:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ideology will do the job... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pine, jiml

        "I'm sure that many Kossacks, like me, will not vote for her even if it means the White House remains red."

        Seems Bush didn't convince you, eh?

        The perfect becomes the enemy of the good. Don't be an ideot.

        by ormondotvos on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 04:43:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  i concur (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          As much as I disagree with Clinton on her support for the war in Iraq, she's far more acceptable than just about any Republican. And even if President Hillary is less-than-perfect, it still will be advantageous to have a Democratic administration, and the possibility of liberal Supreme Court nominees.

      •  i disagree (0+ / 0-)

        I'm a huge Gore fan myself, but I do not accept your basic premise that Gore is the only acceptable candidate who can carry the progressive mantle of the party. Most would-be candidates won't make their final decisions about running until after the midterm elections, so I don't see why Markos should be in any rush  to throw support behind another candidate.

        And by the way, I don't buy into the "electability" bullshit that people keep throwing around Feingold. He's just as "electable" as Gore is. Candidate Feingold would run into problems in the culturally-conservative South, but so would just about any other bona fide progressive candidate. So it's a problem that's non-unique to Feingold. If anything, his astute understanding of his Wisconsin constituents would probably make him a strong candidate in Midwestern swing states.

      •  I cannot give up on Gore, no way!! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        That's the honest to God truth.  I'll be supporting him no matter what.

      •  It's the system (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jotter, Dianna

        Mr. Gore doesn't want you to get on your knees and beg him (he isn't that shallow or he would have accepted the last draft,) he wants you to go out and work to make the changes necessary to change this toxic system and the political perception BS that undermines good people in having faith in it. What good is being "electable" (whatever the hell that is anyway,) if you can't get past the corrupted voting machines, corporate whores, media soundbites, lobbysists, voter apathy, and secret societies to get elected? Why do you think he made this movie? Because for the last six years we have all been sitting on our asses waiting for someone else to do something. Once again, his point is missed.

        And again then, if Mr. Gore is so viable to so many here now, where was all of this love for him in 2004 in demanding he step forward, or for that matter in 2000 when we HAD HIM to fight for? Do people now want him because they think him the best choice, or because they just want anyone but Clinton, or to fill a space? His reasoning for not planning to run goes way beyond just the black and white. His reasoning on it is very valid, and it is actually very telling that people don't even want to dig deeper into that reasoning as it gets to the core of our problems.

        What he is now doing is something that is tipping the debate in this country to an issue that should have been in the forefront a long time ago (that we the people should have helpd him bring out) in the hopes that people will also move THEMSELVES to make change and push ALL of their political leaders to make those changes. Changing the minds of the American people that have been brainwashed and bombarded with corporate media bs for the last fifty plus years is no small task. Squabbling over a "fantasy" poll on a blog is not accomplishing anything in changing that.

      •  Gore/Richardson possibly? n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  A bit unfair (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Markos regular posts a 'fantasy poll' that includes Gore, along with a poll listing only those candidates he believes are plausible. Gore mops up the fantasy poll. If Markos were sandbagging him those polls would not be posted.

    •  Oh, c'mon, Trainwreck (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mattes, Mat in IL

      In numerous comments at DKos, I have said Gore won't run -- and I very much wish he would.  And given the constant discussions and promotions of Gore on this blog, I see NO evidence Markos has "excluded [Gore] from the political process on my website."  Seems to me, Kos was simply asked to comment on of a currently hot political story, and he did.  

    •  Did he say that? (0+ / 0-)

      Uh, that sounds awfully much like a God complex... I hope that's not an accurate quote.

  •  Intellectual Contradiction (0+ / 0-)

    On the one hand:
    "A party today is basically a shell. It does not have [its own position, ideology. It reflects the idology of those who run it."

    And then on the other hand:
    "If [Casey] wins and he helps us win back the Senate, we will have a party in charge that will prevent anti-abortion legislation to begin with. The issue will never come up for a vote."

    These points of view seem .. at odds ... to me.

    -- The going's good in the land of the free, but I live in another country. -- Bob Hillman

    by J from VJ on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:47:54 PM PDT

    •  Read more carefully. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      billlaurelMD, cotterperson

      Casey will not run the party. He will be a freshman senator, while the party's leadership (in and out of the Senate) is pro-choice.

      •  let's extrapolate a bit (0+ / 0-)

        Come on now... Senators from large swing states are surely leaders in the party, no?

        And if enough Casey-types are elected then where, pray tell, will the leadership be drawn from?

        If Markos' position is that Democratic Senators are not prime candidates for party leadership, well, that's interesting, but I don't think it reflects political reality.

        More to the point - I'm trying (gently) to point out what I believe is a fundamental intellectual contradiction in Markos' approach and perspective. I usually don't bother, but this instance seemed too stark to overlook.

        No, I really don't hold out any hope for a reasonable dialogue on this (I watched the pie fights, after all), but maybe there's a better answer somewhere out there than "but, Casey won't be a party leader; pinky swear!"

        -- The going's good in the land of the free, but I live in another country. -- Bob Hillman

        by J from VJ on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:04:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is, I believe, one (0+ / 0-)

          case of a Senator becoming majority leader in his second term, and that was Lyndon Johnson, who was the master of American legislative prowess.

          There are a couple of guys who made whip in their second terms, but they are relatively few.

          Even if Casey were interested in joining the Senate leadership (which I don't think he is - he's more focused on Pennsylvania than a national role for himself), he has virtually no chance of making it in his first-term.

          And even then, the Senate is not the end-all, be-all of the Democratic party leadership. There's the House, the White House (God willing), the DNC, and 50 state parties of various levels of strength. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. The pro-choice Senate Republicans have had remarkably little success in changing their party's policy on abortion on those few occasions on which they've tried, because their party is overwhelmingly pro-life and likes pro-life policies. I don't think prospective Senator Casey, even if he were so inclined, would have any more success.

        •  I can't read Markos's mind, but. . . (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pine, Floja Roja

          . . . I think what he's saying is that most people who are Dem leaders, or who stand a reasonable chance of becoming Dem leaders, are firmly pro-choice.  Thus, it's OK to have a few (like Casey) who aren't.  In fact, if the alternative is to have a Repub in the seat, it's more than OK -- it's an advantage.  This is because if we get a Dem majority, then Dems will chair all the committees, including the ones handling abortion legislation, to which Casey likely won't be assigned.  Bottom line: Pro-choicers would control the agenda, and Casey's defeat of a Repub would help make it happen.

          -4.25, -4.87 "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein

          by HeyMikey on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:16:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Reid (0+ / 0-)

          is already a party leader, it should be mentioned. Is Casey much more scary?

          2006--win or get out of the way

          by JMS on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:17:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  maybe it helps to look at it from the other side (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Desroko, besieged by bush, Mat in IL

      you have Chaffee, Specter, and some other Republicans who are publicly pro-choice. What have they done to further the pro-choice cause? hmm...

      So, in actual practice, what your stated public views are really matter far less than how good your party is at strong-arming you into their views.

      In that respect, a Bob Casey in the senate (having him as governor would be a different story) is a help for the pro-choice cause as long as:

      A. the Dems are good at strong-arming him
      B. the Dems remain generally pro-choice themselves

      If you assume the two points above are true (which is a reasonable assumption at this point), the political party of the senator in question carries much more weight than his or her personal views, even if they have been publicly stated, and even if, given a different kind of power, they might act differently.

      It's an interesting balancing act--but at the end of the day, there are relatively few people who are going to share ALL of your views equally, and those people are not going to be a big enough bloc to get anything done politically. You have to weigh the pros and cons of various alliances to get to what you actually want. Because what people actually want is not the Democratic party to win, per se. The Democratic party is just short-hand for a set of positions and values. If the Titanium party were viable and had the same values, I'm sure that's what we'd support.

      2006--win or get out of the way

      by JMS on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:15:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  yeah that confused me too (0+ / 0-)

      if Casey is okay because he helps us win back the Senate, then why is Lieberman bad? Why crash the gate? I know there must be some logic to this that I am missing. Anyone care to explain?

      Let your conscience be your guide.

      by Jiminy Cricket on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:47:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well (5+ / 0-)

        Casey is a single issue negative candidate, if you will, and for the reasons stated above, it's not a major blot on his candidacy.

        Lieberman, on the other hand… well, I don't need to explain this, do I? Actively shilling for the other side, with a voting record that mean he may as well be in the GOP for all the good it's doing our party. The bipartisan cover he gives Bush who pursues far right issues unashamedly - "Democrats agree with us" - blurs the line between the two parties just enough for people to doubt whether Bush is on this on his own, and it makes it that much harder to run national strategies when your own caucus is on the talkshows trashing your policy platforms.

        you make me lose my buttons oh yeah, you make me spit; I don't like my clothes anymore...

        by Jaffa on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 03:08:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Great diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I almost feel like I was there!  Thanks for your work in putting this together.

    Closed minds should come with closed mouths.

    by Pennsylvanian on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:53:26 PM PDT

  •  I didn't see anyone refer to this (3+ / 0-)

    but I have a real problem with Chuck Hagel and how he became a senator after being (and not disclosing the fact) the owner of ES&S and running for senate after making sure his machines were in use in NE before his election.

    "The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected." --Thomas Paine

    by billlaurelMD on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:06:34 PM PDT

    •  Yep (0+ / 0-)

      Thanks for posting that.

      <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

      by bronte17 on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 03:34:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  doesn't Markos know about that? (0+ / 0-)

        Why would he respect someone who looks like he gamed the system to get into high office?

        "The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected." --Thomas Paine

        by billlaurelMD on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 03:35:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Shrug --can't speak for kos. (0+ / 0-)

          But, I'd bet that he thinks Hagel will be the frontrunner in '08 for the GOP.

          <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

          by bronte17 on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 03:39:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for the summary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raines, suskind

    Well written.  That Gore isn't going to run has been ovbious for a few weeks now, so that's not an extraordinary revelation.

    What I found most interesting was Markos' take on public campaign financing becoming a welfare trough for campaign consultants.  I never thought about that aspect of it.  I think Markos is right.  It would be much more effective to reduce the overall cost of campaigns in the first place.

    I view this much as I do the whole national healthcare issue.  Instead of focusing on how to pay for it, somebody should focus on why the hell it costs so much in the first place.

    A pessimist sees a glass half empty. I see a paper cup with holes punched in it.

    by Paper Cup on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:17:30 PM PDT

  •  Markos is right about Hagel (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and as a candidate in 08 I think he's the one we have to fear most. I can see the anti-Bush republicans rallying around him and this will be a difficult force for democrats to tackle.

    resist much, obey little

    by frankzappatista on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:29:32 PM PDT

    •  The problem with having the anti-Bush Republicans (0+ / 0-)

      rally around you is that the pro-Bush Republicans (they do and will exist) will be pissed.

      All the GOP candidates are going to have to deal with that problem, of course, but Hagel would have the hardest time among the GOP base - the rancor for him has reached the depths they had for McCain in 1999-2000.

    •  Talking Points re Hagel (5+ / 0-)

      He owned part interest in the company that counted the votes in his own Senate races. This, from Farhad Manjoo's article "Hacking Democracy" from 2003. As I've said elsewhere, Farhad's not all bad!

      She began by looking into Election Systems & Software, the world's largest election supply company, based in Omaha, Neb. Harris quickly found that ES&S was owned, in part, by a merchant banking holding company called the McCarthy Group and that the firm's chairman, Michael McCarthy, was Chuck Hagel's campaign treasurer. After searching news archives, Harris found that during Hagel's first campaign, in 1996, the Nebraska media reported that he had been president of ES&S -- which at the time was called American Information Systems -- between 1992 and 1995. But the articles suggested that Hagel was no longer affiliated with the voting equipment company. Harris saw election records that showed Hagel still holding between $1 million and $5 million worth of stock in McCarthy, which owned about 25 percent of ES&S.

      Harris had stumbled on what seemed to be a striking conflict of interest -- a U.S. senator owned a share in a company that built all the vote-counting machines in his state. She put up the relevant documents on her site, "and immediately I knew I'd hit a sore spot," she says, "because right away I got a threat letter from ES&S."

      The letter from ES&S's attorneys demanded that Harris take down her article. "While you claim that your article is all based upon verifiable facts, even if true, which ES&S disputes, you should be aware that such 'facts,' or the implications therefrom, when presented in a false fashion, constitute defamation or defamation by implication as well as the privacy tort of false light," the attorneys said.

      It's not clear what ES&S meant to convey by such a letter, but Harris didn't take down her article. "What I would certainly do if they launched a lawsuit is, we'd have a field day with discovery," she jokes now. ES&S did not return Salon's phone calls for comment.

      Btw - of Bev Harris, in the same piece, Farhad said this:

      During the past five months, Bev Harris has e-mailed to news organizations a series of reports that detail alarming problems in the high-tech voting machinery currently sweeping its way through American democracy. But almost no one is paying attention. ...

      It's not hard to see why: If you look at some of the conspiracy theory rhetoric on the Web spawned by the work of Harris and others, it becomes all too easy to dismiss the whole campaign as sour grapes. ...

      But Harris herself is no conspiracy nut. Her facts check out. Nor is she an ideologue. Her stories on voting machines are based not on her politics but on serious, in-depth investigative reporting. Since October, she's spoken to dozens of people in the voting world, from elections officials to "systems certifiers" to engineers whom she calls whistle-blowers. She's detailed some of her findings on her Web site, but she says they aren't the whole story -- which she'll tell in a book, "Black Box Voting," ....

      The facts Harris and others lay out ought to give many election officials pause. Touch-screen voting machines aren't especially reliable; there are documented cases in which they have frozen, broken down and tabulated incorrectly during actual, binding elections. They're also not immune to hacks. Though voting companies will confidently tell you about their myriad security policies, the fact is that these machines run software, and software can be tampered with: An election result could be changed without anyone being the wiser. And perhaps worst of all, the machines and the companies that make them are shrouded in secrecy. What really happens in a touch-screen machine when you select your candidate? In most cases, everything probably goes as it should -- but there is no way to know for sure.

      Indeed, the conspiracy theories, regardless of their validity, nevertheless highlight the main problem with electronic machines. Because they leave no paper trail -- the vote count is registered only electronically in the machine -- the results that the new machines deliver are open to dispute by people who have cause to be suspicious. For instance, Charlie Matulka, Hagel's Democratic opponent in Nebraska last year, believes that he might have won the race -- though the official count put him at about 15 percent of the vote.

      Bev Harris doesn't believe that anything went wrong in Nebraska, but that's not the point. She wonders how you can prove that everything went well when what goes on inside a voting machine isn't accessible by the public.

  •  Whew..... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raines, va dare

    And it goes on like this....

    LOL.  Long diary, but good.


  •  Markos' Misunderstanding of GOP History.... (9+ / 0-)

    I like to learn from the conservative movement. In 1964, Barry Goldwater was absolutely trounced in a an election, and the Republican party re-established control."

    Of course, conservatives then were a little different than the ones we have to deal with now. "Remember, Nixon created the EPA and OSHA.There were vicious battles, a big debate within the conservative movement."..."When they started building [the new Republican machine] in 1964 they didn't have thinktanks, et cetra. It took them 30 years." We don't have to take that long. "We can build ours in a lot shorter time, because of technoogy, how things advance."

    The modern conservative movement within the Republican did take off with the Goldwater candidacy in '64, however, Nixon was not part of that movement.  After the Goldwater landslide loss, Ronald Reagan took up the mantle of the Goldwater wing, not Richard Nixon.  Nixon was a Main Street-middle of the road Republican between the Rockefeller and the Goldwater/Reagan factions.  Rockefeller and Reagan teamed up at the 1968 convention up in an unsuccessful attempt to deny Nixon the Presidential nomination.  Reagan and Rockefeller thought that if Nixon was denied a victory on the first ballot, an all out battle between the Rockefeller left and Reagan right would emerge and make the 'moderate' Nixon Republicans irrelevant.  It did not take 30 years for the right wing to take control.  The battle resumed in 1976 with the Reagan challenge against President Ford for the GOP nomination.  Ford barely won the nomination but only after Rockefeller was forced to give up his place on the ticket even though he was the incumbent Vice President.  The real triumph of the Goldwater revolution was the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.  

    If a lesson is to be learned from the conservative movement is that the right wing of the Republican Party has been willing to engage in slash and burn tactics within their own party in order to maintain ideological orthodoxy.  This lesson is the exact opposite of what I hear from "practical" Democrats who speak openly of the 'candidate profile' (i.e., Soothern Governor) needed for Democrats to win rather than the principles of the candidate.

    Kos waxed nostalgic for the golden years of the Reagan era! "There was a time the republican party was interested in what was best for the country. In his first year in office, Reagan made the largest tax decrease in U.S. history. In his second year in office, they saw it wasn't working, and did the largest tax increase in U.S. history. It was an administration interested in looking at reality, and adjusting its behavior accordingly."


    This is a gross distortion of history.  The Reagan era was characterized by the most irresponsible fiscal policy in the history of the U.S. up to that time.  The 'tax increase' had nothing to do with what was good for America for as I recall it was a regressive tax increase.  Moreover, the Reagan Administration spent the government into deficits that were enormous while at the same time cutting back on social programs and expanding the military budget.  This was not a 'golden era' nor were the policies based on reality or benefit for Americans.  It was an absolute disgrace.

    •  You're right on, Grand Poobah (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      For a better view of the damage and destruction Reaganomics did to the middle class, Markos should read America: What Went Wrong, by two Pulitzer Prize winners from the Philadelphia Inquirer, Donald Bartlett and James Steele.

      The book is filled with charts that show clearly how the rich got SO MUCH RICHER - like 200% richer after Reagan's tax rearrangements, while the poor lost buying power. Wages grew, but not enough to match inflation.

      Seriously. This is important history, and as a huge blog owner and a spokesperson, Markos will be the target for this kind of BS and more. I hope people like Grand Poobah and others here keep reminding him of the "rest of the story", so to speak.

    •  disclaimer I should add (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      philgoblue, navajo

      quotes are based on my trying to type notes while listening, not with the benefit of any recording device or online access for fact-checking while writing/reformatting. Particularly challenging while I was standing in line waiting to ask a question. I did my best to put anything recreated outside of the actual quote marks, but stay tuned for the posting of the actual audio if you want to have full confident in what Markos said (subject to any editing, of course).

      I'm also remiss in not including the name of the guy onstage with Markos, doing the interviewing, some good questions there showing some attention and thought

  •  CIA want to make the world a better place???? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MarketTrustee, Real History Lisa


    Making the world a better place with those CIA renditions and secret prisons?

    Let your conscience be your guide.

    by Jiminy Cricket on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 03:38:31 PM PDT

  •  CIA not entirely full of liberals (3+ / 0-)

    When talking about the CIA, it's always important to distinguish the truthful side of the CIA, the analysis side, from the side that must, for our security, be dishonest, the covert ops side.

    I've known several people from the darker side, and they have all been, to a man, extremely right wing. I've known a few on the analysis side and they've all been, the few I've met, liberal.

    Just don't be deceived.

    And the CIA tells lies internally that good, liberal people, believe. This was evident in the CIA's history of its Guatemalan operations. One guy finally got access to the most files yet on that, and was surprised to see the CIA's people had lied internally, creating buckets of disinformation that the normally honest side, unwittingly, spread.

    It's just not that simple to say hey, the CIA are the good guys. That's really not representative of past or present history. It doesn't surprise me that Kos was interested - his background in the Army and multiple foreign countries makes him a candidate. His blog makes him a target. It remains to be seen how independent he will be. The bigger the site gets, the stronger certain voices will be talking in his ear.

    •  And Larry Johnson is a Republican! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      There are no hard and fast rules. The CIA has long been considered "liberal" just because they're people tend to be well-educated. Some people confuse knowledge with political persuasion..! ;-)

      •  Re: CIA not entirely full of liberals (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        You can be liberal and still be evil.  I'm sure there are some very nice people who work at the CIA, and then there are the people who developed programs like the Phoenix Program, MK-ULTRA and protected mafia bosses, heroin and cocaine smugglers.  I've been reading Doug Valentine's book on the history of the FBN, and it's full of stories about agents who were pursuing big cases, only to be forced to back off because their target was working for the CIA.  There's no reason to think that drug smugglers aren't still some of the most useful assets for any government intelligence agency.  Plus it's a great way to raise large amounts of cash for off-the-books operations.

  •  Chuck Hagel, Chuck Hagel, CHUCK HAGEL? (6+ / 0-)
    My God, anyone who knows ANYTHING about Chuck Hagel knows he had a very cozy relationship with the voting company that he held ownership in, because it elected him.  And so much more. . . .

    No wonder he's hostile to election integrity issues and tries to dismiss us as tin-foil hatters.

    Who does he get his energy advice from?  Ken Lay!

    Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

    by Einsteinia on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 04:34:51 PM PDT

  •  Pretty good thinking here, especially (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raines, besieged by bush

    wondering what kos is thinking sometimes..

    To get a little meta, it isn't always possible to make sense when you do politics, because you can't combine all single issues into a coherent platform AND people aren't logical anyway.

    Part of the problem, and maybe the solution, is that I perceive kos as a BIG thinker, interested in the long-term health of the country, and of the world. Frequently when big thinkers make tactical decisions, it isn't possible, or even a good idea, to outline every single link in the chain, because sometimes big thinkers just make jumps that won't yield to logical analysis.

    Kos is human, he considers much, and what he said about Reagan is as true as what the poster above says of Reagan. They're both true, but kos may think one of them is truer than the other.

    It ain't black and white, it ain't pure or stained, sometimes things just sit there, and be theyselfs.

    And particular single issues may not be able to take the place of a generally progressive view of the world. It's complicated, and I tend to resonate with what kos pulls out of his XXX head and diaphragm.

    Your millage may vary. nat

    The perfect becomes the enemy of the good. Don't be an ideot.

    by ormondotvos on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 05:18:48 PM PDT

  •  Gore needs to run, we need an authentic candidate (3+ / 0-)

    Hey, I think we need to get behind Gore.

    If we did, he'd run, and win.

  •  this is terrific reporting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jotter, raines

    This is a great piece.  Markos is a really interesting person.

    I'm sure Wayne Madsen (who attempted an inside smear on Kos last week) will be fit to be tied that he didn't get the scoop on this.... the Kos/CIA/Dean connection.... hah!

  •  raines (0+ / 0-)

    super report - I was there, and you really nailed it.

    The cia/dean thing was the eye opener for me.  I hope the CC puts up the audio - they don't for everything.

  •  May I suggest (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raines, besieged by bush

    -- that Markos read up a little bit on sustainability which has much broader and important implications than just organic food.

    We have a finite planet, finite continent and finite country.  We spend a lot of money to get around and to ship food.  Food is a necessity. Water is a necessity and west of the Mississippi is in short supply in many places.  We need ways and means to make sure we can match supply with demand not only now but in the future.  This is very practical stuff, Markos -- not esoteric exotica for discussion over the canapes at a cocktail party.  Its about survival and how we survive efficiently using our resources, our treasures the most wisely and parsimoniously (we have to make it last).  

    I am trying to stay patient dealing with the east coast elitism and ignorance (sorry) that characterizes your comments.  You behave as though you can control your food and water from the heart of a city.  A city is the MOST dependent even as it has intence needs based on huge population.  Cities are very far away from the means of production and must depend on ways and means to ship and distribute food and other essential substances.  That is a fragile nexus.

    Sustainability is about understanding that nexus Markos, for ourselves and our future generations across this huge and varied country and PLANET.  We cannot afford to throw away energy to make and ship and distribute food, water and the clean air we need to breathe as though there are no limits and restrictions anymore. At some point, no amount of maoney can buy any of those -- they are priceless and I see them as shattering the hold that money for its own sake has on our minds.  We are money junkies and like heroin, it is ersatz happiness -- you cannot live on money or heroin and neither has any value for our long term survival.  

    Get wise.  Read more.  Think  about and talk about it.  Come out west and visit and talk -- see how it is to live a distance from your water supply or have to compete with a silicon chip manufacturer for that precious substance.  Think how far your lettuce and milk travels to get to your table -- to your son and wife.  THAT is what sustainability is about.  

    Best always with the deepest respect ---

    SwimmertoFreedom06 -- elie friedlob

    ..Don't ask "where are the leaders. WE are the leaders!

    by SwimmertoFreedom06 on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 06:57:56 PM PDT

    •  absolutely the link from Inconvenient Truth (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ... for all of us, incorporate evaluation of our carbon footprint into everything we do and by, provide disclosure methods (it doesn't even have to be mandated, in this net world, third party evaluators can fill the gap), will drive market forces to lead us naturally to relocalization as hidden subsidies see the light of day.

      I think it provides a useful read on the idea: if a young (showing my age here) progressive activist like Markos has the sort of read on sustainability that he does, it tells us where we need to be working on consensus-development, education, and outreach.

      Raines (trying to make my yearlyKos carbon-neutral)

      P.S. Markos is "out west" -- he's in Berkeley. Less than a mile from the ocean. At an altitude (same as me) that could very well become beachfront property in our lifetimes. So he'll definitely "get it" over time.

      •  He may be out west physically (0+ / 0-)

        But he is all east coast mentally. Whatever "coast", he is unaware and unenlightenned. He is way too influential to remain that scarily ignorant without impact.  I hope that changes.

        ..Don't ask "where are the leaders. WE are the leaders!

        by SwimmertoFreedom06 on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 08:06:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Rationale for electability? (0+ / 0-)

    I don't think she is the best choice for president, but why would anyone think she isn't electable?

    "Polarizing figure"? Come on, anyone the dems put up will become a "polarizing figure". She and bill retain haigh favorability numbers, and the right won't vote for any dem, especially once the slime machine gets going. Can you think of any dem that won't get tarred as "polarizing" by January '08.

    War votes? Most of the dems are on record voting to give the president authority or supporting the decision.

    Same with a dozen other "betrayal" votes people around here bray about. Hell, Dean was barely left of lieberman when he was running his state, he gets lionized now.

    The fact is, she should be the only person any of you should be certain of passing the "electibility" question. Bill and Hillary are the only ones who ever beat the right wing attack and slander machine. And they beat them consistently. In fact, many candidates have lost "running away" from Clinton - you know the election would not have been close if Gore had let Clinton seriously campaign for him. Same with Kerry.

    Hillary beat back slanders of carpetbagging, lesbianism, murder, "shrew-ness", drug dealing, open marriage, and a half dozen other horrors. Kerry and Gore and Dean shrivelled under attacks that pale in comparison.

    Don't be fools. The media loves the "electability" spin - they still would have you believe that Bill was an unpopular president. There are plenty of reasons to support other candidates in the primary (I still favor Clark), but don't do the right wing's job for them telling everyone that she is a certain loser. She is probably the only certain winner.

  •  Where can we download/order unedited recording? (0+ / 0-)

    Even if I have to pay (a little), I'd like to hear the whole thing (bad words included! GRIN).  I haven't yet found it on the Commonwealth Club website or my local NPR station's website.  Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place.  Will it ever be made available?  

  •  Organic is not necessarily sustainable (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If something is grown organically but shipped thousands of miles, it is not necessarily sustainable. I think a distinction should be made. If something is sustainable is it probably organic, but the reverse isn't always true. I think a more accurate way to think about sustainability is that it be both organic and local.

    Katrina proved that 9/11 didn't have to happen.

    by thinkdouble on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 07:43:34 PM PDT

    •  good starts (0+ / 0-)

      we're going to need scorecards and shopping agents to help us sort it all out! Add in red-blue scores, small-business, green practices, transport methods, progressive values, and maybe even price, and we'll be able to use our spending $ effectively for social change.

  •  Clinton can't beat McCain (0+ / 0-)

    All polls I've seen place McCain at least ten points ahead of Clinton for support for being the president. You know the Rethugs will pick McCain if they know he could win.
    She's an East Coast liberal who can't pick up the states that matter- Ohio or Florida.

  •  Markos has gone a long way ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    toward averting his eyes from the shadows dancing on the walls of the cave, in the Platonic sense. He gets that perception is so far from reality it can be considered tangential these days. He has a clarity of vision that seems uncanny in someone so (relatively) young. His good insights won't surprise most Kossacks since we've seen them before.

    But there is an unsettling feeling I get of naivete on his part revolving around establishment Dems and the media ... both of whom have a "bread and butter" stake in seeing the netroots fail utterly and embarassingly.

    I feel this way about YearlyKos and the media. I got my husband and daughter's blessing about a month ago to go and was making my final plans when something I read made me stop in my tracks. I hope I am wrong completely, but I get the sense of sharks circling and  naive Kossacks dining on rare steak while swimming in the water.

    I will feel much better after this weekend. What can I say? I can get utterly freaked out by events I'm not running.

    "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

    by Glinda on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 08:05:38 PM PDT

  •  CIA??? LIBERALS???? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Hmmm when in Rome, do like the Romans. When interviewing a liberal, do like a liberal?

    I beg to differ that the CIA is infested with liberals.

    Cases in point:

    CIA Killed U.S. Citizen In Yemen Missile Strike
    November 8, 2002 by the Washington Post

    Bush Gives Green Light to CIA
    October 29, 2001, The Guardian (U.K)

    CIA Broadens Assassination Abilities
    01/29/06 Los Angeles Times

    AQ-1 Predator
    As of late 2002 the Air Force had about 50 Predators in service, with only a few equipped to launch the Hellfire missile. The CIA has a small number of the armed drones. Newer versions of the Predator, at $4.5 million each, are being produced at a rate of about two aircraft a month.

    Yeah. Liberals. My. Ass.

    •  I'm actually curious about that myself (0+ / 0-)

      It's a big enough place with enough secrecy/access controls (heck, they wrote the books on that stuff, or would have, if they were allowed to write books) so that it could easily present any particular face, and I would be surprised if it didn't as part of a basic recruiting practice. Corporations do it, andd it seems like a natural (even unconscious) "best practice" for the short-term. Longer-term buy-in may not be an issue witih bigger "lock-in" commitments/contracts preventing an easy out afterwards or the expectation of "reel 'em in and hook 'em" with people not wanting to lose the exclusive inside access.

  •  Kos: please get up to speed on organic ag (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Kos sees high prices of organics as an obstacle to widespread adoption of this "lifestyle."

    This is a myth that needs to busted. If Kos believes he can build a large national coalition of Progressive Democrats then he needs to embrace this issue as it is a fundamental Democratic issue.

    •  more vice-versa as I see it (0+ / 0-)

      if we want to make it a fundamental Democratic issue (and we need to), how do we make the connections explicit? What's the next step for people seeing An Inconvenient Truth that helps people along the path?


  •  CIA composed of liberals (0+ / 0-)

    Liberals means anyone not a right winger.

    Stop Corporate Influence; buy DEMOCRACY BONDS!!!

    by timber on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 06:22:43 AM PDT

Leslie in CA, katiebird, Colorado Luis, wozzle, anna, Kestrel, JekyllnHyde, Beamster, Hunter, tsackton, MichaelPH, JWC, tmo, pine, ROGNM, randompost, lanshark, RW, Rayne, alyosha, teacherken, Tony, Subterranean, JustWinBaby, jdavidson2, Kimberly Stone, Gooserock, philgoblue, mndan, mikedallas23, wytcld, Maryscott OConnor, Jules Siegel, Shockwave, Jambro, ETinKC, cotterperson, Arlyn, rhubarb, TX Unmuzzled, Raven Brooks, Rat, wild salmon, bethcf4p, floridagal, storme, Poika, redtravelmaster, Vitarai, Athenian, Einsteinia, wonkydonkey, Billy Shears, buckhorn okie, khloemi, javelina, peraspera, peeder, misterfunnypants, Fe, Spindizzy, bustacap, britbox, nowness, navajo, DoctorScience, antirove, aProgressive, Tomtech, jhwygirl, Sirocco, snout, oldjohnbrown, Eddie in ME, besieged by bush, hoolia, ourprez08, kaekee, Pennsylvanian, lecsmith, sommervr, Liberaljentaps, 313to212, faithnomore, Democratic Hawk, mattes, Grahamdubya, rickroks, FlawedAI, weelzup, MichDeb, DCleviathan, Tarindel, Tami B, Elise, Very Liberal Patriot, RhetoricalRubberneck, Jibbly, Simplify, station wagon, GUGA, LNK, RB in Pgh, RedCharlie, rpm5250, abbeysbooks, bmaples, Jawis, Warren Terrer, el zilcho, wiscmass, mbcarl, gpm, Shiborg, proudprogressiveCA, zapmama, schoolpsyc, TimeTogether, milkmit, mspicata, zot23, trashablanca, Sanuk, tarheelblue, The Sinistral, Fasaha, Mat in IL, leo joad, Left Coast Lib, HoundDog, Ellicatt, rhetoricus, Magnifico, greenearth, SherriG, TalkieToaster, birdbrain64, OneCrankyDom, MO Blue, CTLiberal, Dreaming of Better Days, Palmetto Progressive, jabu, One Pissed Off Liberal, Ben Seeley, donnamarie, bobbobgirl, Haningchadus14

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site