HOWARD DEAN IS FIRST AND BUSH FRIGHTENS ME!!!!!!

APPY ALLOWEEN ALL

Anyone dressing up for Halloween? What are you going as?

I think I'll go as Al Gore dressed up in a polar bear suit. ;-)

s m wrote "Sad to say, even though they all are bozos as you state, anyone who becomes the republican nominee [will defeat Clinton in the general election]."

This is just a careless response to my question. In other words, Duncan Hunter will beat Hillary Clinton in the general election.

I think as a Democrat, you need to take a closer look at who is vying for the Republican nomination. What I will call the top 4 candidates have evoked huge groans from the party faithful because of their inadequate conservative bona fides. A thrice-married abortion rights supporter, a lobbyist trying to figure out who Terry Schiavo is, an immigration and campaign fundraising reform champion, and a flip-flopping Mormon have not lit the Republican firmament on fire.

Face facts. If Democrats have problems with some of their candidates, Republicans have a crisis of monumental proportions.

Tom,

Mitt Romney can likely  beat Clinton 2.0. She will bring out their base like no other candidate and they will have a standard bearer. Edwards will be formidable against Romney, especially with Obama as a running mate.

Or Al Gore if he ever decides to run.

Indy wrote "Anyone dressing up for Halloween? What are you going as?"

Think I'll dress up as the next President of the United States.  Any guesses? 

I'm in a kind of mischievous mood today. Watch out!

A rockin' Obama? With an electric geetar!

3

Sorry I certainly didn't mean to leave a careless response.  Of course I was referring to the top candidates.  I know perfectly well who they are and what their stand is on the issues.

That being said I still think that if Hillary is the Democrat nominee she will not win the general election.

Indy wrote "Mitt Romney can likely beat Clinton 2.0. She will bring out their base like no other candidate and they will have a standard bearer."

The Mormon who might be for right to life laws if he’s not against them? The former governor of the only state to go for McGovern in 1972 who helped pass health care reform? The businessman who is dumping a part of his fortune into his campaign to prop up its flagging fundraising? The candidate who will consult an attorney to see if we should invade Iran? The "conservative" of the field who supports gay marriage if he doesn’t oppose it? You’ve convinced me.

Indy wrote "A rockin' Obama? With an electric geetar!"

No, but good guess. I’m going as Mitt Romney with Hillary Clinton’s head in my bag. Trick or treat!

I hope Phil gets to award Dennis a Howardly for his impeachment res. soon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

audrey

I have another 10 days or so to go with harvest so if I'm not around that day you go ahead and make the award.

Tom,

I'm not as articulate as you, but please read this.  I don't think it is going to have anything to do with what Hillary's and whoever the republican nominees policies are (one of the top four of course), it is the personal dislike people have of the Clintons.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/hillarys_high_negatives.html

http://chrisdodd.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Champion of the Rule of Law, good debate performance. Time to pulse poll him up a couple of notches in appreciation.

the ditto heads, the Clinton haters, and women haters shouldn't decide our nominee ...   it should be the policies and how She would govern.

She has staked out the position as a Hawk on Iran (and seeing those polls of support for an attack, no surprise).

I personally think she has what it takes to be a decent President if she can free herself of some of those bad influences, and wouldn't mind sticking their bigotry down their throats of some of her detractors.

She does need to decide where to come down on immigration issues.

I favor Spitzer's approach but think it a minority position.

BTW I still consider John Edwards as the best combination of personal qualities and policy and will be in his group Jan.3rd unless Gore has an exploratory committee by then.

s m wrote "I'm not as articulate as you, but please read this. I don't think it is going to have anything to do with what Hillary's and whoever the republican nominees policies are (one of the top four of course), it is the personal dislike people have of the Clintons."

There’s no need for your endearing humility. Your ability to articulate your views are plainly evident.

I am not dismissing Clinton’s negative ratings among opponents or even her own party’s base. They’re well publicized. The article you cite, however, is political agitprop, written by a Washington Times reporter to help bolster the slumping spirits of Republicans. While Clinton would face the ferocious hatred of Republican Party radicals if nominated, her opponent will have an entirely different problem, specifically, the ambivalence of his own party’s voters towards him.

Right now, Republicans are using whatever tools are at their disposal because they are in deep. The base regards the party’s top tier candidates with disdain and the pundits and pollsters know it.

I'm caught up on the threads now and of all the great comments and links, this one warms my cockles the most - I just wish the US media would report it.

3.

Sam Ross
Wed, 10/31/07
12:59 am


Couldn't happen to a nicer guy....

Rumsfeld flees France fearing arrest

http://wor.ldne.ws/node/8596
***********************************************************************************

JudyforDean -- thanks for all the great posts on the overnight. Who needs a newspaper. Thanks for clip on Rob't Goulet - I saw it. He was a big star when I was young - but a little too pretty for my taste in men. Those eyes were blue tho. Last summer I went to Verbier in the Alps to hear Rene Pape sing If Ever I Should Leave You, Goulet's signature song from Camelot.

On the clip from Samuelson, I can't say I memorized it but I more or less read most of it. I think his thesis was that the industrial revolution made us all happy and fed? Too bad there are so many awful things associated with it -- pollution, us working like robots at jobs that start at 8 and end at 5, gluing endless widget parts on endless widgets, ugliness of the landscape. I love history but am seriously undereducated in the subject. However, I thought I read somewhere that it was the richness of the Tigris-Euphrates (which we plunder as I write) that allowed humans to advance and create civilizations, b/c they had enuf to eat.

**********************************************************************************

Halloween creates a polarity not unlike that of left and right in the USA in my tiny town in N FL. On the one hand, there's not much to do here, so parents and kids go all out -- I bought 400 pieces of candy and am worried about running out. On the other hand, this is a very religious (Xtian) community and there are those who feel Halloween is the work of the devil and they do not celebrate at all -- so much so that the Comm Coll where I work is calling the Halloween Party a "Day of the Dead" observance, even though they are having a costume contest. Every year some young man carries a huge wooden cross across one of the side streets - I guess to the church.

**********************************************************************************

I didn't watch the debates last night b/c 1) I forgot and 2) had to see Barry M on Dancing with the Stars. He rather croaked out his songs -- Barrynet says he cancelled shows this weekend b/c of flu so he was just being a good trouper.

*********************************************************************************

I am worried that Hill as female and Barack as black can't get elected. Dodd is looking better and better.

********************************************************************************

Seashell please surface - welfare check :~)

15. Phil - on Spitzer -- 1) he is such a disappointment to me -- when he was a prosecutor or AG or whatever in NY he was such a star. Doesn't seem like he's much of an administrator. 2) Not to get in a fight on the DL thing, but just on pure logic, I'm bothered that someone illegal can get a legal thing. If someone were writing a computer program, the computer would probably go in an infinite loop or something.
And btw I've quit watching Dobbs -- to much bloviating, not enuf news. I've been watching BBC World News instead, where btw I haven't heard the Rummy story.

...driveby......vroom....beep beep


Kool


Music/Art/Creative enthusiasts (definitely mprov)


Screen Test
Video Installation/Rock Concert
http://current.com/items/77339111_theo_f...

Tom wrote:

" I don’t have the slightest doubt that Clinton will be elected in the general if she becomes the Party’s nominee"

While I agree wholeheartedly with Sitka that the "electability" meme is bogus, and agree with just about everyone that the Republican field is a sorry lot of bozos, just cast your memory back to 2000.

Bush was as sorry a bozo as any of the current Republican field, running against a sitting vice president who was virtually an incumbent presiding over a prosperous nation at peace. Repug dirty tricks and sleaze (aided and abetted by a rabidly biased press) got Bush close enough that he could steal the presidency with the help of the Supremes.

What makes you believe that history won't repeat?

Biden: Rudy's Sentences Consist Of "A Noun, A Verb, And 9/11"

Rudy: "Biden Has Never Run Anything But His Mouth"

In either case, truer words were never spoken!

This weekend thousands of students will be descending on Washington, D.C. for Power Shift 2007, the first national youth summit on solving the climate crisis. The Alliance is a proud sponsor of this important event and you can find out more at powershift07.org.

John wrote "What makes you believe that history won't repeat?"

Because Republican bigwigs, fundamentalist Christians, and right wing extremists all got behind him big time.  He had virtually no desertions among the usual culprits supporting Republicans at election time.

Every Republican hopeful this cycle is viewed skeptically by one or more of the three factions above.  Technically speaking, Giuliani, McCain and even Romney are not the boobs that Bush was, meaning they can actually express and explain their respective policy positions on issues.  However, Bush won the legal lottery in 2000, and hung on because of perceived national security issues in 2004.  It's more than unlikely that similar circumstances will improve the fortunes of Republicans in 2008.

Thanks to Corbett Kroehler for the previous blog about the Fla Convention. Just another reason we didn't attend this year and may not next year for the same reasons.

Ever since Karen Thurman (former Congresswoman), currently using Republican tactics as well as lobbyists, became the Chair of the Fla Party, things have increasingly been doing downhill in this state. She herself is divisive as is still part of the Washington insiders.

Nothing will change is Fla. Dem politics until the party dumps her greedy butt.

Phil Specht
Wed, 10/31/07
12:09 pm

Edwards made many great points in last night's debate. Didn't hold back on differing with Clinton on special interests, health care, Iraq, Iran, and many other issues. I am glad he has decided to take off the gloves.

He did it without making personal attacks (despite Richardson's pandering for VP). That is what Democracy is all about.

Are you saying that Gore can wait until Feb. 5th to enter the race? I think he has an obligation to enter before then and lay out his plans to the voters. That is what open democracy means.

Annilow

I think a regularization process that includes a "green card" which then allows for taxes and access to banking and DL takes care of the out of status problem by creating one.(and gives opportunity for criminal backgroud checks) a shadow  population of exploitable workers who break additional laws just driving to work serves no one.

I can see why Republicans don't want 10 million new Democratic voters plus a group to gin up hate against always works on their base.

Hillary didn't have a complete set of poll numbers from Penn. lol

the issue will be front and center in 08

HILLARY'S CREDIBILITY--NON-EXISTENT

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_russ_wel_071031_even_when_hillary_ge.htm

Back in June, Hillary announced that if elected she would create the position of Senior Advisor to the President for Preventing Nuclear Terrorism. (Incidentally, few are aware that when John Kerry ran for president he also proposed a cabinet-level office to prevent nuclear terrorism. Also, his nuclear platform was equally as sound as hers.)

Encouraging as all this sounds, the issue with Hillary is not, as she and her team persist in believing, how strong she is on defense. Her credibility is still her Achilles heel.

Hillary talks a good disarmament game, but do we really want someone with her finger on the button who we neither believe nor trust? The character of some her campaign contributors is a case in point.
London's The Independent reported last week that an "analysis of campaign contributions shows senior defence industry employees are pouring money into [Hillary's] war chest in the belief that their generosity will be repaid many times over with future defence contracts."

To quote Moscow again from Baker's article, "That Hillary Clinton's campaign is involved with this particular cast of characters should give people pause." File that under "understatement."

Nothing else springs as straight from the conscience as the issue of nuclear disarmament. Talk about faith-based, it's the ultimate in such initiatives. Yet, especially since the demise of the Nuclear Freeze movement, it flies under the public's radar.

Is someone who has few qualms about accepting money from an international fugitive, a corrupt financier, a gun runner, and the defense industry capable of summoning up the integrity to implement such a policy -- especially when her hands aren't being held to the fire by the public?

For those who care, take look at this one and you'll understand why the "establishment" wants to prevent an Edwards' nomination:

 I think he has an obligation to enter before then and lay out his plans to the voters.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

we disagree

the campaigns last too long and the very last day to enter and pick up a majority of the delegates would be the most transformative of our process (which is broken)

annilow,

We've quite watching Dobbs also, quite a long time ago. I've always viewed him as a 100% phony, blathering about saving the middle class.

Having a money show is all about being  Republican. His incessant illegal "alien" pursuit is not for the sake of anything except for use as a divisive tool to be used in next year's election. He has a problem though since it didn't pan out the way he figured. Politically speaking, Repugs want Mexicans here for the $ bottom line while the Dems want them here for the Hispanic vote. So that kinda leaves Dobbs hanging in midair without a parachute.

Gore can wait til the filing deadlines for big Feb 5th states that don't have Draft Gore getting him on the ballot, if part of his goal in running is to end the madness of the ever earlier calendar.

if he thought Edwards was running away with the nomination he probably wouldn't enter, but that isn't happening

Phil Specht
Wed, 10/31/07
12:58 pm

While that may have been a reason last spring, we are now 65 days away from Iowa. That is short even in a mayoral campaign. It is not democratic, IMO, to wait until the last possible moment to enter and try to avoid the inevitable attacks and crticism that ANY candidate must experience.

That reminds of the old system making a nomination on the basis of back-room deals during th convention. No deal.

Phil Specht
Wed, 10/31/07
1:02 pm

if Gore doesn't enter, do you think he would endorse Edwards? And would that make a difference in Iowa?

Tom wrote:

"Every Republican hopeful this cycle is viewed skeptically by one or more of the three factions above. "

 I would submit that their fear and loathing of Hillary will trump their distaste for the nominee, and they'll dutifully line up behind him.

Meanwhile, look for wholesale desertions among indies and angry Dems.

don't forget all of those union endorsements for edwards. they're the boots on the ground folks for gotv.

Phil Specht
Wed, 10/31/07
1:02 pm

Momentum of winners coming out of Iowa and the early states will be too strong by then. It is not automatic that EVERYONE will turn to Gore. That is just wishful thinking by his supporters.

And ignoring major early states is, in effect, snubbing millions of voters.

John wrote "I would submit that their fear and loathing of Hillary will trump their distaste for the nominee, and they'll dutifully line up behind him."

Who knows?  We'll see.

Clinton is the least electable, but I thought we weren't going to let "electability" effect our judgement this round.

Republicans are on a slide but her nomination would rejuvenate them. They sure want that matchup.

focus on the policies

Mark wrote "don't forget all of those union endorsements for edwards. they're the boots on the ground folks for gotv."

Wake me up when the endorsements do anything for Edwards.  AFSCME will endorse Clinton today.  Will you be changing your vote?

mprov
Wed, 10/31/07
1:05 pm

Exactly....that is the trump card that overcomes all the big money candidates.

Dodd made a huge statement at the end of last night's "debates," which aren't debates at all. He threw up his hands after trying to answer a very complicated question in 30 seconds or less, a question that could be discussed over a period of hours, an opinion perhaps in ten minutes. Good for him! It revealed what the entire Republican-designed spectacle was all about.

Two minute answers to being to the forefront Iraq/Iran. Thirty seconds for domestic questions, a fact that Kucinich noted after one of his answers. Good for him!

Tim Russert repeated attacked Clinton using all of his available researchers to dig out bits and pieces of out of context archieved statements she made and weigh them against each other. That is not the way a debate should be held. Clinton handled these attacks well. Good for her!

All of the "debaters" were excellent given the scenario they had to work under.

The losers -- Brian Williams and Tim Russert who looked soooooo transparent in their partisanship.

I wonder if the Repug candidates would allow Keith O. and Chris M. to question them for two hours. Wouldn't that be a sideshow. Bring it on!

THE TWO HEADED PARTY

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bernard__071031_a__22two_headed_party_2c.htm

It's not that Dem leaders are conned or frightened by the Republicans, . No, the Dems act they way they do because they actually believe much of what the Republicans believe, and/or are beholden to the same corporate lobbie$ and media giant$ that get them elected and re-elected.

The essence of the argument is this: There is actually only one party in America -- with a Republican head and a Democratic head -- controlled by the political/economic elite that really runs things. (Sometimes this elite is termed "the oligarchy," or "the plutocrats," or, simply, "the Establishment.")

America for centuries has been dominated by parties that hover around the center, the parameters of which are set by the "powers that be" in American life.

Sometimes that center is more left-oriented (during FDR's administration in the '30s and '40s, for example, or in the years following Nixon's disgraceful, lawless presidency); sometimes it's more right-oriented (during the term, say, of Reagan). Rarely have we seen such a lying, rampaging, corrupt, take-no-prisoners element in charge, as we have today with the CheneyBush extremists.

But Americans in general, and American corporations in particular, desire stability and predictability. And for that reason, the action invariably returns to the (shifting) center, even if there was a temporary visitation to the outskirts of the party in charge.

Since it costs so much money to finance a viable run for state, Congressional and national office, it follows that most candidates have to get the required cash from somewhere other than their own bank accounts. Who has that kind of money or can raise it fast? The usual suspects: the wealthy, the organized interest groups, the corporations, the lobbyists, et al. Which translates to: Candidates, beholden to these supporters, tend to stay within the ideological/political parameters set by their major donors.

In addition, elected officials and the major candidates generally come from the same wealthy economic/ideological class as their large donors.


The long and short of this situation is that American voters tend to have a severely limited pallet of candidates with which to paint their votes. These candidates more or less agree with one another but hype relatively insignificant differences in order to make the choices seem more dramatic and meaningful than they really are.

When a rare candidate comes along who catches fire with the public but doesn't necessarily want to draw within the lines prescribed by the elite who control things -- some even going so far as to cut themselves off from the traditional financial-support teats (such as Paul Wellstone, Dennis Kucinich) -- he or she is marginalized, rendered ineffective, and effectively disappears from the political scene.

AFSCME was pretty much a foregone conclusion. But did you see this?

 Nod Of The Day: John Edwards got a pre-debate boost when members of the New Hampshire Service Employees union announced they would back his campaing, despite heavy lobbying from Clinton and Obama. SEIU couldn't come up with a national endorsement, so they freed their state chapters to do what they wanted. Edwards now owns nods from New Hampshire and Iowa, which means other state chapters can't send volunteers in to help their candidates of choice. Labor prizes left to win: AFSCME, which is said to be on the verge of endorsing Clinton, the National Education Association and the Communications Workers of America, per the NYT.

~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Edwards has NH and IOWA SEIU endorsements which means he can bring other states into those two.

Edwards will have a good night in Iowa. It is alright with me if the media wants to call Hillary the "winner" two months out, as that path is counter-productive here.

I think Gore can wait and see how Iowa and New Hampshire shake out before he enters if he is on the California ballot (if he wants to). We know he can carry Florida again in the general.

His best chance for the nomination would be to announce on Leno, probably, but it would be a killer for Edwards, because yes, those two are closest on many issues. (The people not the powerful) 

BTW, there are many members of our Dem Club and our DEC who do NOT support Gore. They would vote for him in a general election, naturally, but not in the primary.

Perhaps we are blinded by only weighing our own opinions about a Gore candidacy here on this blog.

Those speaking of how Repugs would not vote for Clinton in November may be just as unlikely to vote for Gore. We will need them, Indys and Dems to win.

Is Edwards high enough in New Hampshire to use an "Iowa bounce"? He will have plenty of supporters nationally if he gets rolling. He is pretty close to the center of the party policy wise.

40. my vote hasn't changed. gore-edwards-dodd.

I still consider John Edwards as the best combination of personal qualities and policy.

I still consider John Edwards as the worst combination of personal qualities and record in office.

Gore would have an easier time winning the general than the primary Joan, I agree.

because of a big well qualified field no one has the solid support of over 15% of Democratic voters yet

five out of six are still up for grabs or will have to change

It's not that Dem leaders are conned or frightened by the Republicans, . No, the Dems act they way they do because they actually believe much of what the Republicans believe, and/or are beholden to the same corporate lobbie$ and media giant$ that get them elected and re-elected.

Yes. DCDems don't need to grow spines. They need to grow consciences.

Phil wrote "[Gore's] best chance for the nomination would be to announce on Leno, probably, but it would be a killer for Edwards, because yes, those two are closest on many issues."

Good grief.  Gore was speaking about what a foolish enterprise plunging into Iraq would be when Edwards was crafting the bill to authorize it.  Your idea of being close on issues and mine differ dramatically.

Tom

you remind me of the brass monkey with the hands over his ears and haven't heard a word Edwards has said since 2003

 I would submit that their fear and loathing of Hillary will trump their distaste for the nominee, and they'll dutifully line up behind him.

I would submit that Hillary loathing is vastly overrated. She won a large number of GOP votes in 2006 with 67% and carried all but 4 counties.

Those who wish to derail Hillary had better stick to her sorry record in office (same as Edwards', Biden, Dodd) than the canard of electability. But then, the supporters of those other candidates would be damning them as well.

So they find themselves without anything substantive to criticize Hillary about. 

Phil Specht
Wed, 10/31/07
1:21 pm

He just got the NH SEIU endorsements. That prevents Clinton from bringing in the New York SEIU and allows Edwards to bring in other states to NH. 10,000 + of NH supporters on the ground can overcome the money.

IF Edwards wins Iowa, he can come in 1st or 2nd in NH. That knocks out Obama and sets up a Clinton - Edwards match for California. CA SEIU endorsed Edwards. 600,000 members.

Nothing has happened that eliminates an Edwards - Obama ticket which would sweep in November.

Edwards - Obama in 08

Obama in 2016. He would be 54 and seasoned.

Phil,

If you are supporting someone, you can be any or all of the three monkeys when it comes to their past records.  When you oppose someone, anything they have ever done can be brought up to represent their "lack of judgement."

Edwards sponsored the IWR.

Hillary was a Goldwater Girl.

Biden had that stolen speech.

Gore was a member of the DLC

...and so on

So, we should only elect people as President who make up their mind and stick to it no matter what!  Let's see, that would be.... 

haven't heard a word Edwards has said since 2003

Back then Edwards still supported Bush's invasion without reservation.

The trouble is, too many who are eager to support him are also willing to forget what he said and did back then.

Tom Bearse
Wed, 10/31/07
1:25 pm

People change.  Some even admit mistakes and correct themselves and move on. Others don't and stay mired in their old views. I prefer the former. They adapt. Get out of Iraq.....No war with Iran.

"Let's see, that would be...." ME! MPROV FOR EMPEROR OF THE UNIVERSE!

mprov
Wed, 10/31/07
1:39 pm

Are you wearing clothes???

who needs them if i'm emperor.

mprov,

Touche!!

People change.  Some even admit mistakes and correct themselves and move on.

There's change and there's about face. When change happens too fast in politics it sticks of falseness.

I still hope Gore comes in for the simple reason that bushco has done great damage on many fronts and Gore has the background and experience to successfully make many repairs simultaneously, but his main gift is as a visionary and he can lead this country in the big turn necessary to a new (green) economy. Bush has made so many enemies that peace may not be immediate but long term prospects much better with Gore.

Edwards has the background to most change the way the ruling elite operate from K Street. Gore might use his knowledge of what levers to pull and save that fight for later.

Gore waiting til now to enter will forever change the calendar for the better.

Sitka
Wed, 10/31/07
1:42 pm

So you're not done with me? Darn! ;-)

Edwards made it in 2005. It isn't easy to publicly admit fault but it shows great courage and promise. We all make mistakes.

Anyway, I prefer to accept someone's change of heart as genuine until proven otherwise. I'll hold Edwards up to that standard.

57.

Indy Steve
Wed, 10/31/07
1:35 pm

....
Edwards - Obama in 08

Obama in 2016. He would be 54 and seasoned.
----------

...lol, and what about you? Over-seasoned?

Indy it seems you are ready to watch that circus called "Presidential elections" your entire life!

Instead: ANY DEMOCRAT - 2008 as THE LAST American President ONLY!

If the economy is growing at3.9% and the dollar declining at four times that is the economy growing or inflating

you can bet the Fed won't let those poor Republicans run facing the music of their failed fiscal policies and raise interest rates to save the dollar

So you're not done with me?

I'm just done with your ridiculous bottom-of-the-barrel smears of Gore. If you want discuss or criticize his record, that's fine. But discussing nonsense with you is a waste.

Edwards made it in 2005.

Just in time to catch the change in the wind against being in Iraq. 

Anyway, I prefer to accept someone's change of heart as genuine until proven otherwise. 

Edwards' actions in office just a few years ago prove otherwise since actions speak louder than words. 

Gore waiting til now to enter will forever change the calendar for the better.

 No, I think Gore is a unique case who could take the risk of waiting out the first round of caucuses/primaries and start his effort with "Super Duper Tuesday".  You need to basically have 100 percent name recognition and the ability to raise tons of money for a national advertising campaign in a very short time.  Even then, it might not work.

The only thing which will fix the primary schedule is fixing the primary schedule to set dates by the national committees. 

65.

Sitka
Wed, 10/31/07
1:42 pm


People change. Some even admit mistakes and correct themselves and move on.

There's change and there's about face. When change happens too fast in politics it sticks of falseness.
-----

Both true.

The problem, imo, not whith either but with the fact that even when People recognize "falseness" they must wait TOO LONG with NO ASSURANCES that it'll change anything THEN!

fixing the primary schedule to set dates by the national committees

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

that was tried this time and broken

what needs to happen is a President elected by a different path

All who voted to give Bush authorization to invade Iraq should, in the words of Oliver Crowell. "In the name of God, go!"

The only thing which will fix the primary schedule is fixing the primary schedule to set dates by the national committees.

The only thing which will fix the primary schedule is having a national primary day with the nominee chosen by popular vote.

I believe you have to have a national system to allocate the percentages of supporters of the entire field of candidates to a national nominating convention.

you could do it by randomly selecting by lottery a quarter of the states to hold primaries each Tuesday in March (as an example) by an act of Congress

but the jumping of the DNC Rules calendar this time means it will happen again unless major changes are made

I think we have seen the last of Iowa and New Hampshire as kingmakers. The exception might be the Republican who wins and goes on to win the General and as sitting President keep things that way.

Sitka
Wed, 10/31/07
1:52 pm

I don't smear Gore. I would have liked him to run. But it's pretty clear he's not going to and waiting for him is a fool's choice (just a phrase).

I just wanted him to DECIDE, enter the fray and tell voters what he would do as President. As important as global warming is, there are other issues. And you would not be too keen on his position on Iraq, I'm afraid. He would need to clarify that.

People change and make mistakes. How long does this continue? My question is what changed since 2002, the advisability of going into Iraq or the consequences of deciding it was a good idea.

Everyone here knew the plan was disastrous. The difference, of course, was that our political fortunes didn’t hang on having the courage of our convictions. We just thought you would have to be a craven Bush cheerleader to go along with that enterprise.

Edwards came to see that, obviously. Should he get the nomination, what will happen if his new-found set of principles suddenly feel like a politically perilous anchor around his neck? Will he realize he has to stick to these quaint but now inconvenient ideals, or junk them and save his ass? Give it some thought.

that was tried this time and broken

No, it wasn't tried.  The DNC appointed a committee which, like many committees, came out with the worst of all compromises, adding two "early" states that almost never voted Democratic, and then telling everyone else they could reschedule to Feb 5 if they wanted to.

The solution is to come up with a new, fair system of distributing primaries and caucuses spread from February to June and enforcing compliance on the state parties and candidates.  I have my plan.  I've seen others which could be conisdered fair IMHO.  But to call what they did this time around "trying" is to lower the bar to the floor.

58.

So, we should only elect people as President who make up their mind and stick to it no matter what!  Let's see, that would be.... 

Chris Dodd or course!!

The only thing which will fix the primary schedule is having a national primary day with the nominee chosen by popular vote.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I could see a national primary day set allocations of delegates to a nominating convention (as long as absentee ballots were allowed, organization and volunteers v name recognition and money), so that a candidate with say 27.3% support didn't win outright, and a coalition of opposition could be formed before the convention. or you could do the same with an IRV ballot 

The DNC appointed a committee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

do you propose a Continental Congress? and how are those delegates selected?

Any national or regional (with large region) primary system plays to those who have the most early name recognition and can raise the most money to buy television advertising.  Is that what we, as progressives, really want?  A popularity contest based on ability to fundraise and buy the most ads?  No time to consider, compare and contrast the candidates, including the Howard Deans of the race?

We can do better than that. 

80.

In the end and ASAP, the solution is to have a president/vp elected by a popular vote. No primaries needed.

There would still be statewide primaries for other offices remaining but those would be controlled by state governments as they are now.

I’m not buying what Rich is selling. We’re supposed to concede that a decision to invade a foreign sovereign and send thousands to their deaths in 2002 is an error in judgment equivalent to supporting a presidential candidate, plagiarizing, or joining a group of political moderates 20 or 40 years ago.

Accusing one of the most busy and visible people in the world of "hiding out" was a bottom-of-the-barrel smear.

Carry on without me if you wish.

This year was going to be decided by a near national primary on Feb. 5th had Florida not jumped the DNC Rules calendar.

 No primaries needed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Joan, how many hours would it take to read through the 671 names on the ballot?

you have to narrow the field somehow

No, in spite of what Larry Sabato thinks, it won't take a Constitutional Convention, the parties can do it themselves.  The Constitution says nothing about how Presidential candidates are picked.

I've posted my proposal here many times.  My ego isn't so big as to think it's perfect, but I think it's a valid basis for discussion.

We need to find a way of selecting Presidential candidates which both preserves the opportunity of unknown candidates to be heard and grow, but doesn't place overwhelming power in a small number of unrepresentative states.

"One big primary" would preclude the former, maintaining the current system promotes the latter.

The Democratic Party, instead of compressing the process, should spread the process out more.

• have a January primary in a state chosen randomly from blue states in the bottom half by population (to keep costs relatively low to run a campaign),
• then two February primaries separated by at least two weeks from the January primary and from each other in states chosen randomly from those which were blue or within 5% of being blue in the last election.
• The rest of the primary season would be spread out though the beginning of June, with primaries grouped in batches randomly (perhaps as contiguous batches to keep travel down) with the two week separation between groups.

Any state that doesn't follow this schedule would lose its delegates to the Democratic National Convention.  Any candidates who campaigned in states who "jumped" the schedule anyway...well, I haven't worked that one out.  Would some states yelp?  Particularly Iowa and New Hampshire?  Sure.  Let them.

Most states would realize this is a fairer system, and over time, everyone would get their chance to be "early".

87.

It was not that Florida jumped the DNC rules calendar alone but also that of the RNC.

I could see a national primary day set allocations of delegates to a nominating convention (as long as absentee ballots were allowed, organization and volunteers v name recognition and money), so that a candidate with say 27.3% support didn't win outright, and a coalition of opposition could be formed before the convention. or you could do the same with an IRV ballot

Delegates can be elected to adopt a platform and make rules and such at the convention, but the nominee should be chosen by the voters without an artificial electoral mechanism to make it flasely appear that 2/3 are in favor.

Cut the complicated games which only serve to distance the people and their will from the process.

88.

I was referring more to a national vote like Louisiana has to elected their nominees -- throw all the candidates is one the mix and vote on them -- both parties. If one happens to get more than 50% of the vote, they win the nomination and the presidency. If not, then the top two vote getters would face off or there could be a instant runoff system.

Would it work? I dunno.

the parties can do it themselves.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

They obviously can't as Florida has proven.

and you don't want a group formed to research the options?

fine call it a commission or task force instead of a Committee, but you still have to have a "ruling body" and a democratic way of selecting those who make the final decision

the current Congress is too bought and paid for by money interests to think they would do better than a DNC Rules Committee

you don't even have a "Party" if participants don't follow the Rules

Would it work? I dunno.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

France uses that model.  Louisiana uses French Law

the question then becomes how does one get on the national ballot?

Don't like my examples?  Not "serious enough" for you?  Here are some more, all Democrats.

Thomas Jefferson held slaves and didn't free them on his death.  He was not alone among the "founding fathers".

Andy Jackson invaded a colony of a sovereign country without permission of his commanders or the Commander in Chief.  We won't mention what he did to the Indians.

Many legislators who sat in the Confederate Congress later sat in the US Congress, some after actively taking up arms against the nation. 

Hugo Black was a member of the KKK, so was Robert Byrd (D-WV).

People change.  We want them to change.  We want them to grow.

JFK invaded Cuba the first time (Bay of Pigs), and DIDN"T INVADE CUBA the second time (Missile Crisis).

RFK worked for Joe McCarthy's committee and later became the sworn enemy of Red baiting J Edgar Hoover.

Change is good.

Cheney still thinks there are WMD in Iraq. 

you have to narrow the field somehow

Whatever is done, will be done for the next Presidential cycle.  For this cycle, we have what we have.

If we have a Democratic President next time around, He or She will choose how it works, or at least the people around them will. 

People change.  We want them to change.  We want them to grow.

But when they grow in the direction of the prevailing wind -- after it changes --  it's impossible to place trust in the judgement or honesty of that politician.

If we have a Democratic President next time around, He or She will choose how it works

And the result will still be a rigged jury. 

46.

Joan* In*Florida

Yes, there are many "establishment" dlc'ers Dems, most notably in Florida who favor the mor Conservative like Hillary, not in favor of a Gore and his Populist positions. Even Joe Lieberman, who they thought would help with Florida, complained that Al Gore had a Populist Campaign that he did not like.


But thankfullly the polls across the country show Al Gore has wide range support and by the games the "inside Dem's " played, now they don't even get their delegates from trying to force the "inevitable".

Besides the state polls, like Iowa, Idaho, New Hampshire, New Mexico and New Hampshire showing Al Gore receiving the strongest numbers, Now National polls are showing strong numbers.

CBS just release theirs that showed Hillary had 51 percent without Al Gore and decreased down to 37 with Al Gore and Al receives 32. (5 pct margin of error) And, that is when he is not a declared candidate. His numbers would increase after he announcers.

AND,
now, newly released poll from October 21, hypothetical with Republican Front Runner GiulianI

Oct. 2007

Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
49%
Rudy Giuliani (R)
47%

Oct. 2007

Al Gore (D)
52%
Rudy Giuliani (R)
46%

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/hil...

I think right now is the time to have a discussion of a radical change in how the nominee is picked for the next cycle before we have one for this cycle that is invested.

Rich wrote "Don't like my examples?  Not "serious enough" for you?  Here are some more, all Democrats."

I would have thought that the examples from 20 to 40 years ago would have steeped enough in antiquity for you.  My mistake.

I don't think it right to portray Iowa's caucus system as having picked a "winner" at all, but rather a narrowing of the field as in A,B,C, have it together as a candidate and organization; X,Y, and Z do not, according to a sampling of voters who has taken the time to give them a close look.

D probably has the most to gain as the one other voters will give another look. 

And she did one heckuva job, didn't she? (sic)


Karen Hughes to leave State Department
Longtime Bush adviser leaving after stint pitching U.S. image abroad Karen Hughes attends a news conference at the State Department her boss, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Stephen J. Boitano / Getty Images


WASHINGTON - Karen Hughes, who led efforts to improve the U.S. image abroad and was one of President Bush's last remaining advisers from the close circle of Texas aides, will leave the government at the end of the year, she told The Associated Press.

Hey Phil,

I'm in Mississippi helping to get out the vote for Gary Anderson in some of the toughest Republican districts.

We only have 5 days to go until Election Day. Can you give $15 right now to help DFA put Gary over the top?

www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/PrimariesMatter

Gary Anderson already won his primary against a 32 year do-nothing incumbent thanks to your support. Now we can finish the job on November 6th, 2007 and elect the first African American to statewide office in Mississippi in over a hundred years.

Thanks!

-Matt

Matt Blizek
Training Director

~~~~~~~~~~

sounds like a plan

Governor Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, delivered the Democratic radio address this week. ...listen HERE: http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/10/gover...

74.

Sitka
Wed, 10/31/07
2:01 pm


All who voted to give Bush authorization to invade Iraq should, in the words of Oliver Crowell. "In the name of God, go!"
--------

Of course I agree.
The problem however with THEM..., THEY DON'T.
They insist that was "a mistake"...., I insist it was NOT.

It was (and still IS for many Demos!) "state of their mind", their "philosophy", their "principles", "ideology", "values they hold so dear", etc., etc.

Yes, People DO CHANGE, and I truly believe Edwards DID (some others to some extends too).

However there are different scales of failure, it's either with POLICY/STRATEGY or with METHODS/TACTICS.

The one they failed is with POLICY and therefore it's unforgivable for leaders, imo.

Karen Hughes, who led efforts to improve the U.S. image abroad.....

And a fine job she did......

.

They insist that was "a mistake"...., I insist it was NOT.

I agree with you. Give them a bum's rush to the door. 

96.

Linda,

I don't believe in looking at the polls as a guiding light at this point.

The only way to really find out is if Al decides to run and no other way. I for one certainly am hoping he does but assuming he will not -- um until he does:)

As for Giuliani vs Clinton polls, they are absurd. Giuliana is one arrogant, self-indulging liar with absolutely (like bush) no conscience or much intelligence. For G. to gather 56% of the vote of Repugs, which whom he shares no basic divisive philosophies with, Indys and Dems is preposterous. Purely right-wing media dreams.

98.

Sitka
Wed, 10/31/07
2:31 pm


People change. We want them to change. We want them to grow.

But when they grow in the direction of the prevailing wind -- after it changes -- it's impossible to place trust in the judgement or honesty of that politician.
----------

That's THE point, imo.

The last statement is TOO UNIVERSAL, imo, to underestimate!!!

It just adds one more point into becoming slowly but surely OBVIOUS fact, that IT IS simply DANGEROUS TO PLACE TRUST OF hundreds of millions of People in to the JUDGMENT of not only one single Person but also for too long.

So, is Karen Hughes one of the Sadies?

I think this calendar is fun, but am wondering if we can't come up with a dozen

authentic ones.

Thugliani has joined himself to the hip with Bush (actually Cheney) in order to win the nomination. But if he gets it he'll surely then distance himself from a 24% and dropping Bush.

Howard was on the first segment of Hardball last night sitting out on a lawn in Philly with Chris.

He look stunningly healthy, wealthy, trim and wise and was too sharp for Matthews to clip off. He managed to get in all his Dem pep talk in, and avoided all questions about any particular candidate (Dem or Rep).

Question for Linda NM or anyone else caring to weigh in:

If Al Gore and Howard Dean were both running in this primary, which of the two would you vote for???

I don't believe in looking at the polls as a guiding light at this point.

Polls from a year out don't mean a thing.  I would hope people just follow their priciples right up to casting their ballots.

If Al Gore and Howard Dean were both running in this primary, which of the two would you vote for???

I'll cross that bridge only if I ever come to it. 

Phil.....

I will be honored to award the Howardly to Dennis when he introduces his impeachment res.

Don't work too hard. How is your Dad doing?

95.  Cheney's right about the WMD.  The U.S. brought them in.  He was also right about the connection between Iraq and the Taliban--the resistance to Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were all trained by the CIA.  Alawi's goons learned how to make car bombs with sophisticated explosives, which they set off to validate the existence of an organized resistance.  What the CIA discovered too late is that because it detonates on the ground and sends shock waves a great distance, a car bomb can be used to damage a nuclear power plant from some distance.

Or, perhaps that's just another argument  for surveilling everybody. 

There's an unsullied thread at this location.
http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/22754...

He look stunningly healthy, wealthy, trim and wise and was too sharp for Matthews to clip off.

Matthews put Dean on the spot when he quoted him in 2003 as saying some who voted for the Iraq invasion did so with their eyes on running for president. Matthews tried to say Dean meant Hillary, but Dean pointed out that she didn't run in 2004. Fortunately, Matthews let him off the hook and said Dean was correct back then. 

It just adds one more point into becoming slowly but surely OBVIOUS fact, that IT IS simply DANGEROUS TO PLACE TRUST OF hundreds of millions of People in to the JUDGMENT of not only one single Person but also for too long.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

former I agree that any candidate who does not oppose the very concept of a Unitary Executive and at least give equal footing to that branch of government elected also to represent the hundreds of millions, and as importantly the arbiter of the Constitution, the Judicial system

the people can seize the power at the ballot box if they were participants in the primaries first

there will be individuals heading the functions of government not peoples committees a la the Cultural Revolution (not that there aren't a few people I wouldn't mind sending out to the factory for re-education, Rush comes to mind)

and a parliamentary system of choosing a leader gives undo power to tiny radical factions up until the last one need to form the coalition

Obama seems the least likely to declare himself "the decider". but with our run-amuck special interests we sure don't need "the doormat" either, so leadership is required for that brand of politic too

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

it is nasty windy here for the little ghostsand goblins, but at least it dried out from the morning showers so back to work, bbl

Joan

Howard Dean is first.

Joan in Fl. 114

That would be Howard, no question. He would probably appoint Gore to head his newly formed Dept. of Global Preservation. That would be in my perfect world of course.

98.

Sitka
Wed, 10/31/07
2:31 pm


People change. We want them to change. We want them to grow.

But when they grow in the direction of the prevailing wind -- after it changes -- it's impossible to place trust in the judgement or honesty of that politician.
---------

One more thing about this statement.

In case of Iraq war "prevailing wind" happened to be Iraqi resistance movement (one may call it Al-Qaeda, etc.).

What if not..., what IF there were no such a movement and our GIs were really met with flowers...as were promised (as Nazis were met in Czechoslovakia, Austria, etc.,...till Poland)?
What would happen then? I assume, by today we would already bombed Iran!

My point is that it is NOT to credits of many of them that they agreed about "a mistake been made". They were FORCED to agreed on that (IF they wanted to stay with their "prof" political career).

THERE WERE however people who UNDERSTOOD THAT in advance!!!.... Why? Apparently because of "values they hold so dear"..., like Dean for example.

114.

Joan* In*Florida

I think them running together would be ideal. :)

My tile is here, my tile is here....yeaahhhh.....now not too much further living on cement foundation.....not tooooo much longer. :)

bbl

audrey thanks for asking, my Dad is still in the hospital but improving enough to come home soon

may we all make it to be 93 and living at home

What if not..., what IF there were no such a movement and our GIs were really met with flowers...as were promised (as Nazis were met in Czechoslovakia, Austria, etc.,...till Poland)?
What would happen then? I assume, by today we would already bombed Iran!

I was denounced as a traitor on other blogs back in 2002-3 for pointing out that the best thing for the people in countries adjoining Iraq would be for the US to get stuck in a guerrilla war quagmire in Iraq. The NeoCons at the time were all ready to march on to Tehran and Damascus. There's no doubt in my mind that the DCDems who backed going into Iraq would have do so in those instances too.

127.

That's great news Phil.

I wonder how many 93 year-olds can actually afford to live in their own home even if they are physically able. And how many will be able to afford it in the future.

121.

Phil Specht
Wed, 10/31/07
3:17 pm

......
there will be individuals heading the functions of government not peoples committees a la the Cultural Revolution ...
-------------

I don't know what kind of "functions", "individuals" and (especially..., lol) "government" we are talking about..., I think nobody knows 'cause even HISTORY doesn't know it either, yet.

We may only assume (based on previous HISTORY) that there will be:
- many such "individuals";
- they will be chosen by democratic means (by elections);
- they will be chosen at grassroots level (apparently at workplaces);
- etc.

We can only assume...., we'll see.

125.

Linda, Two people cannot run together in a primary, though a Gore/Dean or Dean/Gore ticket is heaven sent.

123.

audrey,

I really like that newly formed Dept of Global Preservation Dean will create:)

Someone forgot to invite us to the NEW THREAD