
I know you thought you would never read those words here but it’s true. There is a superb Op-Ed in the Washington Post written by one Markos Moulitsas, regarding Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign:
She’s part of the Clinton machine that decimated the national Democratic Party. And she remains surrounded by many of the old consultants who counsel meekness and caution. James Carville, the famed longtime adviser to the Clintons, told Newsweek last week, "The American people are going to be ready for an era of realism. They’ve seen the consequences of having too many ‘big ideas.’ "
Meanwhile, pollster Mark Penn, a brilliant numbers guy, has counseled the Hillary team to ignore the party’s netroots activists as "irrelevant." (After all, didn’t Dean lose?) Little surprise that in late March, the Daily Kos’s bimonthly presidential straw poll delivered bleak results for Clinton, with just 2 percent of respondents making her their top choice for 2008.
At a time when rank-and-file Democrats are using technology to become increasingly engaged and active in their party, when they are demanding that their leaders stand for something and develop big ideas, Clinton’s closest advisers are headed in the opposite direction.
I ‘ve been re-reading this really superb book called Crashing the Gate (by all means check it out if you haven’t) and there is a great story in there about the McCain-Feingold bill, and how it posed a much bigger threat for Democrats at the time than it did Republicans due to the fact that the GOP was leagues ahead in targeting donors through sophisticated direct-mail operations. The Democrats, meanwhile, remained dependent on fatcats. As the Washington Post said at the time, "There is absolute unanimity on the part of the Democratic consulting community that this bill is a disaster for Democrats."
The book tells of this encounter:
Senator Hillary Clinton and [Russ] Feingold sparred over the legislation, as reported by the New York Daily News on July 18, 2002. At a closed-door Senators’ luncheon at the Capitol, the possibility of legal challenges by Republicans to Democrats’ fundraising efforts was brought up. When Feingold dismissed such speculation, Clinton "exploded," the newspaper said, and shouted "Russ, live in the real world!" Feingold stood his ground. While Clinton and Feingold reportedly made nice later with apologies all around, a Democratic source told Roll Call, "It was riveting — it was wonderful. It was like a genie out of the bottle — somebody actually told Russ Feingold to go fuck himself." (Roll Call omitted the expletive.) Feilgold told Roll Call that at least five other senators also "threw a fit."
The book goes on to say that "Feingold told us that he knew he was stepping on toes inside his own party, but he saw no choice…Feingold faced down his party and force it to reconnect with its base."
Hillary Clinton has always perceived the empowerment of the grassroots as a threat. If her expensive consultants are telling her to ignore these new realities (and obviously receiving a sympathetic ear) it was kind of Markos to point it out to her but quite possible unnecessary; I believe everyone is entitled to the best advice money can buy.
BTW: If this is the Washington Post’s idea for a liberal blogger, I think it is an excellent choice.
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Fitz!
My first FITZ!
Fitz le troisieme!
Great graphic.
Goss gave a commencement speech today (OT)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..NlYwM3MDM-
Feingold!
Markos has some great ideas. I’m ready for a real authentic progressive candidate. At this point, Russ Feingold is my man.
Will the WashPo hire Markos as their progressive blogger?
I’m a little surprised that Kos failed to give us a heads up on this.
You know, something like “hey, the Washington Post has contacted me and I’m writing this op-ed piece, so be sure and look for it…”
It’s odd.
Maybe he did? It’s hard to keep up with DKos and the rest of Left Blogistan at the same time.
…I think I saw sly allusions to the WaPo editorial on Kos today….
Donkey!
Support Feingold, Piss off Hillary!
The only person that I can support for 2008 IS Feingold. The lefty blogoshpere should organize NOW behind him. Screw the rest of them, they’ve been screwing us for years!
I don’t care much for Hillary,from her cowardly lack of leadership,this story in CtG,another I heard about refusing to meet with her constituates in NY.I’ll say it straight out,I think she is a shore fire loser.Now someone I could get behind,no need to get into that now,too far off,but here’s a small hint-RF!
I hate to be cynical, but I suspect that if Markos had been criticizing John Kerry, John Edwards, or any of the other presumed “also rans” in the 2008 Democratic Presidential race, his column wouldn’t have ended up on the WaPo’s editorial page. Hillary Clinton has been the presumed front-runner for some time, not to mention the centrist the Republicans are worried about, and any criticism of her is likely to be welcomed by the Republican establishment.
Sen. Clinton is quite a good Senator for NY. She should remain in that position.
I saw a poll today that gave me great hope about retiring my Congressman, Randy Kuhl, a generic Repug. hack.
“This race is already a statistical dead heat: When asked for whom they would vote if the election were held today, 43% indicated Mr. Kuhl, 40% Eric Massa, and just 17% were undecided.”
I used to love Hillary. But this was before she went over the line to the middle-right.
Now, I wouldn’t vote for her unless there is a Republican running against her. She’d be better than one of them, but, she’s not what I would want.
I think we need to get behind Wesley Clark with either Feingold or Obama as his VP. Hillary is as divisive as Shrub. I hate to say it, but she is. The flag-burning deal just made me sick…
Clark in ‘08 and Obama in ‘16.
Anyone got any better idea’s? Because I’m no rocket scientist and I’d sure love to hear them. Well?
#12 Cujo359, you are correct.
Love the pic.
Frankly, I’ve never understood the attraction of the idea that HC is a viable presidential candidate for some in the netroots, and the greater mainstream not under the potent spell of the Clenis… Not because of gender, but because she is face deep in lobbyists, appeasement of the perceived ‘conservative’ positions within her desired demographics, and beige-y stances on issues conjured by meddlesome advisors with opaque agendas.
For a nation desiring change, this portends none.
That said, ‘Dance with the one that brought you’ will no doubt carry the day, as it did with Kerry in ‘04.
Meanwhile, pollster Mark Penn, a brilliant numbers guy, has counseled the Hillary team to ignore the party’s netroots activists as “irrelevant.” (After all, didn’t Dean lose?)
mark penn, of course, is an idiot. The lesson of the Dean net-roots campaign is that the netroots can take out the presumptive “front-runner” with alacrity (remember “Joementum”?)
Hillary is toast, and she doesn’t even realize it yet.
John Casper — thanks, I’m quite proud of it myself ;)
Hubris.
Kos is great. Kos wrote a book. Kos wrote an op-ed piece. Is he going to name his first son Jesus? Let’s not assume that the liberal blogosphere has found a silver bullet just yet.
If Hillary brings in 4 (or 6) Democrats in the NY State House delegation, are you seriously going to deny that the democrats owe the House to the Northeast? And the biggest player in the Northeast is…
I’m much more interested in results than this puerile name calling we are getting into. Hillary is going to win big in 2006. Kos is about winning. Where, exactly is the problem?
Gore. Been through the valley of tears, came out an orator with real fire. Won against Bush. What more can they do to him? He’s so far beyond Hillary’s vote groveling calculations.
And he’s got the new issue: global warming, who’s time has come. Check out your gas station.
Hillary Clinton showed her true colors when she jumped on board the bogus ‘protect the kids from video game violence’ campaign. It showed that she’ll play the issues for gain rather than take a stand on what she truly believes. I don’t trust her with the presidency.
Uh, excuse me, Peter, but no, Kos won’t be naming his first son Jesus.
And don’t bring him down, he’s done amazing work, really amazing stuff with Kos.
Peter — how long have you been a Democratic consultant?
I grew up in Arkansas. Even the people who don’t like Bill Clinton like Bill Clinton, if you know what I mean. They might hate that he is so good at politics, but they smile, shake their heads and privately acknowledge that they wish he was on their team.
I don’t know 5 people who would want to spend time with Hillary. In the old electability category, she rates a big fat zero. She is raw ambition. Bubba without the charm. Choosing Hillary in the primary would be like choosing Kerry…certain defeat.
I wonder if the HRC team has someone lined up that they can paint as “too liberal” and “unelectable” like the party insiders did to poor Dr. Dean in 2004? You know, someone with passion and fire and good ideas, someone who tells it like it is. Someone like Feingold. Be wary of the HRC machine. They would just love Russ to jump out to the early lead.
FWIW, I don’t hate Hillary and I don’t think Kos does either. I just think the holes in her game are showing, and Kos pointed them out.
Obama is a Lieberman in training — skip him for high office. Sounds nice, looks nice, but as mushy a backbone as there is in the Senate.
Very interesting discussion on XM public radio (sorry I can’t cite) that says that Hillary as a candidate is just what women who are battered, ignored and emotionally abused by their big R husbands want. They can vote, it’s private, and what a great big fuck you to the lout they married.
The analysts’ prediction was that there wil be about a 5-8% of Hillary voters missing from the polling because people won’t admit they are voting for her.
I can’t stand her, but if my options are her or George Allen, McCain or Romney, well, guess who I’ll be pulling the lever for?
Hillary is going to win big in 2006. Kos is about winning. Where, exactly is the problem?
The op-ed is about 2008, not 2006.
I am so tired of voting for the second or third best candidate who floats to the top because *someone* things they are electable.
Hillary does NOT excite me. I don’t like her hawkish corporatist pandering. As much as I would love to back a woman for pres. she ain’t the one.
Gore, Feingold, Clark, all better than HC as far as I’m concerned. I have fallen in Love with Dick Durban after watching him for the past couple of years. But his name never comes up.
2003 when Dean was running was 3 years ago. In internet years thats about 30. Does Mark Penn realize that alot more people are tuned into getting their news from the internet now as opposed to 3 years ago? He needs to get with the program.
I saw Bill Clinton speak last month and he devoted a good portion of his speech to the Internet. Unfortunately, it was entirely about how effective it is in raising money. Just another person who sees the Internet as an ATM.
Sad.
Hillary is toast, and she doesn’t even realize it yet.
I’m nowhere near that optimistic. So far, the Democratic machine has been able to make the people it wants the winners. Lieberman could be considered an exception, except that the machine was at least as fond of Kerry and Gephardt. Dean lost in Iowa, and then continued losing. Kerry eventually won.
So far, none of the progressive candidates running against the machine have won. Christine Cegelis lost in Illinois, and Ciro Rodriguez in Texas both lost, and it looks like Chuck Pennacchio is coming up short in Pennsylvania. We’re 0 for 3 in the races I’ve been watching, and I don’t see much chance for success anywhere except in the Connecticut Senate race. Of course, I’m way short of being an expert on this, but, like Bob Dole, I know how to count.
Until we win somewhere, the machine isn’t going to take us seriously. Guys like Rahm Emanuelle (sp?) and Chuck Schumer don’t give a damn about us, and think all they need to do is produce a candidate who sucks slightly less than the Republican opponent, and will be beholden to them, for us to vote their way.
Sadly, Hillary’s chances are looking pretty good right now.
I don’t have to like someone to vote for them.
I do have to not be really pissed off at them almost every time I hear what they’ve done. That’s how Hillary affects me.
From very centrist folks I’m hearing Warner mentioned. We will be in a hell of a mess and I want someone who can deal with it–someone like Gore or Feingold.
Republican pundits love to anoint Hilary as the front runner because the republican base hates her so much and the mere mention of her name gets them worked up, making donations and hitting the voting booth.
To the base, Hilary represents rampant feminism, elitism, secularism, uppity women, you name it.
Hilary also serves to remind the base about Clinton’s cock, immorality, etc.
Plus Hilary is always good for a joke among the Rupubli-pundits. She is ‘brittle’, a ‘flip-flopper’, a ‘know it all’ etc.
The interesting part about all of this is – Democrats really aren’t very interested in her. And she is really quite a moderate, if by moderate you mean an appeaser of and apologist for the Bush Administration.
So she is really the worst of both worlds:
1. She will get the Republican base out to vote against her because of what she represents to them; and
2. She does not actually represent progressive values that Democrats can rally around themselves (in contrast to someone like Feingold).
Watch the talking heads shows. See who brings up Hilary as the front runner. It is always the conservatives.
My response to them is:
If you want to talk about presumptive front-runners on our side, let’s also talk about your sitting president.
What a total fuck up that Bush is.
Let’s talk about him for a good long while.
And if they insist about talking about 2008, ask about Frist and his trust fund and corruption in general. Then work your way back to Bush and Goss and Foggo and Wilkes.
just who is this marKOS moulitsas fellow anyway, and why would anybody listen to him?
:~)
My biggest fear about Clinton is that she will make this an ABC race: Anybody But Condi.
RevDeb @ 1:55 pm (#29) – I like Durbin for many of the same reasons I like Feingold. He’s less eager to piss off the DLC and the rest of the machine, but he does seem to represent my views better than most of the current batch of candidates. I’d add Kerry as a possibility, and I’m not too sure about Clark, having heard enough grumbling about him from the ex-military folks I used to work with, but any of rest would be a cut above Hillary Clinton, to say the least.
Listening to a local radio political talk show the other day, the host (Jay Rosenberg) made the point that it’s the right that likes to raise Hillary’s 2008 ambitions. Because there is no way she can win the Presidency, they want her to get the nomination. If Rush, Sean, and Bill, et. al., keep bringing up scary Hillary Clinton for 2008, it keeps alive the myth that she is the presumptive Democratic frontrunner.
One presumes her handlers want to keep that myth alive, as well.
The last thing the Democratic party needs is another Senator from the Northeast as the party’s Presidential nominee in ‘08. Hillary is much better suited for a cabinet position (and that may in fact be what she has in mind-how to know, though?)
While the field (Clinton, Edwards, Warner, Richardson, Gore…) may be looking towards ‘08, the Dems need to focus now on November. 2008 is meaningless unless we take back Congress and/or the Senate.
what xyz 34 said.
cathy @ 1:55 pm (#30) – Plus, the mainstream news has gotten worse in the last three years, making the Internet even more important. However, I still doubt that it’s important enough. Until there is a win that the netroots can call its own, they’ll continue to ignore us.
Cujo359 #12 says:
“Hillary Clinton has been the presumed front-runner for some time, not to mention the centrist the Republicans are worried about, and any criticism of her is likely to be welcomed by the Republican establishment.”
I disagree. My take is the Rethug establishment loves Hillary and is one of the forces behind pushing her “inevitability” as a candidate in ‘08. Folk like Chris Matthews bring her up about every 15 minutes.
Why? Because they feel certain that she is the one Dem they can most easily demonize and beat. They may be right.
My point? When the opposition gives you advice, do the opposite. Markos is not the opposition, but the WaPo might like to further the meme of a disorganized, split Democratic Party, which is a possible reason they ran this, rather than to bash Hillary.
Cujo 37.
Agreed. Durban’s positions on the issues are very much like Feingold but he is by nature less strident. Very rarely have I listened to him speak when he doesn’t “get it.” He’s not as in your face as Russ, but I trust him on the issues and would work like a slave to get him elected. Not too many I would say that about.
He’s also following in Paul Simon’s footsteps. I still have some Simon for President bumper stickers in a drawer somewhere.
I am SO ready for someone with integrity to sit in that office.
Why this focus on 2008 when 2006 is right around the corner and if the Dems lose yet another election when they have everything going for them, will 2008 really matter?
Durbin, Gore, Feingold or Clark would be fine with me.
Gore/Feingold or Gore/Clark are the dream tickets
Cujo #32-
I agree with that assessment. There seems to be something going on that they are doing to knock certain people out of races. That’s why I’m worried for Lamont. They already had a talk with him.
Yesterday I sent this email to the Working Families Party, urging them to support Jonathan Tasini, Hillary’s challenger in the 2006 Dem primary for the Senate:
‘I will be extremely disappointed if WFP endorses Hillary Clinton. I’m not ultra-left; I believe that a primary rationale for an alternative, progressive party like WFP is to engage the Dems and push them toward humane policies and candidates.
Hillary is on-board with capital punishment and trickle-down economics. Her foreign policy is neo-con. It appears that her position on choice will be determined by her focus groups. She’s transparently careerist.
Please support Tasini. Thank you.’
What do you guys think of Bill Richardson as a viable candidate? Needs to lose the weight for teevee. Has a decent record as governor, is Hispanic, can speak credibly on the immigration issue, was energy secretary. Anybody know if he has a military record? How about Allen, Romney & Frist?
xyz 34 — I don’t think there are many people in this country who would look back on our current president and the one before him and not beg for Clinton to come back. I believe by 2008 there will finally be context as to why a blue dress is not grounds for impeachment.
vachon, 36 — do you really think the Bubbas who are Dubya, right or wrong going to vote for a NEEgrow girl??
Wow,I must have been really bored,cause I just visited freeperland,just to test the climate.The only acnowledgment of the past 3 days of the news cycle was the Kennidy thing.I found it really hard not to register and enter the comments fray(I did resist).Would that make me a troll?Bet I’d get banned there in no time flat without ever resorting to juvinile attacks and name calling.There are none so blind as those that will not see…
ab initio -
I agree, this is like talking about the next NFL season on the day before the Super Bowl.
We need to win, and win now.
Thus, what I said earlier about Hilary. The progressive pundits and blogosphere must not be baited into a discussion about her. She is the stalking horse for the Republicans.
When her name is brought up, we must not take the bait. Instead fire back with the following question:
“why aren’t we talking about what Bush is doing now? Whoever the Democrat candidate is, their first focus will be on cleaning up Republican corruption. And the cleanup can start in 2006 if Democrats are given a majority in the House or Congress to work with. Democrats stand united for transparency in government and against corruption.”
I just realized we have a rather good chance of seeing Al Gore and Hillary Clinton debating each other for the Democratic nomination. That would prove to be quite interesting.
(And for the record, Markos named his first son Aristotle. But since he is Hispanic naming his next son Jesus is not out of the question.)
Gore.
Restitution for theft requires the return of the thing stolen, and not a substitute, to the person from whom it was stolen, and not a surrogate.
Gore ‘08. It’s the moral thing.
Gore/Feingold is my first choice ticket. I would vote a Gore/Clark ticket as well.
Kos is not Hillary hating. He is pointing out a flawed approach to politics. He’s making the same argument we made here:
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..s-of-1992/
Cujo359#40
YES!
“making the Internet even more important. However, I still doubt that it’s important enough. Until there is a win that the netroots can call its own, they’ll continue to ignore us.”
This is not something to be down about,its a wake up call!We do need to ‘take’an from the Dem machine,shove it right down their throats!It will be called crazy until it happens.When it seems safe,all will jump on the bandwagon.
Ask Feingold about the power of the ‘net,ask Dean,get fired up and let’s win.I feel Lamont is a great place to start and a good person to start with.And that primary can be a dash of cold water in the face of the DSCC.
Gore. The speeches have been 100% correct, brilliantly written and amazingly, delivered with real passion and an ease that was lacking in ‘02. The movie might even help. Hilary has not been able to distinguish herself as a senator since she has been too busy triangulating. She is also radioactive and the one “major” candidate they might beat. Gore-Feingold; Gore-Clark.
sorry I ment “take an election”
Cujo359 -You and I and I think op99 share a Congressman
Unfortunately, a good Democrat is not necessarily a gracious Democrat. A bad Republican is not necessarily an ungracious Republican, though a good Republican is more than likely an ungracious Republican. Good and bad arise as assessments of choices in terms of an exterior context. Gracious and ungracious are acknowledgements that arise from within. The Golden Rule is ‘golden’ because it guarantees gracious behavior when honored.
We currently have a most ungracious man in the White House engaged in the ungracious consolidation of wealth in the fewest hands that this nation has ever seen. It has rendered many of the barometers of social success useless as the MSM demonstrates daily. Few of his choices for others are choices he would make for himself. Clarity, honesty, and accuracy are gracious concepts that Bush the Lesser does not use. He cares nothing of benevolence, that which might be shared by all. He uses his position to maintain and protect advantage, that which by definition cannot be shared by all.
Any Democrat, Hillary included, will benefit from focusing on returning graciousness to public policy. We have focused on limiting and protecting ungracious advantages long enough. One of the most ungracious concepts in the Universe is ‘Acceptable Collateral Damage’. This is going to take choosing someone who is very clear about what we are doing so as to ameliorate the consequences we have accrued.
Distrust Hilary, love Russ, suspicious of Obama. Why don’t I hear much about Eliot Spitzer? He’s got plenty of backbone bucking corporations, but I don’t really know where he stands elsewhere.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10…..nted=print
I *think* this was meant to be a pro-Hillary article, but I’m not sure.
===October 2, 2005
Mrs. Triangulation
By MATT BAI
[]Clinton, on the other hand, wants nothing to do with ideological crusades, and she has thus far resisted the pull of rising antiestablishment forces – bloggers, donors and activists – who are fast becoming today’s equivalent of the 60’s left. Instead, Hillary (as she is universally known) has navigated with extreme caution through the party’s fast-changing landscape, and if she has evolved as a public figure, it is in a way that has distanced her from the party’s more liberal base. She has never renounced her initial support for the invasion of Iraq, and has in fact lobbied for recruiting an additional 80,000 Army troops. She has recently taken the opportunity, in much publicized speeches, to denounce unwanted pregnancies and violent video games. And at a time when the new activists brand any bipartisan cooperation as treachery, Clinton seems to pop up every week next to some conservative who has joined her on an issue like health-care modernization or soldiers’ benefits.
The truth that emerges from talking to many of those who have worked closely with the Clintons is that Hillary’s ideology is best understood through the prism of her upbringing. She was raised as a Republican and a devout Methodist in suburban Chicago, and these influences, particularly in the turbulence of the 60’s, created two philosophical impulses that were commonly linked in that era. The first is an unshakable notion of right and wrong and an almost missionary zeal for imposing it on others, mainly through political action. The second is a strand of moral conservatism that borders on prudishness.
An aide from her Arkansas days recounted a scene in the Clinton kitchen, during the first presidential campaign, when 12-year-old Chelsea Clinton told her mother that she intended to have her ears pierced. “Young lady, you are not going to poke holes in your head!” the future senator insisted. Similarly, the Democratic strategist Paul Begala, who spent countless hours around the first lady in the White House, recalled that he always had to be aware that she had a less permissive sensibility than her husband. “If I’m talking to James Carville or even Clinton,” he said, referring to the former president, “the F-words are flying. It’s not the same with her.”
[]When I asked one of Hillary’s closest policy advisers, Neera Tanden, why Hillary seemed more comfortable with the Pentagon brass than a lot of her colleagues are, she thought for a moment before replying. “She’s not authoritarian,” Tanden said, “but she has a deep respect for authority.” In this sense, Clinton is very much a Southern Democrat like her husband (or, for that matter, an Eisenhower Republican like her father) and less of a social liberal than she is often portrayed. When she talks about her opposition to gay marriage, her preference for abstinence or her disapproval of violent movies, she means it. Leon Panetta, who was President Clinton’s second chief of staff, remembers joining a group of White House aides and the first couple for a private screening of “Pulp Fiction,” the Quentin Tarantino movie, at Camp David. Not long into the film, disgusted by all the blood, the first lady walked out.===
Just a note on usage. I see this all the time in blog-land. At least in my mind an “editorial in the Washington Post” or any other paper something written by the editorial board of the paper. This article by Kos is an op-ed article, not an editorial. This may be a nit to pick, but whenever I see opinion piece referred to an “editorial” it sure confuses me.
Here’s my 2008 nightmare scenario: The Repug establishment can’t get Giuliani past the fundie base. Hillary uses Bill’s fundraising clout to bury her primary challengers, but media hostility plus her high negatives cause her to trail her likely GOP opponents. The Dem hierarchy reluctantly puts aside its ‘principles’ and turns to … Rudie.
I’ve learned to ‘never say never,’ because I can actually recall a time when the notion of a Hollywood actor (Reagan) as US President was so ludicrous that I collapsed in hysterics when someone mentioned the notion back in about 1978.
Could Hillary win? Under a certain set of complicated circumstances and events, she could. But I honestly think this thread is putting the candidate cart a bit before the campaign horse.
Here’s what I see:
CORRUPTION – apart from the sizzle of the hookers, it’s the magnitude of the graft, theft, embezzelment, deal making that is beyond appallling.
ENVIRONMENTAL risks. Katrina was a wake up call, and we’ll have more of them. Meanwhile, this is all changing farming conditions, which affects food supply (both fisheries, as well as agriculture).
HEALTH CARE — as in, ‘how do we at least have a basic level of care?’ Some of us are very anxious about maintaining medical coverage, and I also know docs who are very concerned about the “sick” health care system.
DECEIT, LIES, and UNDERCUTTING OUR OWN INTEL. Can you say “Plame”? Very few people that I know fully grasp that Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Liddy almost certainly made the US more vulnerable by ‘outing’ Plame. Once the wider population grasps that fact, these guys will be lucky to stay alive, let alone serve prison terms.
IRRESPONSIBLE BUDGETS.
I’d sit back and ask which electeds have the greatest credibility on these and other issues, and then I’d haul ass on the Internet and every other known location to make sure that the voting machines were outlawed, and that whoever best addresses these issues is the Dem candidate.
I’d also add that CREDIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, COMPETENCE and HONESTY will probably be the 4 keywords.
For too many people, Hillary is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Rightly or wrongly, many don’t view her as credible.
Personally, I have a hard time thinking that anyone in DC is going to get much ‘traction’ in 2008. Between the gutless Dems who didn’t stand up to the Bu$hCo crowd on Iraq, NSA, and you-name-it, and the venal Repubs, having spent time in DC is going to be political poison in 2008.
this was an op-ed piece, not an editorial. there’s a big difference between the two. an editorial is written by someone on the paper’s editorial board and reflects the “official” view of the paper. an op-ed piece is a featured opinion piece by someone not in the paper’s employ. newspapers run op-ed pieces reflecting perspectives across the board, so i don’t think it’s a sign of the post’s merit that they ran this piece.
Watson you just made me puke,are you happy now?
http://www.bandofbrothers2006……eo_wmv.php
If you haven’t seen this videom you should.
fighting dems indeed
Eric Hamburg — thanks for pointing it out, changed.
ruffian @ 2:34 pm (#57) Adam Smith? (WA 9)? He’s alright. Kinda middle-of-the-road and none to eager to get in the Administration’s face about our rights, but could be worse.
nitty nitty- not even Op-Ed as it’s not on the page opposite the editorials. Page B01.
Commentary?
Arggghh! Time is passing and careening toward another Saturday night and I find myself saddened that Colbert will not be out visiting any gathering of stenographers. Sigh.
I must have misread something-I meant Kuhl
Peter#20 – Looking forward to you answering Jane’s question – just how long have you been a Democratic consultant?
Markos M. Zuniga (Daily Kos)and Jerome Armstrong (MyDD) are among the RNC’s worst nightmares. Their respective blogs are essential daily reading for countless fans including this old newspaper brat. Right up there with FDL on my bookmarks.
Their new book: Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grass Roots and the Rise of People Powered Politics (crashingthegate.com) is the most important new book I’ve read this year. And, dare I say – an instant classic.
The Friends of the Stowitts Museum on the Monterey Peninsula hosted the authors late last month. Among the crowd were local democratic activists and both Markos & Jerome held everyone spell-bound. And, in the bargain, the local bookseller sold out their entire supply of CTG.
Thanks so much Jane for bringing attention to Marcos’ Washington Post piece.
Her’s another picture for you,in ‘06 the Dems squeeze out a small majority in the House or Senate(too much to hope for both)and the investigations begin.The magnitude of the rot and corruption is unprecidented since the old “robber Baron” days of the industrial revolution,shocking and disgusting the nation(except for 32%).The scandle unfolds for a year and a half-leading into,,,’08 elections(here my chrystal ball fades).
63 ReadingTeaLeaves: Very few people that I know fully grasp that Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Liddy almost certainly made the US more vulnerable
Freudian slip, eh? Liddy for Libby. Nice job.
DMM @ 2:31 pm (#54) – That’s pretty much what I mean. There’s potential here, but it’s not realized yet. I’m glad Howie Klein will be dropping by, he has a great list of candidates to support at ActBlue. When these folks start winning is when we can say we’re a force to be reckoned with. Until then, they’re going to ignore us or try to use us. That’s what I’m saying.
What does LOL mean? Lots of Love? In that case, LOL to Markos Moulitsos for putting several fingers down on Hillary’s problems. I’m older than most of you bloggers and tired of not being able to remember when the last time I voted was not for “the lesser of two evils”. Don’t pit HC against the Republican candidate now but really fight for a good candidate in the Democrat primary. Personally, I’m for Gore, but I’ll settle for several others mentioned rather than Hillary.
LOL=laugh out loud
ROTFL=roll on the floor laughing
LMAO=laugh my ass off
#73 DMM — and your scenario may very well lead to squeaky-clean Mitt Romney as the savior of the Republican party. In that case, our choice MUST be Gore. No one inside the beltway would have a prayer.
Russ in ‘o8!!!!!
Realistically, if Al Gore wants the Dem nomination it’s his.
Hillary? I think people are over the whole Bush-Clinton take-turns thing.
Morris Sheppard @ 2:11 pm (#41) – Last poll I saw, I don’t remember where and it was at least a month ago, had HC well ahead of the other potential Democratic candidates. If the Republicans have that much power over the Democratic voters, we might as well just stop doing this and spend all our time in online gambling or porn sites. They cover HC because she’s one of the leaders, if not the leader, in the race for 2008. If they can smear John Kerry and John McCain, they can smear anyone. They don’t need Hillary Clinton any more than I do.
bridgehome
If by “you bloggers” you mean JH, CHS and Pach at FDL, you are probably correct. But there are many commenters here… And, I’m for Gore too.
XYZ at 34–
Well said. In fact yours is the only post or comment I’ve seen yet that touches on what to me is one of HRC’s main deficits: she’s a woman. Here’s who will vote against her, whether Repub, Dem, or Independent:
–men who “hate” (because they fear) women.
–men who condescend to women in politics
–men who condescend to women in everything else
–women who think she’s uppity
–women who hate their own dull domestic lives and are jealous of her
–men who hated Bill
–women who hated Bill
–women who love men but mistrust other women
That’s a lot of voters, not all of whom are Republicans. She will, as you said, do a lot to bring out the Yahoo/Know Nothing trogs who constitute much of Bush’s base. To them, the idea of a woman president is not far from the idea of Mommy as president, and that would be intolerable.
Note, too, that these “reasons” are not reasons, but emotional (and usually unconscious) motives, and therefore can’t be changed via reason. Yes, she’s smart, enlightened, has a great sense of humor, etc. But she’s unelectable.
Between now and 2008 the sleaze will stop oozing out of DC and begin gushing. No senator or representative will have a chance. Only outsiders, most lkely governors or mayors, will have a chance of making it past Iowa or the first week in March 2008.
But the war in Iraq will probably devolve into a deadly scenario after our bombing campaign against the Iranian industrial and water distribution infrastructure fails to bring regime change in Tehran. As the situation worsens in late 2007, with hundreds of thousands of undocumented aliens and anti-war protesters detained, we will be attacked again, and the presidential election will be “indefinately postponed” until more progress has been made in the War on Terror.
So it doesn’t matter who gets nominated.
Just kidding……………
Feingold is my man!!
He’s got that “Don’t f*ck with me” look that Dems SORELY need if they are ever going to reestablish their image.
Just seeing the graphic with Jane’s name busted me up for ten minutes -
I believe it was Rayne who nailed CTG as a ‘concentrate’ – so many of our ‘WTF are they up to ?!?’ questions can be answered in single paragraphs throughout the book – and Markos does it again with this Op Ed – am sooo looking forward to tomorrow’s Salon
(O/T Keyed Entry, although like all other sports these days, I couldn’t be more out of touch!)
readerOfTeaLeaves @ 2:45 pm (#63) – having spent time in DC is going to be political poison in 2008.
Maybe in the Presidential race, but in the Congressional races I don’t think it will make much difference. People are surprisingly forgiving of corruption and greed in their own congressmen if they’re effective at bringing home the pork.
Cujo-just trying to ‘fire’people up,get things going.And I always enjoy your comments.
kirby-(sigh)the fight is never over,is it?Personally speaking I’ve never been so involved before,giving $$,getting involved in the’grassroots’.Don’t know if we’ll win,but hope springs eternal.
Oh, and BTW, Dean didn’t lose (or Clark, or . . . ); KERRY is the one that lost.
The final tally is all that matters. I hope primary-voting Dems learned their lesson and will think long and hard this time around.
I saw Markos at the book signing in Minneapolis on Tuesday. I told him this is where I like to hang out and he had some nice things to say about Jane and Christy.
Saw Wes Clark on Real Time lst night. He can be my President any day.
Oh,I forgot,to get involved in Maryland e-mail me at paradox65@comcast.net
There’s work to be done.
Hillary is clearly the choice of the party establishment and we need to take seriously the party’s ability to force the results they want. One way to counter this is clearly to start demonstrating that there is a stronger than they realize opposition to Dem politics as usual. I’m hoping that YKOS helps to highlight the netroots movement with media and helps to gain us a bit more influence.
I don’t think Gore is running – he’s been very clear that he’s not in most of his public appearances – and the launch of his investment group (Generation Fund) demands a long term committment from him I assume. When I saw him speak I had the impression that he is looking outside politics for ways to change the world and his choice of the investment arena is in line with the growing progressive lean of institutional investors, particularly on climate change.
#59 isn’t Eliot Spitzer running for NY Gov or NYC mayor or something?
Speaking as someone who is a blue voter in a red state, I can honestly say that Hillary would not flip any red states, which means, of course, she could not win a national election.
My money – if we want to win – is on Wes Clark. While I adore Russ Feingold, his two divorces (and sadly, his last name) and the fact that he has a senate record will also prevent him from making much headway in the purplish-red states. There are a number of fed-up paelo-cons we can reach with a former military man – the secret is not to let them ever know how liberal Clark actually is!
So – how ’bout a Clark/Feingold ticket for maximum effect: we get the first name in someone who is from our hardest to win regions – the South and the mid-West and someone in whom disgruntled Republicans might see themselves voting for. And, in the second name on the ticket, we get a senator who could held and herald and shepard the Senate.
We have to take Dr. Dean’s advice and work in all 50 states – and that means ACTIVELY trying to find candidates who can flip a red state or two or three (not to mention that, damnit, we need some unity in this country).
As long as we’re posting our druthers, my dream ticket is Clark/Feingold – I would work 24/7 to put those two men in the highest offices. Especially Wes Clark.
Don’t think congressionals have a chance in heck at POTUS – but maybe for VP – of course, I’d sure miss Russ in the Senate, so I might have to rethink the VP thing for him…
I hate to be the one who always has to say it, but the Kos record for winning is worse than that of the “stupid” consultants.
I’d also like to point out that posting on blogs does not make you a Party activist or part of the Party’s base. If you want to change things, why not take over local county Parties? I hear all this disdain from the so-called “netroots” for the “Democratic establishment”, but if you were a majority as is often claimed, then you should be able to take over county and state parties. Either you don’t participate on the local level or are not as numerous as you claim.
It’s no secret how to influence the local and state levels, but you all still claim to be outsiders. I’m sympathetic to the progressive cause, but I get pretty sick of hearing how bad the Democratic party is by those who are not at the local Party meetings. If three years is really 30 years in net life, why are you all still outsiders? Quit whining and do something.
Oscar @ 3:18 pm (#92) – He’s running for governor.
slightly OT, but …
have you ever noticed how the same people who accuse anyone who presumes to disagree with Bush of “BDS” (”Bush Derangement Syndrome”) are the very same ones who revile the Clintons at every opportunity?
#94 I wholeheartedly encourage everyone to be active . . . however, speaking from personal experience, it is pretty demoralizing to throw your all into *trying* to change the party establishment from the inside and making no difference whatsoever. At least blogs let you blow off steam.
Or is the world going to be such a mess by 2008 that the only options become McCain and Clark because someone from the military has to come in and clean up the mess?
My supreme commander trumps your POW?
the Kos record for winning is worse than that of the “stupid†consultants.
Think Goldwater. We’re starting a movement here. It takes time.
This will be tumultous.
About a year ago I CSpan had Cook do a ‘Hillary’ breakdown. Numbers below 40% Dem. He questioned how many OTHERS she might try for.
Anyway, it says here the Convention will have no clear concensus, but Hill is a major player. Gore has not run at all, but a write-in puts his name in play; maybe he wins Vermont or Maine or Tenn….whatever. Smoke is filling rooms, suites, even entire floors and wings of hotels. Many will hold forth at places like Pat O’Brien’s over a couple ‘Hurricanes’. Eventually, the ticket will be:
Gore/Clinton.
And win.
Kirby @ #74 – FOFLMAO ;-) Guess there’s so many of them venal Repub’s that I get ‘em mixed up… yikes! Don’t tell Jerome he’ll soon be writing for “MyBB 8-0″
Cujo359 #86. Although I do completely understand what you are saying about people being ‘forgiving’ of more local politicians, I really do begin to wonder whether we aren’t in new, uncharted territory. In the past, there really haven’t been enough good challengers, for many reasons related to party dysfunction pointed out in CtG. My hunch is that people are deeply disenchanted, and although they are very forgiving, I really do see some elements of a “perfect storm” lining up politically.
Not sure whether the Dems can pull it out, and frankly… given my utter dismay at some of the absolute incompetence among Dem electeds in my region, I’m not willing view the Democratic party as any kind of salvation for the US.
I very much anticipate a lot of Repub/Bush action around the whole Net Neutraility issue – they’ll want to shut down all kinds of blogs and what they don’t realize is that doing that will mess up Grandma’s Emailing to her Garden Club, as well as the local Nazarene Bible Study Blog. I just love (and I mean LOVE) that this genie’s out of the bottle. The Bushies can’t shut us down without totally engraging the Bible Study. There’s karma for you…slow, but sure ;-)
amended: If Gore refuses a ‘draft’ then it’ll be Clarke/Hill.
Need an outsider type at the top.
One thing I won’t be able to swallow is if the ‘08 campaign becomes about Monica Lewinsky instead of the horrors, fumbles, crimes, illegal wars and Constitution-burnings of the Bush Administration.
That possibility alone makes me want to oppose Hillary.
2008 is far, far away in terms of politics. Hillary is the presumptive frontrunner because of the insane amount of money she raises and her unbelievably name recognition (the obsession with wingnuts hating her helps too). But by 2008 that may mean nothing. Phil Gramm bragged about the money he could raise but he was knocked out of the GOP primary early in his 1996 presidential bid. In 1992, nobody who was following the primaries knew much about Clinton or took him seriously.
Don’t count Gore out, either. The political landscape is going to change incredibly between now and 2008, what with a possible new vanity war, a collapsing economy and complete breakdown of health care. Then there’s the whole environment problem. The GOP is imploding already, and if they lose the House or Senate this year all hell will break loose.
Heard Markos and Jerome Armstrong speak earlier this week in Wisconsin. When asked about Feingold, Markos said he’s not optimistic that a guy who is twice-divorced and short (joking) could get the nomination. More important, he is a maverick, not someone party Dems would passionately embrace.
Jerome is working for Allen.
Gore is on fire. While he may not seek the nomination, I suspect or rather hope he would accept it.
Noblejoanie #106: Kos is right about the short thing. Until W was handed the presidency, the tallest man has always won. Gore was taller — one more piece of evidence he DID win.
I supported Dean in ‘04. When he flamed out I supported Kerry.
I see Feingold now as the best choice. He’s willing to take a stand. He has character. He’s intelligent. He knows Washington, but he hasn’t sold out. He’s not a WEASEL. How many other potential candidates can you say that about?
I will vote for some other candidate if Russ doesn’t get it. If we don’t want some namby pamby, we would do well to really start supporting the person we want, and not go off in a corner and sulk if somebody else gets the nomination. Whatever we do, we must CRUSH those rat bastards who’ve been running the country for the past six years. For this we must work together and keep the pressure on. The Republicans, you can say one thing for them, they will fight to the last second to beat us again. Get ready.
twinkler, 64: While it is true that an editorial represents the view of the newspaper while an op-ed piece is the view of a contributor, the choice of op-ed pieces and op-ed authors are not independent of the paper’s political bias. You are not going to find the same mix of op-ed pieces in the Washington Times as you do on the NY Times.
Just as an example, can you imagine the Wall Street Journal running Joe Wilson’s piece on the Niger fiasco?
Hillary is starting to look like Lieberman-lite. And to think of the stickers she was passing out gay pride day ca. 2000. Arghh. Give us Dean. Give us Gore. For Gosh sakes, not Hilary!
AFAIK, Tom Suozzi is a DINO’s DINO running against Eliot Spitzer in the NY Primary (September 2006) backed by Republican money, eg Grasso, Kozlowske, and all the other filthy rich slime Spitzer has been prosecuting for the last ten years. AFAIK, it’s Schmucky Schumer, giving his imprimatur to Suozzi, that is enabling this bleeding of Spitzer’s resources leading into the general election.
Gore is the best choice for ‘08, and imho, the only choice. He has a clearly defined vision for America – that can’t be said of the others who are testing the waters. Americans will be looking for a candidate with ideas and solutions to the mess created by the incompetent Bush administration.
When you think of Al Gore – you think of what the man stands for – the environment, his opposition to the Iraq war, and his brilliant defense of the constitution (his unforgetable speech at Constitution Hall), his support for Social Security (the lock box – who could forget).
As much as I’d love to see a woman president in my lifetime – Hillary, by straddling the line politically – has not defined her vision for America.
#99 the beautiful thing about Clark is that he has a LOT to offer besides being unassailable on the homeland security issue.
Among other things, everyone assumes he’s “moderate” ’cause he’s military, yet he’s totally liberal on most issues!!
Having been an avid Clark supporter in ‘04 I’m delighted to see all the love on this thread and on the Kos thread!
That said, CLARK, WARNER, FEINGOLD, GORE–any combination of the above sounds great to me.
Gore has definitely been coming out swinging since . . . maybe 2001-ish. I was amazed when I saw the moveon.org NYU(?) speech. Now that William Bennett, is moral clarity, that none of you republicans have.
I think Hillary is in fact a left authoritarian. Her management of the health care initiative was no different from Cheney’s management of the energy task force, and she defended its secrecy as fiercely as Cheney defended his. People who rely on consultants and power players to get into position to run are indebted to money, not to principle, and not to people.
The big thing that Gore has going for him right now is that a lot of people are thinking, “Hey, maybe Gore was right all along!”
10 U.S. Soldiers Killed in Copter Crash
By JASON STRAZIUSO
The Associated Press Saturday, May 6, 2006; 3:07 PM “KABUL, Afghanistan — Ten U.S. soldiers died when their helicopter crashed during combat operations aimed at flushing out militants from remote mountains in eastern Afghanistan, officials said Saturday….”
Anyway Hilary is out of her mind to run. The Regnery wingnuts are all lining up to publish their “exposes.” Tweety has been on this for a few years it seems. As has O’Reilly. And to think of it, that is precisely what progressives should be doing to John McCain right now. As Colbert would say . . .
The big thing about Gore is he is starting to look charismatic and also like a darn straight talker next to all the congresscritters.
From Crooks and Liars re Helen Thomas’ new book ripping the compromised White House press corp:
“But Thomas sees a bright side: she applauds trenchant political cartoonists and believes that the active public interest expressed in Internet blogs may help create transparency.”
–
Ana Marie Cox from a Digby link:
“Comedy can have a political point but it is not political action, and what Colbert said on the stage of the Washington Hilton — funny or not — means far less than what the ardent posters at ThankYouStephenColbert.org would like it to.”
–
Dear Ms Cox,
As Helen Thomas, Thomas Nash (Boss Tweed on Nash: “I don’t care a straw for your newspaper articles, my constituents don’t know how to read, but they can’t help seeing them damned pictures”), and the San Francisco Mime Troupe all show — comedy is a higher form of political action.
I’m sure, Ms. Cox, that if the same people who didn’t laugh at the WHCD had seen Stephen Colbert’s 20 minutes on TV instead, they’d have laughed their asses off (and Colbert’s timing WAS a bit erratic).
But make no mistake, Colbert’s performance was a spectacular pop culture guerilla raid into the heart of the Washington DC status quo machine.
Ya’ll need to get used to it, Ana.
Hillary wants to win first and govern second. She is brilliant and she can fight like hell in an old school male world. I don’t think this country is ready for that fight now. Women alone will shred her chances and yes goopers are loving every minute.
Disappointed (livid)as I am with her over her war and flag burning votes etc. She is light years in front of this current dark age we find ourselves in. She will raise the level of democratic party discourse in ‘08 to the point of republicans having real opposition for a change. She knows Gore (supreme) and Kerry failed (hello). Frankly I am ready for a fighter this time. Name one candidate who wants to win more than HC.
That said, any third party surprise or RF has to do is say he is in the race (better do it soon) and I will enthusiastically jump in with all due diligence. Candidates like Russ will never have a chance until real lobby reform takes place imho.
When the gloves come off in ‘08 it’s Hillary time.
Oscar (#113):
i think you’ve got the right approach. i like Clark as well. i think Feingold is more of a leader (alpha male type) but Wes has the cred, but not the political experience.
As for the “Washington insiders are poison” meme, Feingold has proven that he’s not afraid to buck the establishment. He’s not an “insider” but he’s tested in that slimy environment.
i’m like you as ANY OF THE ABOVE will work for me, although i’m not so sure of Warner. but, hey, i can be had.
Politics is about consensus and compromise, at least in a democracy, isn’t it? You recognize this. I hope the rest of us can as well
Re: Colbert’s coup:
Bush was trying to be a comedian.
Colbert was the president.
No wonder only one was “funny”
Not to mention, as a woman, Feingold is a handsome young thing. That can be very endearing.
No. Hilary has compromised herself. I predict a Nixon/Ford/ Carter shift. O.K., wishful thinking, but still.
cliff,
yeah, that’s the ticket. it was indeed political action. that’s why so many people in the room were bleeding…………
hey yall, great saturday afternoon conversation. (i’m mostly always around, just quiet) sort of relaxed after all the excitement this week.
you know, the thing about the elections- both 06 & 08 that we’re not talking about- is fraud. i’m certain it’s gotten much worse than we realize. we should go back to paper, like canada. back to basics. and all register to work at the voting locations.
mui (#124):
balls. it’s the new black.
Eureka Springs, AR says:
The Democratic nominee will win in’08 – So lets pick a real liberal with traditional Democratic party values – campaign on pocketbook issues, and present a clear opposition to McCain or whoever. No more Centrists. We need someone who can define or represent what it means to be a Real Democrat to keep and pick up seats in Congress – Clinton didn’t do that – that’s how we got where we are today. Don’t get me wrong – Clinton was a great prez – just not such an effective leader of the Democratic party.
Oh – I messed up – I forgot to include the quote from Eureka Springs – sorry.
and the hell frozen over graphic is the sine qua non image for our crashing hindenburg
abalobadiah — eliot spitzer is going to be the next governor of new york.
i really hope al gore is planning to run. His foresight wrt the environment (which I think will be a major issue in the next couple of years), coupled with his speeches detailing the criminality of the bush administration, are an excellent platform to build upon. By the time 08 rolls around, people will be desperate for a political figure who can articulate ideas that they can rally around. I also think that gore will offer an optimism of ‘american can-doism’ at a point when the political and economic landscape will be most bleak; and looking for someone who was in the forefront of identifying issues long before they come to the attention of timmeh et al. and picking up on kos’ point, the net is much better positioned to neutralize the toxic brew of media magpies and money-grubbing consultants that have so perverted the electoral process.
Every time I see you guys saying Gore and/or Feingold I just can’t stop laughing.
You guys sure like getting crushed I guess. Well enjoy. You’re used to it by now.
I have a little bit different perspective on this than most here. We should not pick a candidate based on whom we think the R’s will slime. They will slime whoever we pick. If there isn’t anything to slime the candidate for, they will make things up. This is how they operate. Think Gore, Kerry, Dean. Presented as dishonest, cowardly, and crazy, despite no actual nexis with reality.
What we need is someone who can overcome the slime. Transcend it. This doesn’t happen by reasoned arguments (sad to say). It happens by something else – charisma? connection with people? I’m not sure what you would call it. Bill Clinton had it, and hence won despite being quite thoroughly slimed.
I don’t know who this person is. I want to see them in the primary before I decide. I’d tend to give some weight to someone who has been through the gauntlet before and knows what is coming and has the determination to handle it. This would include Gore, H. Clinton, Dean, and to some extent Clark.
I would definitely give weight to a person who reacts quickly, seems to enjoy sparring, can keep a sense of humor. The first aspect will depend a lot on campaing staff, but the latter two really do need the right candidate to work with.
My last point is that there isn’t any frontrunner. It is too far out. The person who is the frontrunner more that two years before the election is hardly ever the candidate unless that person is the Vice President.
Long-time reader; first-time poster.
I am puzzled by the amount of speculation over 2008 candidates. It seems to me that 2008 is totally dependent on what happens in 2006, and if the Democrats don’t at least take the House, I don’t think it will make any difference who they run in 2008.
If they aren’t prepared to fight for the elections that we know the Republicans will try to steal, then they’ll lose. If they aren’t prepared to do what Kerry said he was going to do (and then didn’t do), I don’t think they’re going to get a fifth chance in 2008.
you’re right, phil. we’re talking about this today because the impetus for this thread is markos’ opinion column in Wapoo today. 2006 is crucial. no doubt about it.
GO LAMONT!
#134 (and then I’ll go home, I promise):
I’m ready and willing to fight like hell in November. So where are the candidates dammit?????? It’s awfully quiet in here!
You guys sure like getting crushed I guess.
Bush’s combined margins in 00 and 04 are together less than the population of the Providence, RI MSA.
The St. Louis Cardinals’ annual attendence is slightly smaller.
That’s ‘crushed’?
And who knows who the president will be leading into the ‘08 election?
Yow! EPU’ed! Already!
The most important thing is to get a decent Republican to challenge in the primaries. If there was a charismatic Eisenhower republican running, it would fracture the rethug coalition.
“Every time I see you guys saying Gore and/or Feingold I just can’t stop laughing.”
Another concern troll. Guess you think we should all want Hil so you can win, huh?
Valley girl said: “not even Op-Ed as it’s not on the page opposite the editorials. Page B01.
Commentary?”
Commentary, yes, and better than op-ed. That’s the front page of the WaPo’s Outlook section – prime real estate!
Can’t wait to see if it’s above the fold.
Dear laughing #132: You will be laughing out of the right side of your ass after November. If you really want a chuckle, check out the numbers for Dumbya and Elmer Fudd. And for real hilarity, check out the scandal of the week provided by our republican members of congress and the white house. Seems all them quails are coming home to roost. ( Elmer Fudd was busy shooting people, not quail)
Gore and Feingold do have qualities that are laughable to the right wing. Honesty and concern for all Americans and the enviroment is just a start.So laugh it up, the fun is just begining.
Jane, thanks for the visual. It and the frog march had me in stitches!I really should consider a seat belt when I check FDL out.
Funny…..I see that sign every day when I am going home after work!
Ahh….familiar sights and sounds here at FDL
Next thread–Houston—can somebody please close the tag at #65, Alice Marshall? Entire commentary is now a link to her link. Can’t post because the whole reply box is also a link.
JANE — the book arrived this afternoon, already plowing into it after my son literally ripped it open. At eight years old, he wasn’t quite as excited as I was at finding a book inside. Thank you, thank you, thank you…can I send $$ for postage to the return address?
Must say the book already gives me pause, seeing some names that are so familiar popping up already. Will try to remember to point this out next week, but we have an opportunity that exists only NOW, in addition to the wall-to-wall scandals and the systematic incompentence. You see, family-owned businesses rarely survive past a second generation. The progenitors do great, the first generation may do as well or better, but a third generation generally doesn’t follow in the footsteps of the previous business owners. (If memory serves, it’s 1/3-1/3 — only 1/3 of businesses survive transition to a second generation, and only 1/3 of those survive to the next generation — very thin odds.) If the Republican Party and its factions are RICO-type organizations, they are now in the second generation and are at that critical transition point over the next decade. They are so busy chatting up how to survive this year, how to fix what’s wrong with conservatism, that they are not doing the succession planning necessary to survive.
We need to do a better job on our side of the aisle of ensuring a generational transition; I know I’m up against it now, head-butting with seniors who are struggling to let go. But we need to do a better job of recruiting youth and helping them see this as THEIR party, as something other than a worn-out hand-me-down.
In some ways, Hillary is that hand-me-down; we’ve got her only because of the Big Dog, wouldn’t have her on her own merits without him. It would behoove us to ask the youngsters we’re recruiting and grooming who it is they could see themselves following.
Great until the last bit…Warner and Feingold are the only attractive alternatives?
Ever hear of Wes Clark?? He’s been working his butt off trying to take back at least on House of Congress in 2006 and delivering his common sense analysis on FOX, right there in the lion’s den.
While I admire Feingold, Warner was a dud on Franken a few weeks ago–whereas Clark did a great job on that show last week. Warner’s “DLC” persona came across loud and clear and he was not very inspiring on healthcare.
Heard Wes Clark approves of the school of americas in Georgia. Might have that name wrong. I heard him say in an interview with George S. that we should talk and not rule out Dubai owning some ports. George S. got him to repeat a couple of times and seemed incredulous. Why do progressives like this man.
Gore has some of his policy ducks in row here are my ideas for some more…
1) Singlepayer – a Medicare levy to pay for it.
Health security is National security.
2) Get the Faith out of education. Seperation of church and state. Increase funding for science ed.
3) Scrap Star Wars and other financial black holes and black ops in the worlds largest bureaucracy – the pentagon.
4) Release drug war prisoners – another failed prohibition is another National security risk we don’t need.
5) Legalize prostitution – get the police out of peoples living and bedrooms.
6) Conservative law and order policies mean more anti-trust action and a return of the ‘ death tax’. Conserving the constitution means accountability and fairness before the law.
7) Repealing two laws for every new law passed.
8) A new law banning hate speech and incitements to violence where there is a clear link between the perpetrator and a specific act of violence.
This could include holocaust denial including African American holocaust denial.
9) Regular reviews and summit meetings to check the growth in the reach and power of the state and all large corporations domiciled here.
10) Propose immediate increase in NAFTA to include all South America ( More crude in Venezuela than Saudi Arabia! ) A regional common currency and Shengen passportless travel arrangement.
11) Propose summit on Middle east peace with ALL parties to attend – make it online for security reasons.
12) Make attacks on the net a capital offence.
( Including large spam floodings )
13) ERA ammendment – long overdue.
14) Pardon and medal of freedom for Leonard Peltier and Jim Bell and Lyn Stewart.
15) Outlaw Hummers and Harleys.
16) Move from representational democracy to direct democracy. Delegate to attend and report back – NOT make unilateral decisions. Delegates to be revocable and rotatable. All net enabled in real time.
17) Place Chalmers Johnson in charge of US base’s overseas with a mandate to shut them down.
18) Propose humanitarian interventions for North Korea, Turkmanistan and Burma. Flag Zimbabwe for action in this area. Sign on for world court and help UN move out of the states. UN could move every five years to new continent and gradually become completely netcentric and virtual.
19) Sign on World court and ship cabal members over in regular batches.
20) Consult directly with the public – populist positions are mostly Liberal positions. The state is the servant of the people and the secret state is no longer viable or desirable.
America is an enlightened democratic project NOT a return to the dark ages of evil empires.
Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice – moderation in the pursuit of justice and peace is no virtue.
The problems that face us are deep and will require much hard work but together we are smarter than anyone of us and together united online in the united networks we will win.
I am confident of our ultimate victory so now let’s roll! On to Washington and on to victory.
Let freedom rain! ( Dean scream optional here )
For the love of all that is good.
She must be stopped
http://www.nohillaryno.com
It was kind, Kos is a smart smart guy, and his book is great…I just wish he would have waited for the “net neutrality” bill to be settled before declaring war on Mrs. Clinton.
Bill, we still love you, by the way.
Rather than piling on how to stop Hillary because she is going nowhere, I am going to take a proactive stance and recommend people buying a new book named “50 Simple Things You Can Do To Fight The Right.” It is filled with both obvious and innovative ideas we can use to get our candidates in office as well as reclaim dissent and new ideas as patriotic. And I have started buying from Barnes and Noble online instead of Amazon because they contribute far more to Progressives.
I am weary of hearing that Hillary is the democratic front runner in the next pres election. Her sickening AIPAC scophancy, her air of “let them eat cake” kind of attitude when it comes to the grass roots membership inputs, triggers a kind of fear in having another mediocre “monarchy” line of succession candidate leading our country. The most damaging is her vote allowing Bush to invade a soverign country that did not attack us. Courage she has not. That vote she will never live down…No, Feingold, Clark are my hopes for the next democratic lineup for the presidency.
“The most damaging is her vote allowing Bush to invade a soverign country that did not attack us.”
But every Congressperson except Barbara Lee voted for the Iraq War. Right now, I like Al Gore who seems to have regained some passion.
Cujo #32:
So far, none of the progressive candidates running against the machine have won. Christine Cegelis lost in Illinois….
Bad example: Kos sided with Duckworth (i.e., Rahm Emanuel) to the eternal dismay of almost all his readers in this area (and in direct contradiction to what he writes over and over in CTG). In Ciro Rodriguez’s case, there wasn’t enough time: Cuellar won because of the early voting — those who voted on election day went for Rodriguez. The REAL test of the netroots vs. the establishment will be Lamont v. Lieberman in August — a race where virtually EVERYONE in Left Blogstan is on the same side.
Coming so close in TX and IL (despite Kos’s apostasy in the latter case*) was the shot accross the establisment’s bow. Next time we sink their ship!
*you’d think he would have known better when Hillary Clinton started holding fundraisers for Duckworth!
Correction on #120: Thomas Nast…not Thomas Nash.
http://cartoons.osu.edu/nast/
Progressive candidates HAVE beaten the machine at the local level. Here in Chicago, an environmentalist candidate for Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Board was the top vote-getter in a 9 candidate field that included 3 candidates slated by the Democratic Party (i.e., the Cook County Machine) — including the current President of the Board (top 3 vote-getters are elected). In the Dem primary race for Illinois Treasurer the candidate favored by progressives trounced the one backed by the Illinois Democratic Party. So little victories now, bigger ones to come…
Demos wake up! The USA cannot continue to bring democracy to Iraq, without their help. American marines get trained and shipped overseas in 6 months ! So, in 6 months 1/3 of our forces leave and they can decide what they want for a goverment, or not! Deadlines work
for the rest of the world. Arlin A Mauer