Which Candidate Will Best Serve As Captain Of The Titanic?

[Q]

- How can you go on as if nothing has happened? Many Dems (including the leadership) are acting like beaten and broken dogs...just grateful for a pet and scraps from their 'masters' table.

- It makes me sad watching you squabble over which candidate will best serve as the captain of the Titanic. It gives me no great pleasure to point out the iceberg dead ahead and to warn you the party hasn't long to survive if they don't make a course correction right NOW.

- I don't even recognize the Democratic party anymore. It's as if the fictional 'Body Snatchers' have come to life and we're 'missing' scores of formerly loyal, fighting Democrats. They've been replaced with spineless, cowardly, supplicating prevaricators who have sold us out to the Republicans in exchange for a seat at THEIR table.

- I've been accused by some fellow DUers of 'hating' the Democratic party and being 'disloyal'. But I believe the contrary to be true. I've remained faithful to the values and principles of the party...while many of you have capitulated and sold out to make the party 'appealing' to phantom swing voters and the Neocon media.

- Like the 'other' side...you're pretending nothing of import happened in 2000 or 9-11 so you can sooth your conscience with 'true lies'. Or you pretend to be 'powerless' to do anything about the rampant corruption, collusion and complicity of the Bush* WH as both political parties tell you to 'move on' and forget the past. But it's NOT okay that George cheated his way into office and it's NOT acceptable that he remains 'untouchable' by the laws of the land.

- Silence eventually becomes betrayal. I consider it a betrayal that nothing has been done to repair the badly broken system of elections or to prosecute those responsible for corrupting it. Strutting, smirking Neocons call 9-11 off bounds for investigations and Democrats bow to their wishes hoping they'll be seen as true patriots for their lack of effort. It's a betrayal when Democrats who speak out are shunned by the party leadership and left unsupported while they become targets of the well-paid talking heads on the Right. But supplicating Dems are NOT seen as patriots by those who control the political agenda with smears and intimidation. They're being used and laughed at for their gullibility and caving in at being called 'unpatriotic'.

- There is no middle ground when so much is at stake. Time and again we've seen honorable Dems like Byrd and Kennedy speak the truth about the Bush* regime...only to be made to look like lone voices in the wilderness by a party that won't publicly back them up with words and deeds. The party will indeed hit that iceberg if we don't start defending traditional Democratic principles and the brave Dems who speak out against those who have tried to set our course FOR us.

- The 'centrists' are killing off the Democratic party and watering down our resolve with compromise and 'date rape' bipartisanship. Take a stand and do what's right for the party and America.

[Classical_Liberal]

1. The Corporate"Centrist" are fucking afraid of Howard Dean

and are running hard. Things are definately turning around and I feel bad for you that you don't recognize it.

Please read



The actor Ossie Davis has spoken about the concept of “ooftah”, which he defines as a black person who embarrassingly grins and shuffles in order to ingratiate himself to white people. For a long time, the Democratic Party has suffered from a similar form of self-contempt, constantly genuflecting towards the conservative political machine in the name of bipartisanship. It has been truly nauseating to witness ooftah as practiced by the elected representatives of rank and file Democrats.

Thus far, Howard Dean has shown himself to be oofta-intolerant. Most notably, he has broken the taboo against calling Bush incompetent and corrupt. He has been scathing in his attacks on both the Republicans who are screwing the American people and the Democrats who are their passive accomplices. Not only has he vowed to send Bush back to Texas, he has promised to replace the gerbils on the Democratic National Committee with piranhas.

As a result, he has incurred the wrath of the defenders of the status quo. The mainstream media has lambasted Dean, who has a moderately left of center record, for being an “extremist”. The nation’s buffoonish pundits and talk radio lemmings have echoed the chant that he is a dangerous fringe candidate. Dean has also been ceaselessly bashed by the reactionary Democratic Leadership Council, which is attempting to rescue the faltering candidacy of Bush-wannabe Joseph Lieberman.

Meanwhile, sneering Republicans are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of facing Dean. They haven’t been this excited about running against a Democrat since 1992, when they were drooling over the inevitability of crushing an unelectable hillbilly with a zipper problem.

Howard Dean has reached an essential benchmark on the way to becoming a truly great President of the United States - he is despised by all the right people. This fact should be exploding like a roman candle in front of discouraged liberals who have been waiting for a true leader to arrive: Dean is hated by the same folks who hate you. He is anathema to those in both parties who believe that the American military exists to conquer defenseless countries and steal their wealth on behalf of multi-national corporations. He is loathed by those in both parties who think that it is class warfare to govern for the benefit of the average taxpayer. He is Public Enemy Number One of the dregs of political high society.

The Democratic establishment is especially contemptuous. >From the perspective of the party Brahmins, Dean is “too far to the left” (Lieberman), “not sufficiently progressive” (John Kerry), “an anachronism” (Evan Bayh), and “a neophyte” (Joe Biden). According to these insiders who spend their time yielding to Bush, uppity Howard Dean is too liberal and too conservative and too old and too new.

This guy must be gooooooood!

<snip>

http://makethemaccountable.com/podvin/more/030825_AReasonForHope.htm

[whirlygigspin]

2. One more time

The pigs at the trough don't want any outsiders
disrupting their supply. (Dean)

If they can get you to go for their monkeyshine (Clark)
They'll snort in delight. Oink Oink.

It's so predictable, it's pathetic.

[Starpass]

30. Find out what's in Howard's papers because the repukes already know

and then see which pig has put some lipstick on and is trying his smoke and mirrors on his minions?????

[NewYorkerfromMass]

32. Nothing but heads in the sand here Starpass

move along.

[Starpass]

33. A little note

The guy on C-span this a.m., Green from the Atlantic who has spent months looking over and documenting Clark reports that as he talks to republican strategists, pollsters, etc. that two to one they are scared to death of Clark. While they feel Dean will be very easy to "destroy".

[Classical_Liberal]

34. That is only because Clark is an unknown quantity

I still don't see the neocons popping a head gasket over Clark. Infact the New Republic and Newsweek are the places where he polls well.

[Classical_Liberal]

35. Why don't you enlighten us?

?
If there were something the mediawhores would have jumped on it. They were also licking their chops over Clinton.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. Corporate Centrist perfectly describes Howard Dean

and "not sufficiently progressive" says John Kerry and that falls on plenty of deaf ears here. :shrug:

[Classical_Liberal]

13. this will never be proven since they can't both be President

at the same time, but I think the guy that owes the corporations less money is probably going to get alot more accomplished as Pres, and make progressives much happier than a guy that owes them mostly all their campaign cash.

I am actually looking forward to Dean's Presidency, and will vote for him rather than for the lessor of two evils. I can't say that about any other candidate I have ever worked for. I can't say that about Kerry.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

20. Just noting Dean's way of dealing with the corporations.

that's all. Just looking at the records.

[Classical_Liberal]

22. His past campaigns weren't grass roots like this one

I'll give you that. Also Kerry record both in the past and present is procorporate. I believe Dean is truly making a break from Al From and it is paying for him and he will repay the favor to his supporters who aren't corporate. I think wafflers like Kerry are wafflers because of who funds their campaigns. I think Dean is breaking the mold in a way that will be good for the future of Democrats, adn will make them much more effective at getting their agenda acomplished in the future.

[KaraokeKarlton]

23. Dean isn't a corporate centrist

Listen, just because someone understands that you have to find a balance in working with business because that's what's best for the people you serve doesn't mean you are "corporate". If anything, Dean is a real champion for small businesses. He really wants to promote small business and do a lot to help them. During his time in Vermont he got along well with the businesses here, that's true. But it's not because he favors coporation over the people. The bottom line is that people NEED business for jobs and products we use. You can't just NOT work with them. And you can't view them and treat them as the enemy. What you need to do is demand that they do the right things and support them when they do. And if a business tries to do the right things there is no reason why they should be treated with contempt, because in the end, we all need each other. It's not rocket science, it's common sense. Dean isn't now, never has been and never will be "owned" by big business. He won't be owned by anyone other than the people he serves. That's always been his way. He has very good political ethics and cares a great deal about people. Yes, he will make some choices you probably won't like much, but he won't make any choices to do favors for big business. He will make choices because he truly believes it's what's best for you and me.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

25. So why did Ben Cohen (Ben & Jerry's) endorse Kucinich?

What does Ben know about Howard that we don't know?

[Classical_Liberal]

29. Why didn't they endorse Kerry?

I don't know why they endorced Kucinich. I don't really care quite frankly.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

31. No inquiring minds here.... end of discussion.

[CWebster]

3. Q, you more than anyone know that we are fighting for the party

as well as fighting the Bush cabal.

Great post. A classic.

[Q]

5. I'm very proud of some Democrats...

...those who haven't forgotten the past and forsaken our future for political expediency.

- I'm waiting for Democrats to get pissed...not just as individuals...but as a party united against those who want us to forget the lessons of the past.

- I'm not demanding 'purity'...as some centrists would charge. The simple truth is that we've conceded so many political battles against the Neocons because we've lost our resolve to do what's right instead of politically expedient.

- The Bushies aren't going anywhere...even if a Dem wins the WH in 2004...so let's take a stand against them and refuse to concede any more ground.

[OneBlueSky]

4. well said, Q . . .

what the Dems don't realize -- or realize and aren't admitting, at least publicly -- is that EVERYTHING has to change, and drastically, if this nation is to survive even the next decade . . . elections, energy policy, corporate governance, the role of the U.S. in the world, tax policy, infrastructure, health care, everything . . . because the road we're on now is leading to disaster, the only question being how long we can postpone the inevitable . . . simply put, the U.S. MUST start living up to its ideals, in reality as well as in word, or we will surely become a second-rate power or die trying to prevent that from happening . . .

the only candidate who comes close to telling it how it REALLY is is Dennis Kucinich, who unfortunately has no chance of winning either the nomination or the election . . . but until Democrats start listening to him and those like him and adopting their outlook on how things are and how they should be, it won't really matter much whether a Democrat is elected or not . . . the macro policies will remain the same, and all we can hope for is a little less ham-fistedness in how those policies are implemented . . . it's a shame, but it's how things are . . . and I fear that it will take a whole series of economic, environmental, and/or diplomatic and military disasters before the American people will wake up and say "This is NOT how it's s'posed to be!" . . . I also fear that by then it will be too late to do much of anything to turn things around . . .

[Lexingtonian]

6. Oh, c'mon

This is a p.o.v. that is a naive form of defeatism.

Look, there is a transition going on. The last time Democrats as a Party held real power was in 1994. The last time Democrats had a majority of the People fully with them was around 1965.

The Republicans are right in pointing at there being a half generation or a full one of Democrats who have never had the experience of the complete power of the country with them. These Democrats rode the tiger of pre-Boomer reactionarydom and conservative (if passively so) majorities during the '70s, '80s, and '90s who let the corporations snatch most of the power away from them. And so the Democratic Party leadership consists of a few very old Old Democrats who know full power but don't have the relevant understanding of the present society, and mostly younger ones whose knowledge is the other way around.

You can't honestly expect the present Democratic leadership to get their indirect lever on full power, which is to a large degree at stake in the 2004 election, placed right on the first stab. The learning/understandings of the problems of that amount of power, needs, and where the society as a whole really is just don't get grasped and solved by the lot of them in the right way at the first few stabs they take at stepping up to the whole of the thing. Allow them a learning curve- they're faster individually than you imagine, but as a group generally slower than expected. But powerfully thorough, unyielding, once they arrive en masse- though they seem to come too late for most of us most of the time.

You think it's all pretty simple and that you've got the right answer. Well, it is when you only represent yourself and understand only your own situation. The uppermost tiers of the Party, the ones that have to function properly and with some efficiency, are probably a thousand people. They all have to be gotten on the same page, gotten to agree to a shared reality and one that plausibly and functionally works for their constituents, and then they have to be put to work- and there is a lot of work to be done to get a majority of the People to agree with the Party's proposals and insights.

People are probably doing internally what they can to fix things. But the Party is presently full of the people who feel real power in the wire at the moment like cattle do an electric fence rather than a safely insulatable thing which harnesses a waterfall into lighting the city on the hill. It's disorienting to realize the level of might and responsibility, even if the people who've toyed with it have abused it and always been delusional about it and its uses. In short, things inside the Party are never as bad as you imagine, and they are never as good either.

The bottom line on '04/'06/'08 is that the present conservative movement is in decline and will slip out of contention for domination of the public arena for demographic reasons. Democratic leaders thought the time had come in 2002, but the base and independents didn't show up with any enthusiasm to change things. So they're wary, unhappy at all the fair weather Democratic base behavior. Now they're wary at all the dark-of-the-night and savior-centered foolishness a la "we're a totally new kind of campaign- all white middle class people!". We don't think they're coping properly, they don't think we're coping properly either.

Let's just hope for a convergence of the leaders and the base at the right answers and behaviors by early next year.

[Q]

7. The (neo) conservative movement is obviously not in decline...

...and has only just begun with the 'Republican Revolution'. The 'power' they enjoy no longer comes with the consent of the people...but from the subversion of the Constitution and Democracy.

- What you don't seem to 'get' is that Bush* has a solid voting base willing to keep him in office despite lies and wars and deception. They will vote for him because they hate what WE represent.

- The 'base' didn't 'show up' in 2002 because the party has left them behind in their rush to find 'new' voters.

- I 'fully expect' the party and leadership to 'get behind' the Constitution and the truth. I fully expect them to do what's right for the American people before considering their own careers.

[Classical_Liberal]

8. The neocons are obviously in decline

or how do explain the fact that 47% of the American people think Bush mislead them about Iraq! How do explain Bush going to UN, and appealing to France for help?

[Q]

10. Don't allow polls to mislead you...

...into believing the neocons are in 'decline'. They've only just started to consolidate their power and the worse thing we could do is listen to THEIR media in charting our course.

- I can't explain polls...but neither can I explain why the media backed Bush* before, during and after the 2000 election despite the whole world being aware of the widespread cheating and deception.

- But I know that the Bushies have no intention of simply and fairly 'losing' the next election and quietly giving up their power. And I know that too many Democrats have allowed Bush* to obtain more and more (illegal) power without much resistance. I realize that there are millions of Americans that will go to the polls in 2004 and vote for GWB* because they WILL NOT vote Democratic.

- I'm simply shocked that so many Dems have been fooled into believing that all the party has to do is sit on their ass and watch Bush* destroy himself. This is not going to happen. Every time Dems concede another battle and more political ground to the Bushies...they lose credibility and the faith of the base.

[Classical_Liberal]

11. I'm not listening to their media

or sitting on my hands. I surely doubt their media is thrilled their flunky is now withering away in the polls. Maybe he is sinking in the polls because Americans are finally getting what a bunch of liars they are. Anyway, your inablity to aknowledge good things happening isn't going to motivate people to stop sitting on their hands to do whatever you want them to, which is a complete mystery to me, since you never specify what not sitting on our hands constitutes in your eyes.

[Q]

12. You may not be sitting on your hands...

...but many in leadership positions are doing just that. They're silent on many important issues like the 2000 election fraud and 9-11 because they're afraid to take a stand. This isn't a conspiracy theory...they've relinquished their responsibilities to the people and given up their Constitutional powers to Bush*...who has become a virtual dictator.

- The Bush* regime is much more powerful than many Dems seem to realize. They've not only subverted the Constitution and the free press...they've made Dems irrelevant to the process of government. In fact...the Bushies are in a perfect position to win in the next election...especially if the Dems don't take a stand and fight him face to face.

[Classical_Liberal]

15. In article I posted Dean said he was going to replace the gerbils

at the DNC with Paranhas!

[Q]

16. Help me out here...

...why are so many of you willing to stand by and watch the Dem party be subserviant to the Bush* junta? Why is there no organized effort to investigate their blatant crimes and institutionalized corruption?

- I'll stop my shit stirring, bitching and moaning if anyone can give me a reasonable explanation as to why we're not fighting the Bushies instead of appeasing them.

[Classical_Liberal]

18. I am not willing to stand by and watch the democratic

party be subservient to Bush. I want the pukes investigated.

[Resistance Is Futile]

76. Point of no return

The point of no return has already been passed. The right wing agenda has so completely seized public debate that anyone who questions big picture issues will be dismissed as a crank. It doesn't matter if the questions are asked by individuals or by organized groups--the public simply does not want to hear anything which does not agree with the pre-programmed world views that the right wing have created.

[Mairead]

24. There's a significant difference between 'decline' and 'setback'

If you think that the creeps are going to give up, you're kidding yourself. They're never going to give up. Which is why, as Q says, we need to not merely slow the rate at which we approach The Pit, not merely aim for a different spot to go over, but CHANGE COURSE COMPLETELY and DO IT NOW. Because there's going to come a point--and in fact I think we're on the threshold now--where we aren't going to be able to fix things without a real civil war. Only it won't be like the first one here, it'll be like South Africa: the disorganised, disarmed, impoverished many against the elite few.

Personally, I don't want to experience any more Apartheid than we already do. Which is why I'm voting for Kucinich. Dean isn't going to cut it, Kerry isn't, Edwards isn't...regardless of what they say, their records show they support the status quo: pumping money and power upward. Anything that doesn't reverse the direction in which money and power move is frosting, not cake. Even Kucinich is only barely better, but perhaps he offers enough. In any event, he and perhaps Sharpton are our only hopes of real change. Unless we elect one of them, and the congresscritters to enact their policies, we will continue moving toward The Pit.

I'd love to believe there are enough people who are smart enough and perceptive enough to realise what needs to be done, but even here at DU too many people seem to think this is all some sitcom.

[Classical_Liberal]

26. I am an optimist and think that the trend will continue

particularly if the Dean momentum keeps up. Dean is no neocon, and doesn't just slow the progress. He reverses it. He has said he will replace the DNC management that has facilitated Bush, and counciled other Dems to facilitate Bush. He's earned more money that God, all from the grass roots, and has more grass roots activist than Kucinich. He is a winner simply because he is a winner. The neocons are so scared of Dean they write hundreds of columns a week on how horrifying he is. The "new republic"an even did a cover of him as Hitler. They bearly mention Kucinich.

[GreenArrow]

64. "The neocons are so scared of Dean

they write hundreds of columns a week on how horrifying he is. The "new republic"an even did a cover of him as Hitler. They bearly mention Kucinich."

You might consider that the reason they don't mention Kucinich is because his ideas are more threatening. They understand that Dean is not really proposing any real change in direction.

[Mairead]

69. Then you must be secretly voting for someone else, because

Dean isn't going to reverse anything. Look at his record, look what he promises.

- He's not going to cut that godawful, insanely bloated, INEFFECTIVE military-industrial budget. He's already said that.

- He's not going to stop that vicious, ineffective, drugs war or the prison-industrial complex it feeds. He's already as much as said that.

- He's not going to take the hands of the corporate elites out of our pockets on healthcare--instead he's going to give them dibs on another $85G or so per year!--and even that is going to still leave 10M people without healthcare. He's already said that.

So why should we believe what you say he's going to do rather than what he says he's going to do?

[BeFree]

14. Good Rant, Q!

All you are missing is the fact that the sheeple are being led astray by the lie of promised security.

It's the sheeple who have allowed those squatters into our White House! The Dems who spoke out the loudest have all been rejected by the sheeple. And, as you say, by fellow Dems.

What we face is a massive re-education campaign. A campaign which simply points out the Radical turn our country has taken since 2001.

[Classical_Liberal]

17. The People are wising up

and now we are three points away from a majority believing Bush mislead them into the Iraq war. That is much better than 2 months ago when only 20% believed it.

[BeFree]

27. And the Dems are looking like reasonable folks

I'll be happy when the numbers reach 75% vs. 25%. A complete reversal from 9/12. Only then can we know we stand a chance of saving our country.

Methinks the Dems are showing a bit more confidence each day as the wolf in sheep's clothing becomes more evident to the flock, and trust in the sheperd diminishes.

[Q]

21. Agreed...but we also need leadership playing the role of educators...

...to spread the message that we DON'T have to accept what we're being fed on a daily basis.

- The Bushies love the fact that instead of fighting THEM...we're fighting each other over whether we should appeal to the base or 'swing' voters who may or may not vote Democratic. We're playing catchup while the Bushies are busy buying support and consolidating power.

- The Dems should be fighting and challenging Bush* at every turn...exposing his lies and deceit (like Kennedy) instead of enabling him to do even more damage.

[ShaneGR]

19. Way to not pay attention to the last six months

Democrats jumping up and down screaming about Bush. Every single of the nine (except maybe Lieberman) have been doing just that. Every day.

Democrats in the Senate blocking the overtime benefit cut Bush wanted so badly.

Democrats in both houses of congress calling for investigations.

Democrats in the House almost getting arrested for daring (GASP) to defy a committee chair and meet in a separate room.

Democrats on the TV bashing away at Bush EVERY DAY.

[Q]

28. That's all very 'nice'...but you've left out some very important issues...

...that happen to be relevant to the survival of a Democracy.

[ShaneGR]

37. blah, blah, blah

Survival of the Democratic Party? Earth to Q, the Democratic Party isn't going anywhere.

[Cocoa]

36. incoherent as usual, Q

It's not clear exactly what you're asking for, but maybe that's the whole point. If your demands were concrete, there would be the danger that the dems might actually meet them.

[Mairead]

38. Perhaps you should read for comprehension rather than ammunition?

I understood Q's points perfectly.

[Cocoa]

48. "understand" is the wrong word

for propaganda.

[el_gato]

67. Q is right on

you just don't like it

[Dhalgren]

39. Here's a question for you.

Can you list the Democrats in congress who have come out publically and said that they would not vote for the $87 bil. increase for the Emperor's bloody crusade? How many elected Democratic officials have come out and said that Bush is a liar? That he is a cheat? that he is robbing this country blind, and is no better than a pirate and rapist? The Democratic party has come to the gun fight with a knife. The neo-facists have brought RPGs. If the Democratic party does not say that Bush lies, cheats, steals, defrauds, is incompetant, is mentally unstable - then why doesn't it? It either does not believe these things (in which case it is irrelevant) or it is afraid to admitt to the beliefs (in which case it is a facilitator for the neo-facists). This country is headed for civil war, and it will be horrible. Something has to be done now, or it will be too late. The Democratic party must present the country with a new direction and a viable alternative to the status quo.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

40. Kerry was the first one who said he wouldn't approve the 87 bill.

and I see where Kennedy is calling Bush a liar, but the rest of your requests are a little over the top- no one would say those things publicly. And if we go off in too new of a direction, the country will go the other way, without us.

[Dhalgren]

41. And that's the point.

We "know" the "country" won't follow a program and agenda that is in its best interests? We "know" what the "country" wants? It wants facism? It wants world dominion? It wants the poor ground into the dust? It wants the rich to rule? It wants to kill Muslims and other non-whites because we can or they have something we want?
Is Bush a cheat? If so, why not say it publically? Because "people" don't want to hear it? So Bush is honest?
Is Bush incompetant? Can't say it publically, so he must be competant.
Is Bush a thief? Can't say it publically, so he must be looking out for the country's best interests.
If we are afraid to tell the truth, because of the "people's" reaction, then we are simply the facists' facilitators.

[Classical_Liberal]

42. They are calling him liar and that just proves they are not

calling him liar!

[Dhalgren]

47. You in no way

have responded to my post. For you, obviously, the Emperior is wearing mighty nice clothes.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

50. I am totally lost in the sarcasm etc....

just tell it like it is.

[Cocoa]

44. the demands keep shifting

Listening to Q and others has led me to believe that the demands aren't sincere, that they are actually betting against the dems, that if the dems actually do the things they are demanding that it will be seen as a defeat.

There's plenty of evidence of the dems fighting Bush hard, if you ignore it all you're being dishonest.

[Bertrand]

43. The "Centrists" are NOT killing off the party

The Party was dying because its propaganda machine was weak in comparison to the republican one. Because Politics are being defined by conservative terms, the "Centrists" are the ones recognizing for the liberal message to resonate it needs to adapt.

You want to destroy the Centrist message, organize a grassroots movement to educate people. Nobody should be Loyal to any party, but to your ideas and how to best impliment them. Make the Centrists Adapt to liberal ideology because it's in their best interest to do so politically, because that is what defines "the middle"

[Mairead]

70. "the liberal message needs to adapt"

What, you mean stop being liberal? That's the only kind of 'adapt' they're pushing. 'Take care of the corporations!' 'Support the President!' 'Eff the poor!'

[RichM]

45. Totally right. Most (not all) of the Dem Party is putrid. One can smell it

here on DU every day.

The most accurate descriptive phrase I've heard for this is "the stinking corpse of American liberalism." Most of those considering themselves to be "Democrats" today are politically disoriented. They have nothing that could be called an "analysis" of the ongoing crisis. They take the US political system at face value, accepting, for example, the absurd oversimplification that "Dem = Good, Repub = Evil." (The corporate oligarchy is the real "evil;" it controls most of the Democratic Party & all of the Repub Party).

Like typical products of American consumer culture, most Democrats see the political process mainly in terms of superficial fluff like personalities, and the marketability of different personalities. The focus is mainly on the "sales prospects" of candidate X, not on a clear set of principles.

Every day on DU, there are posts exhibiting strains of nationalism, acceptance (or outright support) of militarism, and easy tolerance of various elements of rightwing ideology. There are slams here against progressives that would not be out of place in the pages of the National Review. Most people here are very quick to make excuses for the cowardice of Democrats. Not ALL Democrats are contemptible cowards, but most certainly are -- and only a minority here is willing to admit it. The function of the Dem Party loyalists is essentially (if unintentionally) helpful to the rightwing, as they urge "pragmatism," block awareness of how sick the party really is, & deny its complicity with the rightwing.

The fact that the Clintons are still regarded as heroes by most on DU is one area where the lack of honest analysis on the part of most Democrats really shines through. The whole Clark phenomenon is another. The idea that the Democrats may well nominate a military figure in a desperate effort to convince the public that "Hey, we're big and tough, too!!" speaks volumes. No matter that this guy has publicly said that he "likes" Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rummy et al. No matter that he voted for Reagan & Nixon. No matter that he is PART of the military-industrial complex, let alone being a critic of it! Hey, no problem -- maybe the guy can win, so we'll accept him with open arms!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

46. step back Rich. It's not the Democratic Party

it's the country itself.

[RichM]

54. Oh yes, I entirely agree, 100%. Didn't mean to imply otherwise.

On Edit:

There is, though, the aspect that the Democrats are "supposed" to be the party of opposition. When blame is apportioned, one kind of criticism goes to the clear & obvious enemy; another goes to the party that was supposed to defend against that enemy, yet utterly failed to.

[Mairead]

63. I'd disagree--if it were the country, there'd be no need for

the relentless propaganda. They could do a Hitler: 'the filthy liberals have stabbed us in the back! Smash them! Kill them! Kristallnacht!'

There are a few serious wackjobs -honest-to-no-shite psychopaths like Coulter- trying it on, but that's all. They're working on it, but they're not to the point yet where most people are too cowed to do anything. They haven't turned us into 1930s Germany yet. Not quite. But Goddess help us if we don't turn things around this time. They'll all come out from under their rocks, and it really will be 'Die Fahne Hoch!' all over again but without the subtitles.

[Shanty Oilish]

49. Actually there is a middle ground

But it's like the middle ground between male and female. You don't want to be there. Lieberman is a middle ground monster.
We have to be advocates of liberalism, not just liberals. Make liberalism appealing to the center. Making the opposition unappealing, well, Bush is doing a great job of that already.

[gully]

51. Oh gawd Q, not another plea to purge centrists from the Democratic Party?!

:puke:

"The Democratic Party is America's last, best hope to bridge the divisions of class, race, region, religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation. We will succeed if we continue to govern by the same principles that have made America the greatest nation on earth — the principles of strength, inclusion and opportunity. The Democratic Party is ready to take advantage of the opportunities we have and meet the challenges we face."

http://www.democrats.org/about/history.html

[Terwilliger]

57. inclusion?

except the left, you mean

Q doesn't want to purge centrists, but if the party wants to court centrists at the expense of the so-called "fringe"...more power to them! We'll see how that strategy works out.

[gully]

59. Nope not except the left...

nice try. The left is 'included' in the 'inclusion' process... ;-)

[Terwilliger]

62. Oh? I don't think so

When you sacrifice left values in order to appeal to (appease) those centrists, you are kicking out the left (or ignoring the fact that you're sacrificing what they believe because you think you have their vote locked up)

Proceed at your own peril.

[gully]

72. I dont' think were sacrificing values...

that's where we disagree. I thought Gore was an excellent choice for President, you didn't. We disagreed then also. I don't expect we'll agree on this. :shrug:

[IrateCitizen]

52. I thought it was the "progressives" who were killing the party, Q???

Now you're saying it's the "centrists"? Would you please make up your mind! :eyes:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

53. Well, I'm fairly certain that when they are done with each other

and the conservative dems stand midst the bloodied bodies, there will be a thoroughly dead party. :)

[Q]

60. Contrary to what some of you may believe...

...I want the Democrats to win...to take back the WH, congress and senate. But it seems a few of you haven't been paying very close attention to what's been going on for at least the last two decades.

- The RWingers not only want us out of power...they won't allow us to wield that power when we ARE in office. They didn't accuse Clinton of every crime and sin under the sun and impeach him because they thought he was a criminal or evil. Their motivation was to keep their hobnail boot on the neck of Clinton and Democrats so they couldn't advance their agenda.

- Gore wasn't smeared and called a pathological liar because they didn't like him. He was attacked and character assassinated because they knew damn well he was going to win in 2000...only to set them back four more years away from their 'revolution'.

- It should be clear by now that RWingers not only intend to win by any means necessary...they will try to destroy anyone that gets in their way using the media they gradually purchased over the last 20 years.

- The bottom line is that RWingers are fighting what they consider a 'revolution' and Dems seem to be competing in just another election. We're debating who can 'win' while they're using dirty tricks and manipulating elections to make sure we CAN'T win. We're participating in democracy and they don't give a shit about such concepts.

[gully]

61. Good point

"The bottom line is that RWingers are fighting what they consider a 'revolution' and Dems seem to be competing in just another election. We're debating who can 'win' while they're using dirty tricks and manipulating elections to make sure we CAN'T win. We're participating in democracy and they don't give a shit about such concepts."

Q, that's an EXCELLENT point. The problem with us liberals though is we don't all think alike. The sheep do.

But, I suggest we pose a solution to these issues. What do you think can and should be done?

[Terwilliger]

55. Terry McAuliffe is at the helm...

doesnt matter who's driving

[Cocoa]

56. if McAuliffe is at the helm

doesn't that mean that he's driving?

[Terwilliger]

58. never seen a ship in action before?

Captains dont drive...they tell others to drive

[Sideways]

65. Cocoa Could You Try Just A Bit Harder To Be More Obtuse?

On second thought I think that might be out of your ken.

[Terwilliger]

66. its just me, Mary

they figure I'm just a rancorous twit so they throw asinine retorts my way

[Cocoa]

68. I was just teasing

I think mixed metaphors are funny, so if I point them out I'm doing it affectionately. That's why I like Will Pitt, he mixes metaphors like a banshee. :-)

[Forkboy]

71. I dont know about twit

but you are rancorous :evilgrin:

[VolcanoJen]

73. I think Craig Kilborn said it best:

"With his military experience, polished speaking skills and rugged good looks, Wesley Clark may alienate the Democrats' core constituency: people who like losing elections."

I'm increasingly dismayed at the willingness of Democrats on this board to use quotes by notorious right-wing smear kings like Safire, Novak and Drudge in an effort to elevate their own candidate. I fondly remember the days when we were, at the least, united in our disgust at these winger smear-job experts.

Look, I'm not convinced that Clark is the only guy who can beat Bush, but I'm more and more convinced that this is our election to lose at this point, and with our increasingly negative attitude around here, I feel that "Captain of the Titanic" is an able summary of what we're doing to each other around these parts.

[Solomon]

74. Oh Great One. (bowing solemnly)

You see things as I do. Democrats are scared to do what's necessary to take us in a different direction. And we do need a different direction.

We have got to learn to be civilized domestically, as well as internationally.

[Q]

75. It's too bad that the Dem leadership allows itself to be played...

...like a cheap violin. The RWingers yell 'jump' and the only question is how high. This is the kind of pavlovian response they've striven to establish for so long. Don't agree with their warmongering ways? You're not only unpatriotic...you're 'putting this country in danger' or 'helping the enemy'. Fascists love this shit.

- The bigger problem is that many Democrats have left the party while still calling themselves Democrats or 'centrists'. It's bad enough that they're compromising the party to death...but through their inaction and cooperation they're enabling and encouraging RWingers to continue with what they know works against Democrats: threats and dirty tricks.

- The Dems appeased the Bushies in 2000 and 2002 and the Dems lost ground. The centrists will tell you it was because we didn't compromise enough.