Steering the Democratic Primary Race

[liberalmike27]

The chatter is immense in the media of the possibility of Hillary Clinton dropping her name in the hat for the Democratic primary. Interestingly, Bill Clinton was the one who encouraged Wesley Clark to enter the race, which will hurt Howard Dean the most, once (hopefully still) a solid front-runner. Clark's stands on the issues are strikingly similar to Dean, possibly watering down his lead. Where does this leave us?

The field suitably evened, enter Hillary Clinton. Now I wouldn't have had too many reservations about Hillary, indeed I think she might be a good president, and is certainly likely more liberal than Bill Clinton, who has been called by Michael Moore, "The best Republican President we've ever had." Certainly Bill wasn't in a classic Democratic mold, he didn't do too much for working people, in fact passed NAFTA with his blessing or amendment, which has resulted in a steady stream of manufacturing jobs exiting the country. I can almost hear that tremendous "sucking sound" Ross Perot was so fond of touting to the pundits, as the jobs race for the bottom-wage and least environmentally controlled countries. I've even come to think lately that Clinton may well be more of a plant, a guy who some on the right encouraged to enter, knowing his many sexual encounters would keep him out of office, and even if he managed to get past the dropping of his sexual liaison's for the press like tasty entreating bread-crumbs on the temptation trail. They felt even if he somehow managed to get elected for a term, they could continue to drop new tidbits to the press, and they would surely defeat him the second time. Their anger showed the whole of the time he was in the office, by a steady press-diet of character assassination, and continues now as a cottage-industry from right-wing think-tank inspired and commissioned, Clinton attack books. Barnes and Nobles is full of them, if not about their "tragic" eight years in office, they have now switched their tone to the blame game, indeed the Clinton's have been accused of all that is wrong with the world, Usama, Saddam, and a number of other crimes I'm sure, that have happened on Bush's watch. And let us not forget all of those "W's" they removed from the White House keyboards!

Sure, Clinton rode herd over an economy that was great, and would have been great with most other presidents too, as we are reaching peak spending years of baby-boomers, a huge generation spawned after and during World War Two. Only Bush's horrible fiscal policy decisions could have so abruptly stopped this boom, which should have lasted comfortably into the next decade, had he not attacked Iraq, and given an unheard of tax-cut to the very people who collected the most wealth during the nineties. Increasing the earned income tax credit might be the only thing he did do for the poorest in America, which you hear Republicans constantly deriding.

I'm sorry, but I can't stand the idea of a new administration run by the at-best centrist Clintons, and I hope you feel the same way. Putting a centrist-Democrat in office will only allow a further weakening of the ideas that made America great, the Democratic ideals that allow for people to make themselves wealthy, not those who continually attack the American lifestyle by moving jobs away to the third world, eventually achieving a rich/poor world, a two-tiered system of the haves and the have nots. We don't need the whole of the ideological spectrum, now sitting on the horizon between neo-conservative and full-bore Fascism pulled even further into what became Hitler's folly, by another centrist who continues an insane drug-war, keeps fostering and supporting unfettered trade agreements sending even more of our jobs to other countries with no collective bargaining, or environmental policy, further hurting working Americans.

So Hillary, keep still in the Senate, and bide your time. There may be a time in the future for you to enter, perhaps in 2012 after eight years of Howard Dean's leadership. Maybe Clark or Hillary Clinton will be chosen as Vice Presidential running-mates. But now, for the reasons above, Clark's entry into the race serves to steer the field, very obviously and purposefully toward an eventual entry by Hillary. Kerry (the media's previous Democratic hopeful) didn't suffice, as his close association both Bushs, who share his membership in the Skull and Crossbones soiled his credibility. Now the right wing mainstream are at the wheel steering the Democratic Primary Race, being dissatisfied with Howard Dean, perhaps because of the much published reason, their claim of his supposed liberalism causing what they think will be a sure loss, but more likely the true reason being because they fear Dean the most, as he gives a clear difference for Americans from the evil-cabal currently holding the reigns of power, and he has the best chance of getting elected.

Clearly the Billionaires and Millionaires have the wealth to steer the race and install any candidate they like to the Democrat or Republican side. Is it happening? No one can be entirely sure, but certainly one can make a good case. Today I am hearing of "liberal" playing cards, which Bill and Hillary are in, and they aren't even liberals. It is all part of what has been going on solidly for two to three decades now, the conditioning of the American mind to move the whole of the ideological spectrum to the right, and to some extent they have succeeded. The media is entirely conservative, particularly the cable news programs, and something like eight right-wing think tanks, some with fully functional television studios staffed with talking heads and freely available to news programs, purposed to span all media, espousing and pushing their ideas. All of this while their own pundits on the same media constantly label the media as liberal, a ridiculous accusation.

Some of us just know, and some, like Neo in The Matrix just have the feeling that something isn't right, something's amiss. Trust your feeling, stay with the candidate you had, particularly if you supported Dean. The powers are doing their damnedest to move your mind away from your choice, and onto someone else who has established themselves in this country as a friend to corporations, big-business, and wealth. Buying new politicians is so costly, and there is always the chance that a guy like Dean won't be bought. It happened with four-term president Franklin Delano Roosevelt to some extent, and he became so beloved to Americans that you couldn't have wedged him out with a crowbar, and much great legislation was enacted to bring a halt to the depression, which was caused by several factors, one of them just as now, the unprecedented concentration of wealth into the hands of the few and a continuing watering-down of spending power. There were plenty of products and food in the depression, they just didn't have the money to buy it. We are in danger of going there again. Don't allow this to happen, don't be manipulated into jumping to Hillary, not a bad woman, but not the best we have right now in the race to run our great country.

Many problems we have today are the result of deregulation of his policies in the past few decades. The power blackout? Bush one's deregulation in 1991, just before leaving office. Media becoming right wing? Reagan's destruction of the Fairness Doctrine, which required that any media provide not just one opinion, but both. The recent financial, banking, and stock debacle? Deregulation over the last couple of decades allowed this to happen. Promotion of the bad policy of Deregulation? Result of a "deregulated" media, that doesn't have to be fair. There are more, but suffice it to say, some things need regulation, and right now people are regulated, and corporations get away with murder.

Stay true to your choice, and I think we'll all be better off. I was worried about the flight of Dean supporters to either Clark, or Hillary if she enters the race. But listening to C-Span, I think I underestimated Team-Dean, many callers expressing the same sentiment I've laid out here. Team-Dean works from feeling, and we aren't so easily manipulated by those who want to drive our opinions, who want to choose for us the candidate for the Democratic side of the race. We have a lot invested in our guy, and we know he has an apparatus set up that is second to none. One republican is enough, thank-you! We don't need a Democrat in name only (DINO) who will forget our concerns in America the minute he gets in office.

Howard Dean
2004

[wtmusic]

1. Let the chips fall where they may

Everyone will be heard. Lots of talent in the field; if Hillary enters now a lot of debate has already taken place and she will be playing catch-up.

May the best candidate win!

[jiacinto]

2. I disagree with Moore's asssessment of Clinton

But I am not in favor of Senator Clinton entering the race either. First of all, if she were to enter, there is probably 45% of the electorate that will not vote for her under any circumstances. She has very high negatives. Thus she is polarizing and would galvanize the right against her. She would win all the blue states but fair poorly in the red part of the map.

[blm]

3. HAHAHA...Dean is more of a centrist than Clinton.

Man, do you have your blinders on, or what?

He takes the federalist approach to controversial matters and aligned himself with the GOP in Vermont while scorning progressive Democrats.

You may buy his 8 month old conversion to populism, but, many of us do NOT. Do some research on excactly who you are trying to pass off as a liberal.

>>>>>>
Dean kept his distance from his party's liberals during his governorship.

''He seemed to take glee in attacking us at every opportunity and using us as a way to form alliances with more conservative elements,'' said former state Sen. Cheryl Rivers, a leader of the state Democrats' liberal wing and former chairwoman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee.

. . .

Dean trimmed spending or held down increases in areas held dear by the liberals. More than once, Dean went to battle over whether individual welfare benefits should rise under automatic cost of living adjustments. Liberals were particularly incensed when he tried that tactic on a program serving the blind, disabled and elderly, which he did several times.

. . .

Rivers blames Dean for helping a third political party to flourish in Vermont that many say siphons votes from Democrats. ''The Progressive Party gained some momentum during his years as governor because he was so conservative,'' Rivers said, although she said she still may support Dean for president.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/139/region/Those_who_know_Dean_says_he_s_:.shtml

[genius]

4. The Republican media wants Dean. So do the Republicans.

After all, who else could Bush beat in a debate?