Anyone remember "Rage Against the DNC" in 2000?

[lib 4 all]

If General Clark gets the nomination, the protests at the convention this time will dwarf those of 2000.

I for one will be there in my gas mask.

[lib 4 all]

1. Michael Moore's endorsement of General Clark is only further evidence

of the disintegration of the Democratic party.

[morgan2]

7. moore is endorsing clark

because he believes that we absolutely have to beat Bush. I don't think its a big secret that Clark is the safest bet in beating George Bush in 2004. People may dispute this, but I believe it and I think that is what Moore believes too. I don't share his support for Clark though. Some things are more important than winning.

[Printer70]

19. Moore is Green party; Clark nomination ignites Green party

...and, other than Lieberman, Clark is the only Dem nominee who will insult enough liberals for Nader to get 5% (to get matching funds). I for one will choose Nader over Clark's militarism and corporatism.

[lib 4 all]

23. Exactly. Clark stands for everything Moore has made a career of opposing

[NV1962]

31. "Moore is Green party" - whoa... Linky?

[lib 4 all]

32. Moore despises Democrats almost as much as he despises Republicans

He has said many times that there is little distinction between the two parties. Perhaps he is only trying to prove his assertions.

I think he may be trying to destroy the Democratic party to make way for the rise of the Green party. He was one of the original people urging Clark to get in the race.

[NV1962]

34. That's not backing your claim with facts, again: linky?

[lib 4 all]

39. Read one of his books.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060392452/qid=1073991103//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-9522311-3497444?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[NV1962]

41. Tad presumptuous of you to suggest I haven't read his books

Lousy dodge too, as pointing to some entry in a commercial bookstore still doesn't back your claim.

Linky?

You have all night to work on that - now I'm really off to bed.

Good luck, you'll need it to back your claim with more than hot air.

[lib 4 all]

43. I presume you haven't read his book cos if you had you'd know his position

[lib 4 all]

49. If Michael Moore gets his first wish of a Clark nomination,

then he will also get his second wish of masses of people like myself voting for the Green candidate instead.

[lib 4 all]

21. how is a retired General who has never been elected to a political office

the "safest bet" to bring out the party base?
That is how you win an election. With the party base. The Republican base will be out in full force for Bush and they won't be voting for the Democratic candidate no matter who he is. Period.

So what we are left with are a lot of Democrats who will not vote for a military state and violations against human rights laws in Kosovo and a Republican calling himself a Democrat that will stay home.

[WildClarySage]

44. Somehow, with the damage * could do with four more years

I'd have to disagree that there could be anything more important than winning.

[lib 4 all]

45. how about the damage Clark will do to our party?

and what makes you think that Clark is the only candidate or the best candidate to beat Bush?
That is a lie the corporate media has sold you. And it looks like you're buying.

[The Magistrate]

59. Do You Really Think, Fellow

All who disagree with you are mere dupes of cable television?

What a puppy-ish little presumption!

[greyl]

18. What solid evidence exists that he's endorsed Clark? nt

[HFishbine]

48. Moore endorsed Clark?

Gotta link?

[lib 4 all]

51. it is widely reported that Moore encouraged Clark getting in early on

[SeveneightyWhoa]

2. Awwwwwwww.

Poor widdle babies!

[pa28]

3. Clark / Dean 2004

[hellhathnofury]

4. I think you mean Dean/Clark 2004.

[Tweed]

5. No...

If you want to actually win, Dean shouldn't be on the ticket to begin with.

[hellhathnofury]

6. Pox.

[lib 4 all]

8. there are 7 other candidates running, you know...

[hellhathnofury]

9. That's a fact. Baring no relevance to his comment.

I'm Dean/Edwards btw.

[lib 4 all]

10. the relevance is that it doesn't need to be a Dean vs. Clark debate

[hellhathnofury]

11. We'll that's what DU has become.

I'm just floatin' down a river.

[pa28]

13. Just trying to prevent a nasty riot

If we had a DU hospitality room at the convention it could be the best party ever or an excursion into a bit of the old "ultra-violence". Not sure which.

[lib 4 all]

50. Well there will be one at the DNC convention if Clark gets the nomination

[NV1962]

12. Yep, I do: back then, Michael Moore embraced it, too

Now, he's hellbent on removing the squatter from 1600 Penn Ave.

People evolve and grow up. Sometimes it takes a shaking experience to see reality in a different light -- like many had on and after 9/11 -- while others, well, are born old and therefore lucky. The pre-9/11 world is ideologically about as far away in memory as the roaring 60s, except maybe for a few nostalgics.

Michael Moore makes no excuses for his change of stance, quite the contrary:

• There are enough Democrats running, this time around, who stand for most of the things that we stand for. We will not find ourselves having to choose between the "evil of two lessers" in the Democratic primaries. When we know more about each of them and the dust has settled, then we need to unite with each other to keep our eyes on the prize: Bush Removal in ‘04.

And I agree with his sentiment: time to take the country back to match the hearts and minds of the citizens. A sentiment quite similar to Howard Dean's consistent campaign slogan. Which is in tune with Wes Clark's call to restore truly American values to government.

Actually, I could go down the list of Democratic candidates, each having unique qualities and strong debate assets, to point out the same, unchanging direction: it's the government, stupid!

The greatest differences in opinion relate to nuances of direction, not to opposite courses. And the definitive direction will be settled in the next few months, in open debate. I'm not afraid of that debate, because I believe in Wes Clark's candidacy. And I look forward to more debate with others, carried by the strenght of their conviction. The result can't be but a champion challenger to oust Bush.

If at all, I'm afraid of debate on whether debate can be a debatable method or not; looking at the tepid apprehension over the MoveOn fracas, I am secure in my conviction that fear of fear is the electoral weapon of choice for the common opponent on November 2.

So tell me why should I fear "Rage Against the DNC" again...


Edited for clarity & tipyng orrers

[lib 4 all]

15. that just further proves that Moore has sold-out his values

to the "Military-Industrial Complex" that he once railed against.

[NV1962]

16. No, rather that some lone rangers apparently still are stuck in 2000

[lib 4 all]

17. it's not about the past, it's about the future of our party

You seem to want us Democrats to become just like the Republicans because that will "win elections".

That is exactly what Rage Against the DNC was all about, and it will be even more relevant this time if the nomination goes to Clark.

[NV1962]

24. No, as I said before: it's the government stupid!

Decisions, decisions...

1. You can either pursue what "Rage Against the DNC" was about: 2000
   
2. Or, you can pursue your candidate of choice and advocate his/her merits for our enlightenment.

Michael Moore lives in 2004.

Bush still lives in 2000 - check it out: in Afghanistan, opium production is back to the levels of that year. Plus, the Taliban are rising to power again.

If you're really interested in the future, pick your candidate and state your case; stop pursuing past specters long gone since.

After Kenny Lay, "Roger and Me" isn't that funny anymore.

[Printer70]

20. Principles are not easily compromised

Sorry- Moore has cashed out. The rest of us are still in this fight. Clark represents more militarism.

[NV1962]

29. Oh, success and wealth of a "lefty" is bad - is that it?

Do success and wealth really disqualify one for supporting a Democratic candidate?

Sounds remarkably like "nononononononono, not pure, not pure, not pure!" does it not?

For a wealthy successful guy, Michael Moore surely got your number right - without knowing you even!

Not bad.

And yes, I'll gladly accept George Soros' help, too.

It's the 2004 way: happy new year!

[lib 4 all]

30. yes, Soros the convicted corporate crook will help clean up corp fraud too

:eyes:

[NV1962]

33. Non sequitur

He "merely" provides cash to help counter $200m of a certain judicial appointee looking to becom "re-elected"

Don't like? Prove the alternative excellence, and build a better mouse trap.

Try persuasion, instead of repetition.

(Tip: Stalin's marketing model is unfashionable in 2004.)

[lib 4 all]

36. We need to be a party of high ideals, not sink to Republican lows

of corruption, fear-mongering, and militarism. That is if we want voters to have faith in us as a party. That is if we want to remain relevant. That is if we want to win the election.

By the way, are all Clark supporters red-baiters, or just you?

[NV1962]

40. Not sinking to "Republican lows" implies not mimicking Rovian smears - no?

(By the way, are all Clark-baiters faux reds, or just you?)

Yawn

Time for bed, even the two of you can't keep me awake.

Niters

[lib 4 all]

42. why are you accusing me of being a communist? I have never given reason

to think that.

[jonnyblitz]

47. woa, faux reds? I didn't realize red baiting was a trait of "liberals"

are all Clark supporters hostile to the left?!?!

[lib 4 all]

52. it seems that is the basis of their support - no faith in established Dems

The are reacting against the left, thinking traditional Democrats are "weak on defense".

I've even been labeled a "pacifist" by one!

[The Magistrate]

61. High Ideals, Fellow?

In political life, these are common ingredients in lunch meat.

People are not moved much by high ideals: they are moved by basic urges toward group identity, by fear and love, and the gratification of desire. These are the things any successful political effort must manipulate toward its own ends.

The most certain guarantee of political failure is to posture towards the people that your sentiments are higher and purer than theirs. People know humans are low things, and will know that any such pretence is a fraud, and despise you accordingly, for all you will have done is show you despise them, and people react to that with anger.

"Go into the street and give the first man you meet a shilling, and the second a lecture on moral improvement, and ask which calls himself your friend afterwards."

[La_Serpiente]

35. last time I checked

Clark wanted to cut the military budget.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000682.html

By the way, I do not support Clark.

[NV1962]

37. Beso! (for sanity)

[La_Serpiente]

38. gracias senor

:-)

[NV1962]

14. Kick for joy

:kick:

[lib 4 all]

46. "double your pleasure, duble your fun."

[Printer70]

22. Here's what could happen in 2004- we sell out our ideals

...and lose the general. Clark is not the way to go. Party's win by being true to their ideals, not sacrificing them on the altar of political convenience.

[lib 4 all]

25. and even when Clark loses he will still be directing our party for 4 years

At the end of which we will be irrelevant since the Republicans make better Republicans than Democrats ever will.

[NV1962]

28. "We" don't buy, because "we" aren't selling

But "we" are welcome to state the reasons why "we" should change support for the better choice.

Else, "we" might end up with the impression that "our" conviction is weak enough to waiver and whither at the drop of Mladic's hat.

For someone presuming to loathe his candidacy, you're providing a lot of much appreciated advertising for him. I appreciate that, I really do.

[Printer70]

26. The DLC and DNC are now our "friends"

Partisanship can have a very strange impact on thinking- it makes inconsistent, hypocritical views perfectly acceptable. It is not "our Party, may it be right, but our Party, right or wrong".

[lib 4 all]

27. Are we so partisan that we will become the Republicans just to beat them?

You have made some excellent contributions to this thread. I salute you! (but in a non-militaristic way, of course).
;)

[sandnsea]

57. Yes, inconsistent, hypocritical veiws

You got that straight. It's not our party right or wrong, it's principles of our party are right and I want a Democratic candidate who has supported those principles his whole life.

[lib 4 all]

53. What "Rage Against the DNC" was about

For those of you who are not familiar, it was not "about 2000" as some have asserted.

It was a large scale protest out front of the DNC convention with performances from Rage Against the Machine and Michael Moore protesting the "Republicanization" of the Democratic party.

It was as a result of the distinction between the two parties becoming increasingly blurred. Nominating Clark would only further this blur.

Now is not the time to be Republicans. It is time to recapture our Democratic roots!

[xultar]

55. For every Dean supporter who complained about "Clark Campaigner"

You've got one in your midst. Right now.

I don't see any Dean supporters calling their fellow supporters to task about their tacticts. Saying how their posts are making Dean look bad.

Now I can truly say as you have said about "Clark Campaigner" that there is a Dean supporter who makes me not want to supoort Dean as the nominee!

[Killarney]

54. Try again.

Michael Moore organized it in 2000.

Michael Moore is endorsing Clark in 2004.

Your argument is faulty. Nice try, though.

[lib 4 all]

58. right, Moore used to protest the Military-Industrial Complex and corporate

interests.
Now he is endorsing them.

[corporatewhore]

71. I think michael moore is endorsing clark becuase

dean is seen as the proggressive frontrunner and gun control is very important to michael and isee this rather a slideat dean rather than an endorsement of clark

[Renew Deal]

56. whatever

:boring:

[lib 4 all]

60. just remember - Democrats lost 2000 due to votes we lost to the Greens

"Rage Against the DNC" should have served as a wake up call.
Instead we tried even harder to be like the Republicans in 2002 and lost yet again.

We will lose this election, too, if we alienate the left once again.

[The Magistrate]

63. So Now You Are Out In The Open, Dear!

Very good.

It is clear that you are one of those who intends to do all he can to secure the victory of the most reactionary elements of our polity in the up-coming general election. That you claim to be resolved on this due to a commitment to left radicalism makes no difference: the result of the course you applaud and recommend will certainly be the electoral success of the present administration. You cannot act the way you intend without obtaining that result, and you know that to be the case; therefore, it can only be the result you desire.

The Republican Party is counting on people like that; they are essential to its success. They will neither thank nor pay you, of course, but will be grateful all the same....

[lib 4 all]

64. no. I believe victory comes by bringing out your base

not by trying to look like the other guy in the race.

We cannot afford to lose all those Greens again this time.

[The Magistrate]

65. Then Turn Out And Vote For The Candidate, Dear

Stop playing the coquette, and show self-discipline worthy of a cadre.

The world is not arranged for your private gratification, and the need to defeat the present administration is far greater than your personal sense of moral purity.

If you are part of the base, fellow, you will turn out and vote for the Party's candidate. Otherwise, you are a mere posturer no thorough-going Leninist would flinch from calling a provocatuer and agent in fascist pay.

[lib 4 all]

66. sigh

:eyes:

I will not be bullied into supporting a candidate that I do not support. None of this "fall into ranks soldier!" that the General's supporters are trying to pull for me!

[The Magistrate]

74. Of Course Not, Dear!

You are so much better than the common herd.

You will simply do all you can to promote the victory of the current administration from the left, while they do so from the right. You have openly stated as much in your comments above on the Green Party's pernicious effects in the last election.

Successful radicals throughout history have shown a commendable degree of self-discipline and capability for defered gratification, for these things are essential to success in any enterprise. Radical posuers are incapable of these things, because they are not really interested in anything beyond preening in postures of bold rebellion and moral superiority.

"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disasterous and the unpalatable."

[lib 4 all]

76. no, I will instead do what I can to ensure that a Democrat I can support

gets the nomination.
And right now that's around 4 or 5.
5 to 1. I like those odds.

[LTR]

69. So... How exactly DOES Clark look like Bush?

I see this brought up all the time by people, and usually with nothing to back it up.

Let us know, please, before making these wild accusations.

[PATRICK]

62. Whatever Clark's "backing"

in the establishment stratosphere, his campaign appeal is populist and personally, boradly successful. Those supporters are not establishment wonks and retrograde GOP lite people but perhaps similar to the Dean effect in drawing voters from the idealistic base and beyond.

This post doesn't quite make sense to me. No candidate is going to sink or swim based on the pathetic power establishment, nor, do any of the candidates appear untrustworthy, as hard as some seem to try to be at times(Lieberman). And what does Moore's preference have to do with anything other than make the case for Clark's populist draw?If you are this angry over Clark I assume your rage over Bush has hospitalized you on many an occasion.

Let's not get angry with voters or endorsers unless everyone writes in Schwarzenegger, which by listening to his extensive media coverage, many are being brainwashed to do already.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

67. LMAO!

"If you are this angry over Clark I assume your rage over Bush has hospitalized you on many an occasion."

That's classic. I'm gonna have to use that one against anti-Clarkists.

[corporatewhore]

68. I am going to boston to protest John Timoney!!!!

Same facist fuck responsible for th e miami model is heading up security

[jonnyblitz]

77. are u serious ! the DEMS hired that asshole?!?!

no way! :wow:

[corporatewhore]

78. yep i want to form a fuck timoney bloc ;)

[corporatewhore]

70. People were all ready organizing to go allready even if dean gets it

http://blackteasociety.org/

and several others

[lib 4 all]

72. in your judgement, will turn out be stronger if it's Clark?

I believe the Military-Industrial Complex connection will make it especially strong.
That and Clark's record in Kosovo and other places.

[corporatewhore]

73. I think so esp since he supports SOA but i know some who want to go

to send a message and "represent" that they see through dean

[corporatewhore]

75. Maybe the quakers would show up (since he is for SOA)

That really disgusts me about him and SOA and vieques and so on and so on