Shouldn't we determine our destination before we choose a 'driver'?

[Q]

So many threads about who would make the 'best candidate' in 2008. Perhaps we should consider a few things before we rush ahead?

1. We don't know who the GOP will run in 2008.

2. The Democratic party is in flux. That is...many Democrats are trying to decide if they want the 'centrists' running the party.

3. Progressive and Liberal Democrats want progressive leadership. Rumors and statements from the current leadership suggests that they plan on continuing their push to the right and installing Republican-lite leaders.

Can we for once have a debate about what the majority of Democrats may want...instead of what the party leadership intends to do with or without our consent?

[liberal N proud]

1. I do know that the Democrats are planning meetings in the

comming months aimed at getting input from the party members.
I am at work right now (slow day and no one is in the office).
But I have some details at home and will try and post them here later.

[veteran_for_peace]

2. What I will do

I can not in good conscience support the continual push to the right. If the democratic party moves further to the right then I will never vote for a democrat again. I must not compromise the future of our children in order to gain control of the whitehouse.

[lojasmo]

3. While I won't say that I'll never vote for a democrat again.....

I can say in good conscience that, as far as I'm concerned, the worst has now occurred. I voted for John Kerry as a vote against bush, although I had strong reservations about John Kerry's record....The DLC's tactic of running to the right and believing that the left would be easily dragged along, though correct, failed miserably.

The neocons won with that tactic.

I will never again vote for a democrat who is trying to be republican light, and if it becomes evident that the party is again going to run that tactic, I will caucus with the greens in the primaries, and vote my conscience during the generals....voting green if there is not a tolerable democratic alternative, and democratic if there is a palatable alternative.

[jswordy]

4. OH MAN I AM WITH YOU FOR SURE!

Let me just add to your excellent post that the Democratic Party is currently insane!

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.

TAH-DAH! The party is certifiably nuts! It went right last time to be "in the center" with Kerry, bought the concept of "electability" rather than the candidate himself, then found out you cannot market a concept to the voters, you need an actual candidate there instead of a question mark!

Who will be the '08 nom? Betcha it is someone we don't even know about nationally right now. Tho I'd really like to stand Howard Dean up against Bill Frist!

But I am with you. I have compromised my personal values for the last time by holding my nose and voting Kerry. I will no longer just vote for the Democrat, regardless. Now the party has to show me something first.

So far, it is showing me that it plans to move in the wrong direction.

[janx]

19. Absolutely. And it didn't work because democracy

doesn't work that way. Democracy is not about voting for the most "electable" candidate; it's about embracing a candidate whom the people want to elect.

:shrug:

Simple idea, isn't it? ;-)

[Supersedeas]

6. add another to that camp

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Some comments on your three posits:

Some comments on your three posits:

1. We don't know who the GOP will run in 2008.

So? We should not run *against* anyone. We should be selecting a standard bearer who represents *our* party, who represents *our* positions. We've lost too many elections running *against* the repubs. Isn't it about time we ran *for* our own values? That's been a large part of our problem ..... we stand for nothing yet we always stand in opposition. Let's NOT buy into their debate, rather let's establish our own debate.

2. The Democratic party is in flux. That is...many Democrats are trying to decide if they want the 'centrists' running the party.

Some truth here, for sure. The party *is* in flux. And well it should be. The Day of the DLC is (had better be) about over. We need serious change in our own leadership. A change to leadership that, as Dr. Dean said, represents the Democratic Wing of the Democrat party.

I think the essential struggle is between the currently entrenched leadership and the grass roots. We need to wait and see who emerges as the DNC chair, for one thing. But I think, in the end, no one can tolerate losing any longer and the grass roots will, in the end, win out. The better question may well be ... who are the grass roots?

In any case, even with the current leadership, support now for an 08 candidate is a powerful thing. It would either be right in step with the leadership or it would be a powerful counterweight.

3. Progressive and Liberal Democrats want progressive leadership. Rumors and statements from the current leadership suggests that they plan on continuing their push to the right and installing Republican-lite leaders.

Talk of 08 candidates is fully appropriate to this issue. If for no other reason, one's naming a candidate as one's current choice or favorite is good shorthand for one's position with respect to new leadership. Calling, say, Lieberman your favorite is quite different evocatively than calling, say, Kucinich your choice, isn't it?

[Q]

7. I agree that #1...

...is irrelevant and shouldn't be an issue. Sorry I included that one. (brain fog?)

But talk of 2008 candidates is premature at best and counter-productive at worst. Why? Because we're still in the framework of the 2004 campaign. The threads I've seen so far mostly recycle the same old candidates and many of them presume that a progressive candidate isn't worth consideration. There seems to be a prevailing attitude within the party that progressives 'can't win' elections and that America has gone 'conservative'. Both are RWing talking points that seem to have gained a foothold in Democratic circles.

Exactly what IS our destination? A return to the party of the people? GOP-lite? Something in the middle? You can't get DUers to agree on this. But one thing seems clear: Democrats in general are fed up with the direction the party has taken in the last decade...starting with Clinton's 'third way' that opened the gates for the Bush/Neocon takeover.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. I said what I said only with an historic reference to 2004 and earlier

Sure, we can't and shouldn't forget 2004, 2002, 2000, etc. They happened and always, always, in history there is truth.

But I believe it is also correct that we need to frame our *own* debate on our *own* issues. All issues that are important to *us*. Closer to 2008 is the correct time emphasize one or a few issues over others, but we we have plenty of time to make those (strategic) decisions, and base them on the future "now", the future reality. Make no mistake, however, that is simply strategy. Not a reflection of our core values.

Take any issue as an example. And just as an example here and in no way an endorsement or a rejection let's use ..... I dunno ..... gay marriage. Let's say our core value is that gay or straight, any committed couple must have the same rights, privileges and protections as any other without respect to any factor other than commitment one to the other. In today's climate, to call that gay marriage and be for it is likely not a winning position. To call it civil unions in today's climate may get you past the voters, but won't please a large part of our "leftern" population. Who knows where we'll be in 2008. Maybe gay marriage won't be an issue ...... and that's possible if the right candidate comes along and makes it a "family value" issue. Correct framing and correct messaging, and correct presentation by a candidate could take the gay aspect of marriage off the table in favor of a larger family rights issue.

I'd like to see our message, our positions, our debate framed now. And for that we need spokes persons. And we need them now. To call them "candidates" may well be premature. But in fact, that's what they really are.

May our cream rise to the top!

Let the debate begin.

[chaska]

8. I worry that the leadership is going 2 keep on n this disastrous direction

I just hope that they don't miss what is becoming very obvious to me. We who want a more progressive party, are resolved and determined not to go along with this anymore. There are two things that are very clear now: Trickle down economics doesn't work and going right doesn't work as an election strategy for the Democratic party (Clinton is an exception to most rules).

I think we should make it damn clear to any and all that we make our stand now. Our heels are dug in and we will not be moved. It's our party. They must give up their hold on power - move out of the way and let new leaders emerge.

The choice for centrists is clear: Take the risk of going left as a winning strategy, or face the certainty of defeat when the left refuses to support the Dempublicans. We are a rock.

[jswordy]

9. Populism

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_070500_populism.htm">POPULISM

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. I'm not worried about what the DNC does right now. If we get

IRV here in Maine, I'll be throwing more of my support behind the Greens and Socialists.

But, if the DNC decides to run Dennis or Howard, I'll toss them a vote and gladly, even with IRV in place.

-------------------------------------
Liberal and darned proud about it!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. The nose-holding is over for me.

If the Democratic Party should miraculously nominate someone like Kucinich he/she will get my vote. However, barring that all but impossible event, I'll be voting for candidates that best represent the needs of the people. That "people" includes not just Americans, but the people of the planet.

Which means that I'll probably be voting Green.

[IndyPriest]

12. Q; aside - you ask some of the best questions on DU!

Most incisive, relevent, useful. Are you into systems analysis or philosophy or something?

[Q]

15. I'm a Democrat wondering what happened to our party

It sucks being a Democrat these days. Not because we lost...but because of the lack of debate and dissent within our own party.

That so many Democrats are willing to vote for Kerry again is quite disturbing. If I can be painfully honest post-election...he was an embarrassment to every Democrat who wanted to see their party rise above Bush's America.

[Leilani]

26. Agree completely

I want to see candidates who have rock solid beliefs, & will step up & advocate for those ideas.

No more sticking fingers in the wind, to decide which way to vote or what to believe in. I'd gladly vote for someone I disagree with on a few things, as long as that person maintains integrity.

And call it reform or populism, but I want to see a politician & the party owe his loyalty to the people, not the corporations, not the elites, not the money people, & not the strategists.

[ArkDem]

14. Yes because we might want to use the 9 iron.

[Q]

20. Some might find humor...

...in all of this...but those of us who have watched and participated in American politics over the last three or four decades are witnesses to what we believe to be the impending death of the Democratic party as we've known it.

Yes...I have a sense of humor...but it has been dulled by too many Americans...too many Democrats participating in what they must know is a charade and lip service to democracy.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

25. More of ArkD's trademark sarcasm. n/t

MKJ

[inslee08]

16. It's all about geography

I think that our best candidate would someone who is part of the "democratic wing of the democratic party" but is also geographically from an area that will net us votes (ie the midwest/south). I'm not saying we need a Gephart. I'm saying that we need someone *like* Obama.

Whenever the Bush team labeled Kerry as "liberal," it was in the context of being from Massachusetts. If we could at least neutralize the geographic factor, we would be in much better shape.

[janx]

17. I agree with you completely, Q, and I also agree with jswordy

that our ultimate goal is populism--or at least real democracy. We need reform very badly, and we're not going to achieve that if we're daydreaming about 2008. We have all kinds of local and state elections coming up in the next two short years, not to mention Congress.

I'd all but given up talking about this on DU because it seemed so unpopular. Thanks for posting.

[Q]

21. I'd be satisfied with a return to representative government...

...and a free press.

It's difficult to reform a system when both parties have a distorted view of what's needed and their primary goal seems to be turning America over to corporations and the church.

What's holding back a populist candidate? Neither the Neocons or Neodems will allow that to happen. They have the money and the power. All we have is our votes. That neither party seems interested in election reform tells us that even our votes aren't worth much to them.

[janx]

22. That's why we have to get busy at the local level, everywhere.

It won't happen overnight, but we can achieve more than most people can imagine in a couple of years.

[DaedelusNemo]

28. Busy doing what?

I certainly agree there needs to be effort at the local level everywhere, but if there's no coherency to that effort, it won't have any large-scale effect. Around what will it cohere?

I'm all for a stance in favor of representative democracy and a party "of the people, by the people, for the people", whatever label you want to put on it. And in fact, the democratic positions on the issues are in fact for the most part the mainstream positions, so you would think that this sort of stance would be a natural. But everywhere i go on the web, i find the democrats complaining that they can't agree on a position.

Do the democrats have a coherent position? Can they? From the discussions, one would think that they differ more on the issues than the populace as a whole does.

Can DU agree on enough to be effective?

[welshTerrier2]

18. thank you !!!!!!!

sometimes i feel like i'm reading People Magazine instead of DU ...

[frustrated_lefty]

23. I feel your pain, brother.

In my view, Kerry ran to the right, he weebled, he wobbled, and he fell flat on his ass.

The party can NOT go republican-lite. There are too many issues we disagree upon. The tax cuts have to be eliminated if there is any hope for an American economy to survive. We have to discover and make use of alternative fuels. We have to reduce the amount of hot air gasses we pump into the atmosphere. We have to.....the list goes on. There is a fundamental disparity between republican and democratic beliefs.

On many of them, there is NO middle ground. Social Security: you pay for it, you've paid for it, you'll continue to pay for it. It's simple, are you guaranteed payments in return in your old age, or are you forced to take a chance in a private market after you've contributed 40-60 years of reliable payments/deductions? Where is the middle ground here?

On so many of these issues, there is only so far we can lean to the right before we betray our principles. It just isn't that far.

I think our only hope is raising the quality of education in this country. An intelligent population can simply not vote so far against its own interests.

We have to overcome the media, classroom teachers and our public representatives. Somehow, in a palpable way, we HAVE to educate our fellow citizens.

Months ago, what, 60-70% of Americans STILL thought Hussein was involved in 9/11???!!! We, as a nation, need clarity of vision. We need to take our heads out of the ground.

And, I apologize, I think I just ranted. :(

FL

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. I totally agree

I began seeing "Let's run Joe Blow in 2008" threads on November 3, for heaven's sake.

We need to do some serious post-mortems on 2004, figure out what went wrong, and get to work on fixing it. (I suspect that voting machines are a large part of it--the corporate "solution" for a non-existent problem).

We need a coherent and compelling vision to present to the American people, not just a laundry list of programs.

Then we can start talking about candidates. The primary season is too long, anyway.

[IStriker]

27. I have a hunch...

that we will know the direction of the party once the chairman is chosen and I'm not sure it has anything at all to do with the voter base.

[Q]

29. Do we really have to guess...

...about who will be chosen as 'chairman'? We've already received 'hints' from the party bosses: it won't be a liberal, progressive or 'populist'.

And therein lies the problem. Does anyone really believe that progressives are going to stick around for another round of bipartisan date rape after they realize their principles and values are no longer represented in the party?

Are we still the 'big tent' party? Hardly. That must change.

[blondeatlast]

31. We Democrats shouldn't be facing this difficult choice, the PARTY should.

Do they want people or corporate interests? do they even care anymore?

I'm afraid you are right. I'm ready to walk, LOUDLY.

We aren't asking for a huge swing to the far Left, just a swing away from the Right and from corporate interests.

Party leadership seems unable to see that even with all the money in the world, without ground forces and a strong platform in place already, they won't get anywhere.

I worked my ass off last year because it mattered. What do I get from the party in return?

Dunned. I'm sick of it.

[IStriker]

33. I've been a Democrat for forty years through thick and thin...

but if the party leaves me, I am not stupid enough to stick around forever. I just don't know where I will find a new home, but believe me, I'm looking, as I got the "hints" the party has been sending.

[blondeatlast]

30. A good start would be building a solid platform NOW.

We need to be prepared to run our best in 2006. For that, we need to stake out our positions now, then find the best politicians TO RUN IN THE NEXT 6 MONTHS.

We don't have the luxury of four years; we are on life-support now.

It hurts me to say this, I'm a 4th generation yellow dog. But while I still "feel like a Democrat," I don't feel welcome in the party. I can't give huge donations, and that seems to be the major qualification right now.

We need to find the best people to run in 2006 as soon as the DNC chair is elected. If we can't do that, then I fear we are doomed.

I absolutely agree with you, Q.

If the destination is a good one, I'll help drive AND pitch in for the gas. If it's the same old boring place we always go to, count this dyed in the wool yellow dog OUT. I've got better things to do.

[LittleClarkie]

32. Determine the path you want to take

and the destination will take care of itself, as well as the driver.

What does the Dem party really represent? What is our role in the world? What do we want to do for people that isn't happening now?

Determine who we are, and then find the driver that best fits that identity.

Then sell him like there's no tomorrow.

Do not, DO NOT, start with "We wanna win." Or we will become what the Repubs called us, which is the party that just wants to get back in power at all costs.

[KoKo]

34. If we don't clean things up now...there won't be a 2008....so I refuse to

think about 2008 or even 2006...Having been through the "we will fix things at the Mid-Term Elections" crap here on DU, once already...where we lost and Machine Fraud occurred in Georgia where we lost McKinney and Cleland...why would I or anyone in a sane mind want to go through that again.

Clean up the voting, expose the fraud...it doesn't matter if the Dems run a chicken or a ham sandwich. Our votes don't count and the Repug take over will be complete in 2006...so why the hell should I care who they run.