Can a true liberal take the White House

[justiceischeap]

I was reading the "Hillary is not a DINO" thread and Tinoire posted the following:

"It's very funny to constantly see these impassioned cries for everyone to rally around & be united but always around Centrists And always around Moderates who are as disliked by the Left as they are by the Right & leave so many people cold. That's not a winning strategy imo."

Reading this got me thinking whether someone who isn't moderate and isn't a centrist actually has the chance to win the White House. I for one would love to see someone from the far left in the White House, because that is where my idealogy leans. In reality though, is it possible, with the Red States out breeding the Blue states for a true "leftist" to win the White House or a Senate seat for that matter?

Tinoires' post raises another question as well, what is a winning strategy? The most popularly elected Dem in recent history was moderate Bill Clinton. That, in itself, has got to be a lesson of some sort.

PS - Not picking on Tinoire, the post just got me thinking is all.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. I Dount Anybody Who Could Pass Muster With All DUers Could Be Elected

President in 2008 or any election in American history...


We must take men and women as they are and not how we want them to be...

[w4rma]

31. Noone exists that could pass muster will **ALL** DUers.

So while your statement is correct, it's not correct in the way you imply.

[John_H]

57. DU would do its best to PREVENT a liberal from getting elected

One of the reasons the rethugs can get wingnuts elected is that they pass them off as moderates until they're in power--and their their wingnut one-percenters go right along with them.

Dem one-percenters, as always the loudest faction on DU, aren't clever enough to let a liberal "talk moderate" long enough to get elected. "DINO!" they'll scream, meanwhile working to nominate some I'm-librul-n-loud! fringe candidate who,like them, isn't clever enough to do what it takes to get the power to actually turn liberal talk into action.

[justy329]

2. I think that Kerry would have been the most liberal

president since LBJ.

I hate to speak RW talking points, but he was the most liberal senator in the senate. He would clearly been more liberal than Clinton.

While the RW will brand any Dem a flaming Lib, in Kerry's case it was close to the truth.

[Mockingbird]

23. Kerry Most "Liberal" - nah, I need evidence

What, besides right wing talking points, tells you Kerry is the most liberal?

It wasn't the windsurfing & snowboarding.

I am not convinced there's anything to that "most liberal."
Its playing to stereotypes that someone else fabricates specifically to caricature policy. What test do you pass to be "most liberal?" Is there a blood test yet?

Clinton was practically moderate Republican (what there used to be of fiscally conservative, but socially progressive Republicans).

I don't shy from the word "liberal" - "progressive" is good too. I used a few of those words myself above.

But when it gets nailed with one word like that, no one is served.
It gives those who see it as a negative more ammunition. I don't see anyone having taken the word back to denote the good things that are done for America in general.

Sometimes I think a quick bullet point list of what the agenda ought to be is better than the label for the time being.

Or else, go to "progressive" for the time being - but immediately define that word before it gets defined for us once again.

[Vincardog]

3. If someone would stand up with principals and not be mis led by the DLC

or any of the other failed Democratic pundits of late they could defeat the Repubs. In a fair election that is. We have to fix BBV.
Viva

[Brian_Expat]

4. Sure, a liberal could win the election

It just requires people on the ground to build up an infrastructure and story to compete with the Republicans.

Right now, the only strategy to beat the Republicans is join them.

When was the last time a conservative denied being a conservative when slammed for being conservative? Now compare that to the stammering protests of someone who is running for office who is called a "liberal." Most every Democrat I've seen has run from that label saying "I'm not a liberal, I'm not!"

Until they start running as who they are, and fight back, there won't be ANY Democrat in the White House -- let alone a liberal one. And the next Dem to get into the White House, if ever again, probably will be a liberal who is willing to take the fight to the GOP.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. When Was The Last Time A Liberal Was Elected President?

[justiceischeap]

8. Was JFK considered, at the time, a liberal?

Not looking back on history but at the time of election.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Not On Foreign Policy/Defense

He ran against Nixon on an alleged missile gap... JFK said the U S allowed the U S S R to gain an edge in nuclear weaponry which he would reverse....

[AP]

51. Chomsky criticizes JFK for being the neocon who got the ball rolling

in Africa and SAmerica.

However, then you have Castro saying that his favorite US prez was JFK, and you have those Cuban Missile Crisis conferences which revealed that JFK -- the raving anti-communist -- was the only Democrat in the WH who DIDN"T want to invade Cuba, and you have books like The Pinochet Files arguing that JFK made a radical departure from the Eisenhower WH by deciding not to support fascists, but to support moderates who would build up the middle classes in SAmerica (and you can see how the success of that policy resulted in Nixon & Kissinger's really hard work to undo the trend toward liberalism that JFK started by supporting center left parties).

So it's my impression that JFK presented himself to the voters as a rabid anti-communists, but he didn't make that the priority in his race. He did it in a way to deprioritize national security. He positioned himself to the right of Nixon and then, basically, said now that we have that issue out of the way, let's talk about the things that matter: looking after the working man.

That strategy was really successful, I think.

But if you want to make an argument about how he governed, I think it's harder to say what was going on in terms of FP. I wish there were a good book that tackled this issue.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. Is It Possible To Be Pro JFK... Pro Left Of Center Politics, And Anti-

Chomsky....


I'm a digital not an analogue thinker...


I don't like binary interpretations of American history... America is neither Robin Hood nor Darth Vader...

[Freddie Stubbs]

66. He also advocated cutting taxes

Seems like he would have been a DLCer.

[dsc]

68. the rates were radically different then

The top rate was 90%, which was a bit on the high side. We were paying down WW2 debt and most of that had been paid off. To advocate a cut from 90 to 70 is quite different than advocating a cut from 39 to 33 in the top rates.

[wyldwolf]

26. he was also a proponant of welfare reform...

...but back in those days, the only people who'd mis-defined "liberal" was the rightwing. Now we have some on the left trying to make the word their own through litmus tests and whatnot.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. JFK Was Left Of Center...

as as FDR, HST,LBJ,JEC, and WJC to different degrees...


I don't know what some of these labels mean any more but I doubt any of these men could pass muster with the majority of folks on this board....

[wyldwolf]

44. you're absolutely right

FDR was despised by both the left and the right of his day.

And NO ONE can pass muster with the majority of folks on this board....

[AP]

55. He also shamed the steel industry into lowering prices.

US Steel pretty much decided it wanted a bigger cut of the profit from American economic growth (ie, building buildings) so they got together with other steel companies and decided to raise prices.

JFK went on the air with a speech absolutely shaming them for trying to put their personal profits ahead of what was best for America, and he made a powerful argument against the dangers of cartels.

Because of the public outrage, the steel industry lowered prices the next day.

To me, that's absolutely incredible. JFK had a direct connection to the people. He didn't need to wheel and deal in backrooms and compromise to get the things he wanted. US Steel was trying to take millions of dollars out of the economy and put it into their own back pocket and all Kennedy had to do was give a speech.

In Michael Beschloss's book about LBJ, there's a transcript of an LBJ telephone call where LBJ actually complains about how Kennedy didn't have to rely on the DC network to get things done. LBJ didn't like it. I just say thank god Kennedy was Democrat and decided to use his skills for good and not evil.

So, I think if there's a lesson to be learned today, it's that if a candidate for president can give a great speech that connects with people, then that is actually a very valuable skill (hint hint -- I can see how John Edwards could go on TV and make an argument about the drug industry that could sway people).

[Brian_Expat]

12. There's a first time for everything

Reagan was the first neocon president, and ten years before he won the White House, it was accepted doctrine that a neocon could never win the election and they were hated within even the Republican party.

Of course, if you're saying that the Democrats shouldn't be the liberal party, maybe all we liberals should go off and form our own party. It would, despite being smaller, probably do a much better job in opposition than the quisling Dem Party of 2005.

[justiceischeap]

19. No, not saying the Dem party shouldn't be a liberal party

I'm just asking questions and trying to learn. I'm as liberal as they come but I'm thinking from a realist stand point. What can the party do to create a lasting base? How can the party defeat the NeoCons? The NeoCons have sat back for years and refined their strategies and basically flew in under the radar while many dems seemingly sat back thinking, "Oh, they'll never win the White House..." Some speculate that the NeoCons have a fifty-year plan and that wouldn't surprise me. In reality, the Reds are out-breeding the blues as well, this is a major problem and how do we address that?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Hmmm

All I am saying is that the United States has never elected a person from the far left of the spectrum nor have I seen one serious analyst of American politics say that such an occurrence is on the horizon...


As to your desire to start your own little third party we have a federal system with winner take all elections so I don't see how a party to the left of the Democrats can have any impact on polcy...

[Leilani]

72. Reagan wasn't a neocon

He was a conservative.

Bush is a neocon.

[GreenArrow]

6. I'll settle for someone who tells the truth

and doesn't insult my intelligence.

[liveoaktx]

7. And someone, when they *talk* a good game on the floor, VOTES

THE SAME WAY.

[GreenArrow]

9. ehem

Joe Biden, maybe?

[eg101]

20. you sure are an easy mark! n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. It depends not on the person but the circumstances

look at the election of FDR in 1932. Before him, there had been only two Democrats elected President since 1856-Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson. The Republicans had a majority in Congress, and, with the exception of TR's progressive measures, the GOP had worked on a pro-business agenda all during that time.

What changed things was the Great Depression. One must realize that in 1932, almost a third of all Americans were out of work. There were also natural calamaties, such as the drought, which literally made farms dry up and blow away. The point is, the Depression wasn't something 'out there' but something that directly effected most American's lives, and so they voted for a change.

If Bush does what I fear he's going to do, we'll have another huge catastrophe on our hands, and the survivors will very likely vote Repukes out of office as fast as they can.

[justiceischeap]

14. Just remember, it took 12 years

For the Sheeple to realize that a constant run of Repug White House was bad for the nation. (The Reagan/Bush I years)

Another thing I think we need to keep in mind is the Repug strategy. They saw how well polarizing their base with the anti-gay ballot initiatives worked and they will continue to use that and refine it.

What do the liberals have for strategy that can not only drive their base but also pull moderate/centrist dems to the polls?

I think this party needs to start thinking like the Repugs (not acting like them, not moving to the center but strategically being sneaky I guess).

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. I think the way to do it is to

say Dems are REALLY pro-family and pro life-they want a living wage, affordable health care, education benefits-our slogan should be-

We care about life beyond the fetal stage.

We care about fostering stable family life.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. FDR Was No Liberal...

He was a small c conservative... In Arthur Schlessinger's seminal work on FDR he argues that Roosevelt conserved capitalism by ridding it of it's excesses...

[wyldwolf]

27. not only that...

Japanese-American internment, a desire to end the welfare system he put into place, and a LIHOP conspiracy on Pearl Harbor. All the things we despise the neocons for.

[Zhade]

80. You're killing me, WW!

You, who go on and on about how the "far left" are "conspiracy theorists", believe that FDR LIHOPed Pearl Harbor? And without even showing evidence to back it up?

Oh, sweet irony, thy name is Wyldwolf! Though I must admit, it's nice to see you recognize that conspiracies can, in fact, exist.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

30. I agree--however

the programs he started were anything but conservative. And you have the reason why they were instituted-FDR was farsighted enough to realize if he didn't, capitalism in this country was going to be overthrown, possibly by communism, but more likely by socialism.

[Mockingbird]

13. True Liberal in 1600 Pennsylvania Ave?

You can't chase the NeoCon agenda.

A slightly kinder & gentler tyrant wannabe than this regime is not a better place.

So it means a harder job -
Making those centrists & sheepish people that are afraid of ripples in their bathtub understand that effective negotiation to find middle ground with the reactionary & regressive extremists doesn't get you a visionary country. It doesn't play to the American Dream.

Bill Clinton wasn't exactly out there on the sliver edge.
He didn't yield the enthusiastic & forward-looking country that Kennedy did. Economically Clinton had strengths, yet he wasn't inspirational, he wasn't enduring. And that is apart from the sleazy campaign to undermine him at all cost.

So his following was a personality thing that did not even have a residual effect upon Gore.

Maybe that's why Bush's underbelly is ignored. Its all about making the right noises.

But if you buy into that, it shows the same arrogance & disdain that the NeoCons have for average Americans. Ya gotta hope.

I dunno. Can people differentiate truth from lie?

[Union Thug]

36. Disdain or accepting the fact that theatre is important?

Do we accept as fact that people are willfully ignorant? If so, we might be right is harboring a certainly stockpile of contempt for them. OR, do we accept as fact that people are working so hard to stay afloat, that raising kids is a huge responsibility, that the chores of everyday living for the working class American are so time consuming that they really are unable to get informed? Add to this the aggressive and well funded propaganda from the Right, powerful (but hollow) soundbite messaging echoed in the media, and its corporate sponsorship, and it is really hard to blame and hold in contempt, many of those heartlanders that voted for Republicans.

So, when you say that it's all about making the right noises, you hit a real gem of a truth; all is theatre. But to accept this fact isn't necessarily a sign of disdain, its simply part of the reality we with which we are struggling.

[Orangepeel]

15. Positions don't matter.

Anyone we nominate will be painted as "excessively" liberal (hell, even John Edwards was so liberal he was "out of the mainstream). It doesn't matter if they are or not.

On the other hand, if the nominee doesn't SEEM liberal (like a southern governor or general), it doesn't matter whether or not they ARE.

I come to this conclusion based on the following points:

1) Poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans agree with our positions more than republican positions -- social security, health care, education, reproductive rights, even national security issues and civil unions -- when they are asked about the position with no party label.

2)The republicans have done better going more right -- AWAY from the popular position. They just give catchy, bullshit names to what they are doing.

3) Many "Independents" proudly make the claim that they "don't vote for the party, they vote for the person." They vote for the person who seems more "likable." If they knew about or cared about issues, they wouldn't be that malleable.

Personally, I've decided that it isn't about right or left. It is about weak and strong.

[Mockingbird]

35. Positions Don't Matter

Well, I see you use Ghandi as an icon.

Positions Don't Matter - tell that to someone reading the Kama Sutra.
-----


You are sorta right, IMO. And maybe NOT.
There are a number of really good posts on this thread which all have a kernel of the truth.

Yes - they have learned that they can merely define us out of any relevence. Pick a word, taint it as "bad." Then call the opposition that word.

Time for "us" to do the same.

But I will not define myself as a "Dem."
"Independent" doesn't cut it either, ultimately. I prefer to be an idependent thinker & organizations are always eventually suspect.
You will resort to "group think" at some point, to the exclusion of your own work.

That is NOT malleability by default.
It can become something akin to it however, because we all strive for patterns & structure. Goes with the territory of being alive.

[Leilani]

73. I agree with your theory

It is about who Americans percieve to be "strong."

Dems have let themselves be defined as weak.

[eg101]

16. Yes, a true liberal can win the Presidency, and here is how

First, Hilary IS a DINO. In almost EVERY way.

Now that we have that out of the way, here is how we can put a leftist in the White House in 2008.

First we have to nominate a leftist as the Dem candidate. That means that we have to convince the primary voters in the first couple of primary states that a leftist can win in the general election. We know that they do not vote for people they think cannot win.

So we need to make the liberal case to these primary state voters. Also we need to make the case to the crucial swing state voters. Actually, it is mainly just the rural and small town swing state voters we need to convince. Voters in big cities would already accept a progressive candidate.

Now, we all know here that there are MANY leftist/progressive/liberal economic issues that most Americans agree with. For example, in all polls, most Americans want universal healthcare funded totally by taxes. That is a LEFTIST-PROGRESSIVE issue. Any candidate who wants universal healthcare funded by taxes is a progressive on economic issues.

Also, most Americans would like to see qualified college students be able to go to school without getting into debt. THAT is also a leftist issue.

The real problem with economics from the left is that we need to stop spending so much money on the military, so that we can spend it on social programs (universal healthcare and free college), like all these European countries do, and also Canada and Australia. We need to make the case to these crucial early-primary and swing state voters that scaling back on the military would not make us any less safe.

Now many here already know that the reason for most terrorism directed against America is because of our foreign policy, and the long and bloody history of our foreign policy. One big reason why the Democratic party cannot really make this European-style "liberal case" to the voters is that THEY have been complicit in this bloody foreign policy history, along with the GOP.

Therefore, we Democratic activists have to go in and make the case for scaling back the military, keeping our noses out of other nations' business, and looking inward to improve America itself. Isn't that the ESSENCE of the liberal case? And hasn't the Democratic party failed to make this case time and time again. Thus, we activists must do this for ourselves. Otherwise, we continue to be dragged down into the spiral, ever lower we go. Look at Clinton: economically, he was more rightwing than Nixon!

Also, another pillar of the liberal/progressive economic case is the idea of progressive taxation. We need to convince Americans that rich people need to pay a lot more in taxes.

The last pillar of the liberal/progressive economic case is the idea of fair trade vs free trade. A true liberal IS a protectionist on trade. A true liberal would fight against importing manufactured goods from low wage countries.

So those are the pillars of the liberal/progressive economic case: universal healthcare and free or low cost college, scale back the military and imperialism, and progressive taxation and fair trade.

But we need to clear a path on the ground for a true liberal president. And anyway, most people rarely listen to politicians. If we are going to make the Liberal Case to voters, we need to do it outside of the political campaign arena. We need to do it in the realm of news or entertainment.

And here is my plan: we raise money on the internet to buy ad space in small town newspapers and radio stations in the early primary and crucial swing states. How much could ad space in the Podunk, Iowa newspaper cost, anyway?

Then once we have identified the targeted rural newspapers and radio stations in early primary and swing states, we create prototype "ads" for the ad space we plan to buy. The reason I put the word "ads" in scare quotes is because these ads would probably not look like ads, per se. After all, we are selling ideas. A comic strip/cartoon format would probably be best for the newspaper spots. An informercial would probably be best for radio spots.

Then we put these prototypes on the Net and ask for money to run them in our targeted newspapers and stations.

Once we get enough money, we start running them. This would be a multiyear project. We use these comic strips and cartoons and informericals to create a values-based framework for the liberal case.

Then, in 2008, a truly liberal candidate can walk through the frame we created, and start pushing all the buttons we created.

Well, you asked, so there ya go....

[Union Thug]

34. Excellent assessment! Agreed!

[DireStrike]

52. Well stated...

The question now is, what arguments will help make those points? And how quickly can they saturate the fat-lined brain of an average american?

[forgethell]

58. That's a pretty good plan. But

I have a question. How does it differ from what we (I mean the leftists) have been trying to do all along? Haven't leftist been trying to convince people to support universal health care, higher progressive taxes, etc. Does any thinking adult in the USA not know that leftists would like to scale back the military?

Haven't we been trying to get the message out? The only time we have had electoral success since 1980 has been the Clinton years. Except for scaling back the military, does anyone truly think Clinton acted as a leftist? Not much, although he maybe went a little more left in office than he did on the campaign trail.

I mean, what you are advocating seems to me to be only a slight change in tactics, not strategy; certainly not in grand strategy. Pardon my pessimism, but I think we need to rethink at those levels, if we ever hope to have any success.

Well, it is certainly easier to criticize someone else's plan than to create on of your own, so I don't have any alternate to offer myself. Except this: I don't think we are going to get the American people to cut back on the military anytime soon.

:)

[eg101]

69. drip drip drip

you wrote:

I have a question. How does it differ from what we (I mean the leftists) have been trying to do all along? Haven't leftist been trying to convince people to support universal health care, higher progressive taxes, etc. Does any thinking adult in the USA not know that leftists would like to scale back the military?


Where have we been doing this? Via the media and outside of a political campaign, I mean. If you think so, show me. I wrote for TV news. I know what they write about.

And I mean more than just a few isolated incidents. This is something that needs to be done consistently over a long period of time.
I mean like:
Drip drip drip



Except this: I don't think we are going to get the American people to cut back on the military anytime soon.

You have to abstract the values out and upwards. You have to derive and abstract our natural values out of the details. The rightwing has been doing that for decades. All the "Left" does is triangulate and move right.

Show where the elite mass media talks about the values of butting out of other people's lives, and how our long history of interference has generated hatred of us for generations. Show where they say that on TV every day.

drip drip drip

It has all been going the other way. We need to start sending it back. But we don't need to target the whole country!

drip drip drip

[forgethell]

81. Thanks for the clarification.

i think I understand a little better now.

[pinto]

71. I like many of your agenda points yet shudder at your condescension...

of the electorate. Or it may have been satire...I think our message and our agenda needs to value the voter we are asking for support.

Even those voters in "Podunk, Iowa".

A minor point to your post, but I feel strongly that we have been seen as "carpetbaggers" outside of Dem strongholds, recently.

The agenda - health care, education, equitable taxation, fair trade are Democratic gems. We need to push them as such....thanks.

[eg101]

74. condescend? I am talking about marketing!

Multi-BILLION dollar industry. marketing? Advertising? Political campaigns? ALL the same thing. Exactly! When you turn on the TV and see a commercial, do you shudder at that, too?

But, I dunno, this whole internet forum thing is just....sad....

[pinto]

75. sorry for the use of the word, I may have misread you...

I'm frustrated that political candidates are media products...for better or worse, though I know that's how it is. Thanks.

[robbedvoter]

18. If his name is Clark - he appeals to people of a wide array of political

convictions.
"I am a liberal.We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this
country. It's in our constitution! We should be very clear on this...
this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment. It was
the idea that people could talk, have reasonable dialogue and discuss
the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck
by a divine inspiration and know everything, right from wrong. People
who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they
believed in reason, and dialogue, and civil discourse. We can't lose
that in this country. We've got to get it back."

[justiceischeap]

25. Great sentiments and I wholeheartedly agree

but how? That is the biggest question facing this party, how do get it back. Most of know we have to get it back I've just not seen a clear plan on how we go about achieving this.

[Smarmie Doofus]

22. Good point. The dilemma is this: political campaigns are an ....

...opportunity to educate and *persuade*, not merely a chance to win power. ( It's that too, for sure.)

Do we waste opportunity after opportunity to challenge false and dangerous premises by supporting people who take only " safe" and "electable" positions.

Wouldn't it be helpful, i.e. in EVERYBODY'S long term enlightened self-interest, to run a candidate for president who , for example, favors WITHDRAWAL from Iraq... because Iraq is an immoral war unworthy of US ideals... instead of someone who seeks out "nuanced" positions calibrated to register slightly to the left of *pure evil* ( i. e. the thought processes of the barbarians in Wash who designed and unleashed this war)?

Of course such a candidate takes on a considerable added load: the task of having to explain WHY the war is what it is... a herculean task given the conditioning we are all subject to by the schools, mass media, etc that the US is always right, or at least always well-intentioned.

The plain fact is, neither of these are true. But is it something you can say out loud? OTOH, how long can we afford not to say it.

Bottom line, we need "leaders" and "teachers" in out political candidates more urgently, than we need centrist Dem elected officials.
Although, sometimes, I'll grant you, it's a pretty close call.

[Mockingbird]

29. Withdrawal & Dilemmas Educate

Great.

Along similar lines to something I've said elsewhere too.

Leaders, Teachers, Organizers & Visionaries are rare.
I think Kerry could've been one, had he not been pushed & pulled by a DLC machine.

Innovation & vision does not happen in the center of a herd of sheep.

If a true leader steps up - eventually some of the herd will follow if the traits are exhibited. Eventually those marginal organizers & teachers create a structure to bridge between the leader & Nervous Nellies bundled up in the safe middle.

Kerry was too reserved. He didn't show enough leadership & anger, fire in the belly until too late. The media embargo on him didn't help either.

But if you are going to lead, you can't be spending more time looking over your shoulder to see if anyone is following than looking in front of your feet & at the horizon.

Even a really pathetic, fake "John Wayne" personna from Dubya with a codpiece shoved down his drawers appeals to sheep. The rest of the package doesn't matter to many Americans, because it scares them to think.

[justiceischeap]

32. Does the party have a viable leader for 2008?

I've seen none. Not one of the candidates that ran in the primaries made me want to follow them. I know others feel differently here but IMO, there was no "leader."

Currently, Barbara Boxer's courage is a great role model but I don't think our country is "liberal" enough to elect a woman President. I don't even think a female VP could get elected. It seems instead of progressing, we're going backwards. :shrug:

[Union Thug]

37. I'm not sure I agree completely.

While I definately think we are going backwards, I wonder about your assessment regarding women. I think that the media would gleefully accept and shill for a republican woman VP.. say for example they ran Jeb and Condi in 2008. But, god forbid the Democrats nominate a woman for VP. I think that it's all about the marketing, and the reality is that Dems don't have the corporate sponsorship!

[justiceischeap]

40. I personally think too many people blame the media

Though they are complicite, it falls on the shoulders of those out in middle Amerika. I think the same people who came out in droves for Shrub because of the anti-gay ballot initiatives would come out in droves to vote against a female candidate.

Yes, the left would happily accept a female candidate but the moderate/centrist I'm not so sure. I also don't think they would vote for Condi, there are still too many racists involved in the right and too many "Christians" who feel the woman's place is in the home raising god-fearing children, leave the real work up to the men. :eyes:

BTW, I'm speaking from a womans' POV 'cause I am one.

[Smarmie Doofus]

39. Kerry... yes he had and has rare qualities and....

might have been the "leader" and "educator" that we really need. Showed flashes of that in the campaign: the debate snippet comes to mind: where he notes,while glancing toward Bush, " Sometimes you can be 'certain' and be WRONG."

His dilemma: getting boxed in to supporting a watered-down version of Bush Iraq policy when at some level... I'm reasonably sure... he knows that withdrawal is the only " just" policy. ( I remember him from his anti-VN activist days and assume, perhaps inaccurately, that at a gut level, his world view is the same as my own.)

K did reasonably well ( kept the left and right wings of the party pretty much united). Better than I expected, actually. Nearly won. Might actually have won, if you believe the vote-fraud activists.

Given the dearth of available talent in the DEM gene pool, and the need for a candidate who MIGHT be both electable and capable of "leading" ( and I mean by this , lead people from error to truth) I can't discount Kerry as a real possibility in 2008... though , frankly, I hope we can do better.

Hillary, Edwards, Gore, and Dean ( because he's not electable, and ONLY for that reason) are not "better".

[justiceischeap]

47. I never felt led to action by Kerry

I voted for him but I didn't feel a leadership. Maybe it was because he seemed to reinvent himself too many times throughout the campaign, as though he was trying to figure out who he should be. Intelligent, definitely, better for the nation, absolutely but I still didn't get a leadership, I'd follow this man anywhere, "vibe" from him.

Now, if the Anti-Vietnam Kerry would have showed up, I'd be singing a different tune.

edited for typo

[Smarmie Doofus]

60. The reinvention thing is the heart of the problem. They all...

find themselves in the position of having to make themselves palatable to the electorate. The arbiters of palatability are the political image makers and consultants; needless to say, they are not particularly interested in pesuasion... at least as far as POLICY goes. Strictly image and , of course electability.

I wouldn't say I was "moved" by Kerry either; merely that he had the "heart" of the anti VN activist and at the same the skill.. or at least the potential.. to *persuade*. This combination is absent in the other DEMS who are commonly mentioned as presidential possibilities.

[justiceischeap]

62. I think we need to observe the right

and learn from them. There are many out there that like Shrub because he comes off as one of them and has since the beginning. That's likely because Rove* has been training him for some years.

We need to do the same thing so when we have a candidate run, his "image/persona" is on target and there is no debate throughout the election cycle who this person is.

[Smarmie Doofus]

65. The right is much more sophisticated in all aspects of...

shaping political behavior.So many of their people coming from the ranks of marketing, etc.

Yes, we should learn from them. One problem: Dems in general are more interested in identifying and solving real social problems; Republicans in riding simplistic non-solutions to electoral success.

Might not be as easy as it sounds to transplant the "image /persona" thing to a serious DEM candidate.

[justiceischeap]

67. Imagine the candidate that was capable of both

Someone who was actually interested in those things and came out as a strong candidate "image/persona" wise...

[Union Thug]

33. Yes! But they have to be willing to fight.

Let's face it, the Right has been very successful in creating and maintaining a stereotype of a liberal as one of two things; A. A snob elitist detached from the everyday lives of Americans or B. A wimpy, panty-waist, passive, apologetic flower child. The right, with its media echo chamber has killed us on this.

So, I think we need to find a liberal that is more like the liberals the I remember from my childhood, the people my father and mother raised me around. They need to be labor and economic justice pitbulls (old school organized labor, take no shit, don't stand down kind of guys...Sean Maloney comes to mind. I know some old boys that remember seeing Sean wade through a sea of club swinging cops to block a factory boss from getting through a picket line). This person would need to connect to the working people in a way that Kerry could not (not necessarily Kerry's fault, the Repuke propaganda machine was at work). I think we need someone who is, at most, moderate on the gun issue, and who, him or herself, owns firearms. With respect to the xtian thing, he or she would have to address values and demonstrate convincingly, once and for all, that xtian values are liberal values, and even though we may not all believe in the same (or any) religious doctrines, our values are those essentially framed by Christ. And then contrast these values against the Masters and Slaves world of the repukes.

I think what it comes down to is having a fiery orator who attracts media attention by aggressively attacking the opposition and calling them out on their disdain for the working people of this country. Unlike Kerry's campaign, he or she would need to adopt the fight plan called out in the Untouchables... "If they bring a stick, we bring a knife, if they bring a knife, we bring a gun..." and not sit on their asses while the likes of the swift boat liars were viciously pummeling the campaign.

[Mockingbird]

41. Fighting Thugs

Re: "Elitist"

Is that a perception problem of the "Union" set? Calling liberals "elites?" Do you think that it has been defined out of the (union) working man?

Some of it demands the kind of balls you talk about as the old school organized labor types. The world & worplace is a little different than the 1930's. But maybe you need to have some of the gang over to watch an underrated Stallone film like "Fist" I think it was called.

A long time ago I was among the Union crowd as a member.
There was a distrust by many Unionists of anyone too educated, as being out of touch with life & "American Ideals." It was a self-substantiation that defined the "Union Man" away from other classes with plenty of help by Republican types.

Also, education was seen threatening, because it might trump seniority to advance in the workplace.

But the labor movement, I gather was founded with the help of idealistic "intellectuals" and indeed the American Dream is to advance one's kids into the economic class that doesn't have to perform hard physical labor in order to make a living.

So I always saw it as a little schizophrenic, they were seeking to alienate their kids into a "higher" economic & even social class they were denying themselves. That was simply wrong-headed.

A lot of Union jobs these days are not as hard. Or not quite as taxing upon the body. It involves more brain work in many cases. Yet we are creating an almost "Untouchable" underclass.

I think there's a gap that needs to be bridged from the perspective of "Unionists." Its all about what you want to care about that defines the social class part of it. If that is bridged, the economic classes are more likely to follow.

The right took the easy canned religious values as a road in to the people who are union, or would be union if unions were allowed, because all it requires is a little bit of lip service & feigned piety on Holy Days.

[justiceischeap]

42. Plus, aren't unions kind of a dying organization?

It seems they certainly don't have the stronghold they once had in this nation. However, that's just my perception, never worked for a union shop, I don't think they exist for web designers...

[Union Thug]

46. Not dying, try executed

systematically. The war on organized labor in the US was escalated by the Reagan administration. That is when we started losing ground and their hasn't been a union/labor friendly president since. Clintons support for 'free trade' bounced him out of the labor friendly camp..at least for me.

[justiceischeap]

48. No matter how we look at it

It's still not the presence it used to be/should be.

I sometimes think this nation is anti-worker. It amazes me on so many different levels how some of the American people let this nation down and work against their own good.

[Mockingbird]

54. round up the usual free trade suspects

Free trade was suspect from the outset.
I think it was resignation to the Republican majority (I believe most of that happened during the Repub majority).

Also, it was sort of inevitable. I don't know what could have happened instead. Maybe you have other ideas.

Its about the follow through, as far as I can ascertain. There was none that bolstered the internal workforce & mitigated the negative effects of globalization. I think a little of that may have contributed the economic climate of the 90's. But we've reached the limits of outsourcing without selling each other down the river.

But first off, NAFTA turned into a complete sellout of the American worker. It was sold to us all by mostly the right, but ultimately business that thought they could make their bucks & bail.

Not to bring up the standards of the other North American countries, but to make it kinder & gentler climate for the Robber Barons. The "faux people" business entities that government was supposed to protect us from & yield an honest playing field. Now we're irrelevant except as chattel.

Now a lot of corporations simply don't care because they have limited national loyalties. There were some "out there" books that predicted all this 30 years ago.

And the small businesses & entrepreneurial types seem to think that their fate is tied to big business.

[Mockingbird]

49. Web Unions

Unions are dying on the vine because of the perceptions jammed out there. Its been a very long time since I was in a union - I may be a little out of touch & can't speak to it.

For myself, I can never decide whether I think they are a good thing, or bad. Being in a field that is in demand is nice.

What is called for is getting to know a broader class of people.
I know a few people that work in factories & then go home to do their own web design.

Web Design is also a shrinking demographic.

Many of us are looking at a workplace that may not be there in the near future. I know talented software people that have not worked for 2 years.

The fate of Unions may knock on a few of our doors soon.

Getting hooked up through the politics is not a bad method for social interaction on other levels. That diversity used to be more common in the left & may be our hidden strength.

[Union Thug]

53. Interesting points

And my experience differs in some ways, so I'm not going to argue on points of experience.

As for education, there are couple of things. First, not everyone will be able to complete advanced degrees. These people have a right to decent work at decent pay as much as anyone else. Second, this wouldn't be a question if education were provided freely in this country. In my opinion, university education should be available to all citizens paid for by tax dollars. If college wasn't a path that fit, then techical vocational training would be offered as an alternative.

"Denying thesmelves"? I disagree vehemently with this. The point of union organizing is to secure a decent living for every working person in this world. You can educate everyone in the country to the highest possible levels, but this does not change the fact that there will never be enough jobs in the current system to 'reward' people for completing their degrees. It just doesn't map out. Allyou will have achieved is in creating a better educated class of people that are still competing against a 5 or 6 percent unemployment rate and whose wages will be measured against the overabundance of 'qualified' people.

We've seen this starting to happen in technology. First tech support was hit.. they went from 12/hour to start down to 8/hour to start once outsourcing hit. Watch out for programmers next. We've already started to see the wages start to fall where I work. I'm part of a tech union and our numbers have been steadily increasing, I think, largely as a response to this.

[John_H]

38. Ig the rethug operatives, strategists, and media can get a wingnut elected

we can get a liberal elected--if we get rid of our operatives, strategists, and surrogates who couldn't get Marx elected to the communist party chairmanship.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. To have broad appeal, they must be forthright and display integrity

Bush has an evil agenda, but he sounds so sincere and forceful when he describes it.

Kerry always sounded as if he was an actor portraying a forceful politician. I saw him in person twice, and somehow, he didn't seem comfortable with himself. His first public appearance in Minneapolis was especially disappointing, because it was all about being a Vietnam veteran, and little in the way of specifics about how his presidency would help ordinary Americans.

The 2008 candidate will need:

1) A set of firm convictions held and acted upon over the long haul. Kerry's vote on the IWR made him vulnerable to "flip-flopping" charges.

2) A strong self-image and inner integrity, strong enough not to be swayed by Beltway image consultants. Someone who is obviously a "what you see is what you get" type. When Dem politicians promote something they really believe in, they win. When they try to do things for political expediency, they lose. Think of Lyndon Johnson supporting the War on Poverty versus Lyndon Johnson supporting the Vietnam War.

3) The ability to mix comfortably with people of all social classes and ethnic groups. This was Bill Clinton's greatest strength.

4) A small set of specific proposals that will directly impact ordinary people's lives, along with echoes of these proposals by every local Dem politician, so that the voters hear of them from several directions Take a cue from Huey Long, who ran on a two-plank platform, which just happened to meet two of the most pressing needs in the state of Louisiana in the 1930s free public education and modern roads.

5) Smarter use of the media. Use Senators and Congresscritters as surrogates to go on their local media (to which they have nearly automatic access) to push the candidate's agenda.

6) Not letting the Republicanites set the agenda. Not being afraid to attack or fight back against the Republicans, but making sure that you don't waste all your time doing so, when you could be presenting your message.

7) Leaving behavioral issues in the background and campaigning on economic issues. This doesn't mean dropping choice or gay rights, or saying that you are against them when you are really for them, but stating your position honestly and then insisting that the conversation return to economic issues.

The Democratic Party needs to start educating the voters NOW. They need to find a way to get their story into mass media, including niche magazines and local television.

[orpupilofnature57]

45. A Liberal built the white house, and a good part of our govt,but

TALK TO ME IN 4 YEAR'S and hopefully that word progressive,wont kill the idea altogether.

[ken-in-seattle]

50. Depends on how you define "Liberal"

The wingnuts define it as a form of madness, and the anti-war left recoils in horror from the actual philisophy behind it, thus becoming "progressives" instead.

Those of us who learned history from libraries rather than from textbooks published by the Texas GOP, understand that it is the core of our great experiment with constitutional balance of power based on three branches plus the media, with representational democracy as the glue that holds the republic together.

That glue is strained now and the failure of the media can be seen from the strain placed on the rest of the system since they became unable to tell truth from propoganda.

Remember, before 1920 most Republicans also referred to the "Liberal Tradition" as their guiding principle.


------------------
I am a liberal. We live in a liberal democracy.

That’s what we created in this country. That’s in our Constitution. ... I think we should be very clear on this. You know, this country was founded on the principals of the Enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn’t founded on the idea that someone would get stuck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can’t lose that in this country. We’ve got to get it back.
Wes Clark - September 5, 2003
------------------------------


JFK on why he was proud to be called "liberal."

http://tinyurl.com/w7t4
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/35_kennedy/psources/ps_nyliberal.html

Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.

Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.

In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."

And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.

This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.

Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.

-----------------

[orpupilofnature57]

56. Ya, what you said. thank you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. No. So let's all just become Republicans like the DLC wants us to.

Since "winning" is everything, we can abandon any ethics or principles that we may have and just focus on getting "our" Republicans elected.

[justiceischeap]

61. Wow! You hate the DLC

but my post wasn't about the DLC or the party becoming "Republicans." It was simply, how does a leftist get it done when the nation itself is moderate/centrist and the red states are out-breeding the blue ones?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. One remains a leftist.

One makes compromises when possible when they don't contradict basic beliefs. At some point, one has to draw a line between compromise and collaboration.

As to the question you posed about the nation being moderate/centrist. I have an even dimmer view. I believe the nation to be conservative/centrist at this time. It will move left, when history dictates that it do so. i.e., when the cost of neo-colonialism costs too much in lives and treasure, and when the nation faces the reality that we can't afford to protect our "vital interests" (colonialism).

So far, the American people have yet to experience in a personal enough way, the price of ripping off the rest of the world, and defending our "interests" by brute force. When enough bodybogs are returned to them, when enough libraries close down, when they can't get health care for themselves and their kids, when the inevitable inflation sets in, when they can't afford to educate their kids, when the draft comes back, when it begins to hurt them personally.

Then they will become "liberals" and, if it has not yet committed suicide, the Democrats will suddenly remember the ethics and prinicples they are discarding now.

[IndyPriest]

70. Of course. Just hold a fair election! n/t

[justiceischeap]

77. Yes fair elections help

However, I think this unfair election business has been going on for a long time and 2000 shone a light on it.

There's more to it than that though. To read that reply, one would think Dems appeal to the masses (which they don't) and the only thing that would bring us victory is fair elections. That's not it at all. If you read the posts here, you'd see there's more to it than just the election issue, it's a candidate issue. I voted for Kerry and supported him but he certainly wouldn't have been my choice (none of the Dem or Green options would have been my choice).

The problem I see with the Democratic party is they are too close to the Republican party. When I look at them, the only real difference I see in most of them is the (D) behind their names. There are a few exceptions but that certainly doesn't help the electorate.

[moggie12]

76. Flame bait

People vote based on perceptions -- you'd have to address many Americans deep-seated unspoken beliefs before you could get a "liberal" elected.

This is what "Liberal" means in the eyes of a huge number of middle-class people (especially in the suburbs):

1) Soft on crime (always finding ways to excuse/coddle criminals)
2) Weak on defense (wimpy about defending America, always trying to cut the defense budget, always finding ways to criticize America)
3) Want to tax us to death so they can give money to slackers & PBS
4) Champion of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (widely disliked among whites -- "lower-economic-class" whites will say it to your face at the drop off a dime, "middle-class" whites will let it slip out by mistake after a few drinks).

Clinton won in large part because he took great care to let everybody know he wasn't a liberal Democrat. He took a shot at Sister Souljah, said he was going to reform welfare, and promised to fund community policing programs.

Kerry was unwilling to do this. Although he'd voted for the welfare reform bill, Shrum talked him into not highlighting it. (Me personally, I think Kerry should've taken a shot at Paris Hilton, mentioning her offhandedly as a reason we shouldn't get rid of estate taxes -- it would've raised the tax and values issue in one fell swoop.)

I can't personally think of a single truly "liberal" politician who wouldn't get trounced in a national election. This perception issue is not exclusively confined to the "Red" states: I've lived in both Red and Blue states and the reflexive negative reaction to the word "liberal" transcends regional boundaries.

[AntiCoup2K4]

78. With honest elections and a fair media, liberals would win.

As Michael Moore, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, and others have each said in their own words, the majority of America actually believes in "Liberal" values. Problem is that they have been repeatedly LIED to by the Republicans, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, FAUX, CNN, and whomever else about what our values are. And that was even before the theft of democracy in 2000.

The red states don't realize they're voting against public education, healthcare reform, the environment, veteran's benefits, and fair taxation (among a long list of others). They have been led to believe that voting against "Sodomite loving baby killers" will solve all their problems.

The DLC would have us believe that we need to abandon our values and embrace corporatist fascism to win. BULLSHIT. What we need is to control OUR message. Air America is a decent start, and it's growing. The efforts of DFA, PDA, 21st Century Democrats and any other TRUE Democratic organizations I might have forgotten are great as well, and the election of Howard Dean to DNC chairman would be a huge step in putting that message back in the front lines of the party where it belongs.

The big hurdles to fight now are the corporate media and electro-fraud "voting". Until those are defeated, it's all sandbags against floods :(

[bobwhite]

79. there is no such thing as a true liberal

or a true anything - everyone is an individual...