Do we need a "moderate" like Warner or some revolutionary changes?

[kentuck]

I cannot claim to know which is the best route. However, it does seem to me that we have taken so much crap and have been set back as a nation to such an extent in the last 5 years, that we have no choice but to offer revolutionary change? The status quo or even close to the status quo cannot rescue us. We need to make some wholesale changes in order for our nation to survive, in my opinion. Will a moderate be capable of leading in such a way? Will anyone be capable of leading in such a way?

It seems to me that we need a nominee that will seek wholesale changes in the way our tax structure has been set up in the last few years. We cannot continue on the path of the Bush neocons. It seems to me we need to offer revolutionary changes in the way healthcare is managed in this country. It seems to me we need to look at jobs and wages in a radical new way. We cannot continue with anything that resembles the status quo, in my opinion. Would Warner be such a leader?

[Warpy]

1. Look what that type of "moderate" has brought us

and then try to ask the question.

No, we don't need any more southern conservatives pretending they're moderate. What we do need is an economic populist, someone who speaks to the needs of the party's traditional working class base and gives them hope for a better future.

Even Clinton knew that and campaigned accordingly, although he governed like a southern Conservative.

Warner will have to put some proposals out there so he can be evaluated. Right now he just looks like the same old business as usual pretending to be something it isn't.

[wyldwolf]

68. what has that type of "moderate" has brought us?

[raysr]

2. We need someone

who can raise money. Someone who is KNOWN! And someone who can appeal to more than just us. Which means that whoever it is they may have to stretch the truth a little. The main objective is to get the stranglehold the repukes have off the US. We can work on them after they get elected, kinda like Kerry, Kuncinich was the perfect choice but Kerry would've be been fine. He needed some pushing here and there. Someone who is ELECTABLE and can raise MONEY! Like bartcop sez, "Americans WANT to be lied to!"

[radio4progressives]

9. we need to end big money campaigns .. it's the root of the thing that

ended democracy.

90% of Russ Feingold's money is raised by individual donors contributing $60 or less - plus he caps the total fund.

Those are the kinds of candidates we need.

fuck big money and their patsies.

[kentuck]

19. Amen.

Fuck 'em...

[BrendaStarr]

76. We need to back our candidates

We have been taught to constantly bash our candidates instead of working for them from the get go and earlier.

This has been the right's most effective weapon.

If you can't stand the candidates then get out and fight for our ideas.

Fight for the right to be outraged over the fascism of the Bush administration.

And get out and fight in public.

Just about every mixed forum on the web is swamped by the right wingers because they will fight and fight consistently and you will seldom if ever hear anything bad from them about their candidates.

First we need our democracy back.

Then we can fine tune it.

[TheFarseer]

3. Anyone that

will make some attempt to balance the budget, shift the tax burden back off the middle class, do something about the energy crisis and try to do something about outsourcing is a giant step in the right direction. I think Warner would do all of that. This garbage where we do everything we can to help the super-rich and totally screw everyone else is going to ruin our country in a big hurry if we don't stop it.

[shraby]

4. One name...Feingold is the only one I trust.

[radio4progressives]

10. Link to Progressive Patriots for Feingold thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2343828

[ovidsen]

5. The cynic in me backs Warner

He's not my first choice. I won't say what my first choice is, because that's subject to change. But I'm sick and tired of seeing great (to me) candidates trampled by the mooing masses who are cattle-prodded by hysterical wingnuts.

Howard Dean would be grat. Wesley Clark?? Sign me up. Hillary, I'm not so sure about, but I'm not gonna dump her.

I voted for Warner in his governor races when I lived in Arlington. He was pretty good for Virginia, and managed to endear himself to a lot of Red State types there without selling my principles out TOO much. If I have to cut corners and go for Mark Warner, I'll do it.

[toddaa]

6. I want a revolutionary

Preferrably, someone who advocates a complete dismantling of all corporate charters. Wouldn't that be cool? An end to wage slavery.

[dannofoot]

7. America doesn't buy...

..."revolutionary changes." Unless they're on sale at Wal-Mart.

Look, even * ran as a moderate, and despite our best efforts to inform America that he was as moderate as Goebbels, his marketing campaign, with help from the RNC and the media, sold Joe WalMartVoter the BS that he was "the guy they'd like to have a beer with."

We're not really dealing with an educated, critically thinking electorate here, Kentuck.

Any Dem, regardless of their positions, must take the stage as a moderate. America is simply not yet at the stage where voters are screaming for dramatic change...anything dramatic that happens off the TV screen frightens them into paralaysis. And unfortunately, the further America falls asleep, the harder it will be to awaken us from the sleep that decades of comforting bread and circuses bring.

By current standards, the Democrat in 2008 must be bright, good looking, moderate, and have a great spouse and family to have a shot at the presidency. Is this nauseating? Yes. Does this preclude a Democrat from winning? No.

And that's what it's about: Winning. To hell with anything else; another Republican administration after * and this country is finished.

[kentuck]

20. I sense you are correct but the optimist in me will not let me think...

but that for every lock in the world, there is a key. And for every idea, there is a word to communicate it. If we have the right message, we can find the key to the lock. Those are the truths that need to be told.

[catmother]

49. well said. i totally agree. n/t

[nickshepDEM]

54. Ding, Ding, Ding. Well said.

[wisteria]

71. I disagree, I think the public is tired of being told who we should be

voting for and who we should trust. What you describe is nothing more than what seems to appeal to certain groups in the Southern states. I hold more stock in the American public. I think they can figure out when they are being snowballed into choosing a packaged candidate.

[Kahuna]

8. So far, Warner works for me. Our goals have been set back

decades by the shenanigans of the extreme left. Sheesh! Talk about voting against one's own interest. I'd happily go for a socalled moderate like Warner. Compared to a fascist like bush, he looks damned progressive to me.

[AntiCoup2K4]

11. Whatever you're smoking, pass the bong over this way.

"shenanigans of the extreme left."??

What the Hell is that supposed to mean? We have three branches of the federal government controlled by theocratic fascists. Their sickening, criminal agenda is often aided and abetted by DLC appeasement cowards. Exactly what is the extreme left in charge of that would allow for such "shenanigans", whatever the Hell they are?

[Kahuna]

14. Extreme left.. You know those guys who decided that Clinton

and Gore were too moderate and should be punished. So YA'LL gave us Bushco. Thanks for nothing!

[radio4progressives]

28. Kahuna are you working for somebody or do you actually believe

this canard?

And the other thing that is really quite funny to me, is that first right wingers of the party decry the very existance of the "leftists" in the party (even engage in this kind of demonization with the objective to marginalize Lefists, going to every extreme to deny them a voice, a say, fair representation)and then, when those who choose to leave the party in order to vote for someone who they feel is more represenative of their positions etc, are demonized for doing that!

You can't have it both ways. You either welcome or reject Leftists in the party, but if you reject them, don't fucking BLAME them because both elections got STOLEN!!! sheesh!

[kentuck]

33. Sometimes I feel like the King in Braveheart....

who said something to the effect that if he listened to his sensitive son, that could he his head in the basket...That's where we are with the moderate DLCers? :)

[radio4progressives]

35. I Remember that guy - freaking wicked and evil!

and his poor pathetic son... didn't the king push his son over the ledge and out the window after all?

[kentuck]

36. As I recall...

..he threw the son's "aide" out of the window. Because Philip was advising the King's son and offered advice to the King on how to get rid of William Wallace, that tyrant from Scotland. So he put his arm around the young man's shoulder and requested he tell him more - as he walked nonchalantly toward the large, high, open window. Then, in a second, he grabbed him by the seat of the pants and threw him out the window, as his son gasped in horror...

[radio4progressives]

38. That's Right! Timothy Roth I think Played the part right?

and his aide was actually his lover...

what a good film. We could use a William Wallace today that's for damn sure.

but that's the last Mel Gibson film I'll ever see... i hadn't realized what a demogogue he was, until passion..

[AntiCoup2K4]

43. For the record, I voted for Gore in 2000, and still consider him President

Hell, I even voted for Kerry in 2004, though I had to hold my nose to do so, and was truly sorry I did the minute he conceded Ohio.

It's amasing how the DLC apologists always assume anyone who opposes them is either a Nader voter or some 14 year old Young Democrat who knows little about politics. I can assure you that none of those descriptions apply to THIS lifelong Democrat!

[radio4progressives]

32. Hear! Hear! and when you're through i want some of that too...

:applause:

[BillZBubb]

13. "Shenanigans of the extreme left"??????

WTF?

[Kahuna]

15. You know like in voting for Nader. Those shenanigans. How bout

the 1968 Democratic convention riots? Yeah. Those shenanigans. Edited to ad: :eyes:

[BillZBubb]

25. Oh wow the 1968 convention! Jeez...

I'm as left as most anyone here, but I voted for Gore. In fact, Gore got more votes than Busholini. Shenanigans of the left didn't cause us to lose in 2000, 2002, or 2004. In fact, it is the supposed "moderates" who make the Democratic party stand for nothing except warmed over Republicanism that is killing us. Not the 1968 convention.

[radio4progressives]

29. Are you kidding Me!! You're blaming the 1968 debacle on the LEFT?????

who in the hell has been feeding you this garbage?

[wisteria]

73. Decades of shenanigans of the extreme left. What do you call

extreme? Civil Rights, Women's Rights? Social Security and Social programs that help the poor, Civil liberties, medical coverage for all Americans? Oh, and how about a Government, by the people, for the people and a President that doesn't think he is above all laws. Being moderate and not questioning what has been taken place in recent years is one major reason we find ourselves in the state we are in.

[MasonJar]

12. I am for whomever y'all choose; mostly I want to beat the Pugs.

I will work hard for the candidate. In fact I would support a one-celled amoeba at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean if it were a Dem after five miserable years of torture. Come on, y'all. Let's get together and win. In my opinion our most important job is the voting machines. We all know they (they being the Rove scumbags) stole the 2000, the 2002, and the 2004 elections. We have got to stop them or I'm going to have to move. I'm too old to move so help me out here DUers.

[ddeclue]

16. Warner's WAY overrated...

I just saw him speak at the Florida Democratic Party Convention in Orlando and all he could do for an hour was give me his resume and tell what a good job he thought he was doing.

Very uninspiring indeed!

I also saw John Edwards and Barack Obama speak and they were much more inspiring people with a vision that I think most voters would be drawn to. Both are about raising people up, giving them a hand and helping the least among us. I really think Edwards is channeling Bobby Kennedy or something to hear him speak. Both were tremendously powerful speakers in contrast to Warner.

Democratically Yours,

Doug De Clue
Orlando, FL

[kentuck]

21. But he shor has a purty mouth....

:)

[radio4progressives]

30. LOL!!

that maybe, that's not good enough anymore!

[wisteria]

74. Your kidding, right? n/t

[wisteria]

75. Way over rated! Totally agree! n/t

[nirvana3240]

17. Moderate!

Moderate.... thats my vote.

[radio4progressives]

31. whatever that means .. today, Moderate means Republican Lite

no more of that please, thank you very much.

[TheFarseer]

44. If moderate means

do everything the pubs do but to a lesser extent, I don't want that. If moderate means focus on good jobs, a reasonable energy policy and not sell out to the rich and corporations but at the same time, selling out on guns, gays and God I can live with that. It would be *kind of* annoying but much better than this bushco sh*t - and highly electable.

[bvar22]

18. These issues are NOT revolutionary!

*Universal HealthCare

*Adequately funded Public Education (through collage)

*Separation of Church and State

*Protections for American jobs

*Living Wages

*Effective regulation of: Banking, Insurance, Lending, Investment, Utilities, Transportation

*Restraints on the MegaCorps to make it possible for Mom & Pop and Family Farms to compete with Wal-Mart and CorpoFarms

*Progressive Taxation where the RICH pay their fair share

*Human Rights (LABOR rights and Job protection are Human Rights)

*Environmental Protections

*Civil Liberties

*No Foreign Wars of Agression and Occupation

*Protection for Retirement

*Aggresive Prosecution of criminal CEO's

*End Corporate lobbying

*FAIR and transparent elections

*FAIR and transparent awarding of government contracts

There is NOTHING radical or Revolutionary about the above.
EVERY ONE of these issues resonate with the MAJORITY of Americans (not just Democrats)

[dannofoot]

22. Sorry, but...

...everyone of those items CAN be made (and have been) to sound revolutionary by RNC spin. And they have been masterful at it over the last decade, deluding my aforementioned JoeWalMart Voter. Why, look:

Universal Healthcare - "Socialism, pure socialism. Wanna hear some horror stories from Canada? We've got a million of 'em. Last I looked, America wasn't a socialist state!"

Separation of Church and State: "Show me where in the Constitution those words are written verbatim. Not there? Non-issue. Just another socialist scheme to kick Christ out of our lives."

Living Wages, Environmental Protections, Retirement Protections, Progressive Taxation, Regulation of Banking, etc.: See "socialist" rants, above. "All of that talk is anti-capitalist. Commie!"

While, as you state, those issues aren't revolutionary, our solutions to them are successfully painted as such by the RNC. Worse, they successfully paint them as "radical." And ineffectual candidates like Kerry have utterly failed to negate their spin.

Hopefully, 2008 will see a Democrat that can concisely, coherently and consistently articulate Democratic positions on these issues that will resonate with American voters.

[bvar22]

37. This is precisely where the Democrats have let us down!

We can FORCE them (Democrats AND Republicans) to at least begin talking about these ISSUES.
Avoid the "Personality Cults, Camp Followers, and Candidate Groupies" here at DU and in the REAL World.
Whenever someone opens a dialog about Centrism or Electability IMMEDIATELY change the topic to ISSUES.
Support candidates that are running "ON THE ISSUES",like Dennis Kucinich. DK at least FORCED the elitist Democrats to talk about FREE TRADE and Corporate lobbying by staying in the Primaries until the convention. (Of Course, that stopped at the Convention where the Corporatists bought a Centrist, status Quo Party Platform.

RAISE HELL ABOUT THE ISSUES.
Just because the Republicans "bad mouth" American Issues is NO REASON to shut up!

When some asshole says "But thats Socialism! "
Respond, "No its NOT. Its AMERICAN!!!
Mom and Pop built this country, and its time to take it back!"
FIGHT! or Surrender and apply for a job at Wal-Mart or McDs.




The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

In EVERY case, "Barriers to Trade" and "Restrictions on Corporations" were created to protect something valuable!

[radio4progressives]

34. Will You Be a Candidate Please, these are My Issues and ALL MY FRIENDS

and even those kool aid drinking, Republican co-workers of mine would support these platform.

So how about it? Toss your hat in and let's go!

[kentuck]

23. The sad truth is that any Democrat is a "moderate" compared to....

this bunch of lyin', bullshittin', ignorant, arrogant assholes!

[Donna Zen]

24. Got Foreign Policy Credentials?

We need them, without America loses. Foreign Policy and Domestic Policy are now intertwined, and nothing anyone can say or do will change that. We need someone who knows what they are talking about, not talking someone else's talking points. Unelected advisors and photo ops are not the answer

[Auntie Bush]

27. So true! General Clark is the only one that has strong foreign

policy and economic credentials. People just don't know enough about him yet and his economic background. Most don't know he TAUGHT Economics as West Point. People seem to only ask him military questions.
Somehow he/we have to change that perception.

[wisteria]

77. John Kerry offers even more first hand knowledge and experience

certainly Clark has much to offer in regards to military experience, though.

[politicasista]

26. No, we just need pols that have a vision for America and the world n/t

[autorank]

39. Whoever gets elected will implement revolutionary changes.

There's too much coming down the pike that will force revolutionary changes.

1) The deterioration of the environment at a rate that accelerated beyond predictions: global warming is taking it's toll; pandemics; starvation and the inability to produce food in large parts of the globe; water shortages; oh, yeah, melting f'ing polar ice caps in huge chunks; the gulf stream at well below 50% about to turn Ireland and England into New Foundland; etc., etc. it's all happening, no counter argument or wishful thinking will stop this AND WE ARE RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.

2) The looming fiscal crisis. Clinton had the baby boom problem solved. Get the deficit down way low, when the boomers hit, borrow up to fund it temporarily, and then back to getting the deficit down. It was his most brilliant move, simply breath taking. But no, Captain Coocoobnanas blew the deal. Well somebody hs to pay and it's going to be ugly.

3) Health care, a corollary to #2. Drugs cost way too much. The companies will negotiate to reasonable (and profitable still) rates, e.g., the VA, Canada, etc. Taking prices down 50%, which would not be hard with a single payer drug system, would mean a 25% cut in health care benefits immediately and an incremental amount due to BETTER HEALTH because people can buy the medicine they need.

The next president will have to deal with and do something quite dramatic about #1. He or she will have no choice about 2 & 3. Look how people protested on Social Security...oh, you missed that. Well, the * plan is dead, done, stick a fork in it. They demanded a drug benefit, and got it (although it's a mess and will fail). Demands for lower drug pricing is coming too.

Whoever is elected needs the ability to conceptualize the obvious and implement it without hesitation. In many ways this argues for Warner. He's bright enough to "get it" and he's one hell of a manager. A little to the right for me (but much less than you may think and he's just using DLC, btw, for their $$$'s).

Warner has done a good job in Virginia, my state. He got health care in place for those without it and worked on this BEFORE he became governor. He made sense out of a fiscal disaster handed to him by the Republican governor who cooked the state books Enron style. He immediately vetoed the anti-gay legislation out of the Republican legislature, immediately, without apology. He set up a nano technology state initiative, which is exceptional futuristic thinking. He was good on race but blew it by not doing a larger ex-felon-enfranchisement. I think he's smart enough to grab the bull by the horns. I heard a speech of his on c-span a couple of years ago, "What it means to be a Democrat" and it was all about the New Deal. Hmmm....

[Telly Savalas]

40. We need moderates like Senators Boxer and Feingold

[AntiCoup2K4]

42. And there lies the true irony.

Boxer and Feingold would be considered moderates in most other countries, including our neighbors to the North, yet here they are painted as "too liberal" by our corporate apologist friends at the DLC.

Boxer has said in recent interviews that she is NOT running in 2008 though, because she knows that she's needed in the Senate. And I can't argue that with her. Because even if we DO somehow get both houses of Congress back this year, and the White House in 2008, we will need leaders in the Senate and the House who will move forward with the PEOPLE's business, not the corporate whoring of recent years.

[catmother]

51. boxer, a moderate?????? n/t

[Telly Savalas]

72. Yes. A moderate.

Or are you going to let the extremists on the right define what moderate is?

[1932]

41. We need a revolutionary wolf in moderate sheep's clothing.

[catmother]

52. yes. yes. pull the wool over their eyes. if we can pull that off it

will be great.

[bklyncowgirl]

45. I'd like to see a western governor with populist leanings.

Schweitzer sounds intriguing from the little I know about him. Richardson has all the credentials in the world but is a little too DLCish to get me excited as is Warner. I could have my mind changed about either of these gentlemen, however.

Barring the entry of a charismatic, populist governor type, I'll probably support Feingold for his courageous and effective opposition to the Patriot Act and the fact that he had the good judgement to oppose the Iraq war from the getgo.

[hippiechick]

46. Revolution, baby !

Enough milquetoastness already !!
The future of the country is at stake.
It's time for the Dem leadership to grab themselves by the cojones and LEAD US away from the edge of the proverbial cliff.


:hippie:

[SaveElmer]

47. Country may be tired of ideology trumping governance..

They may be looking for competance. They would definitely get that in Warner. The guy is very smart, and very good at working the political process. The guy got an overwhelmingly Republican legislature in Virginia to agree to a targeted tax hike. Pretty remarkable. Though I have to say there are some pretty good Republican delegates that helped along the way. But still.

If the country is tired of a rigid ideologue and incompetance, they may turn to a guy like Warner.

[catmother]

53. my husband is a moderate republican and he really likes warner.

he says he'd vote for him. each time he sees him speak, he's more impressed.

[SaveElmer]

55. Well that actually fits...

In a state like Virginia he had to appeal to moderate Republicans and independents to get elected. He stresses a can do approach rather than trying to trumpet wedge issues. However, he can be counted on to uphold traditional Democratic positions - on choice for example. But he refuses to be drawn into useless debates over these issues which just play into Republican hands.

[catmother]

56. exactly. n/t

[nickshepDEM]

59. Indeed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. I would rather have my cake and eat it too: Wes Clark

Always being asked by Democrats in deep red state areas to campaign there for them, but he won endorsements from: Michael Moore, George McGovern, Andrew Young, Earth Day Founder Gaylord Nelson, The Native American Times, former Chair of the Civil Rights Commission Mary Frances Berry, etc. etc.

[Pithy Cherub]

50. California is important to Dems. Warner has NO Buzz here.

And not likely to get it with his lack of national security creds and moderate centrist views. And that colossally stupid statement about not needing to focus on how the Iraq war started will haunt Warner. Lots of hot air hype and but no ability to sustain it as an ex-governor for the next two years. Next, Californians, Texans, and New Yorkers are not ponying up big money. All the Virginians got together and gave him some seed money but it will be a long time before he can be a proven fundraiser. For that, the interest of California, New York and Texas come into play. Lover her or hate her, Clinton reigns supreme in that regard and all three give her money - regularly. The insipid Washington Insiders might like Warner - blech, but not the donors from the Big three.

http://www.mezomorf.com/washington/news-16034.html

[sendero]

57. I'm not sure...

... but of one thing I am sure. Any Dem who thinks we should "not refight the battle" over how we find ourselves in this intractable debacle (Iraq) has no business running for anything. The Republicans will chew up a milquetoast like that and spit him out.

And you can count on that.

[nickshepDEM]

58. Warner brought REAL CHANGE to VA. I believe he can do the same for...

The National as a whole.

The man inherited a billion dollar budget shortfall and turned it into a surplus. He reformed the tax code, which resulted in a lower income tax, an increase in the earned income tax credit for the poor, and a lower food tax. He made record investments in education and numerous other programs that were falling behind.

He is a brilliant executive. No one can argue that.

[catmother]

63. well hello nick. i was wondering where you were with all these

warner threads all going at once. glad to see your name.

[nickshepDEM]

64. I just noticed all these threads!

He's really starting to catch on. :)

[catmother]

65. yes. and he sures stirs up a lot of controversy. nt

[nickshepDEM]

66. Only by those who fear him.

Some people do not like the fact that he is stealing attention away from their candidate.

Its sad actually. Instead of promoting their guy. They are forced to attempt to drag down Warner. ;)

[catmother]

67. yes. i know. i've been back and forth with someone and i keep

asking "who is your choice"? and she won't answer.

[wisteria]

78. Ok, John Kerry has so much more to offer than Warner.

He just isn't a pretty face from VA. Kerry offers experience, talent, first hand knowledge of many governmental operations, Foreign policy experience,and he isn't afraid to take on this administration and others that threaten our civil liberties and security. He has a wonderful caring wife and wonderful well raised and accomplished children.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

60. Is Warner really a "moderate"? Has been acting like a liberal-- labels?

I think we have to be careful of labels with Warner, because if anything in his *actions* he's much more of a liberal, certainly more liberal than Lieberman, Hillary, Biden or others running in 2008. Warner got through some of the strongest pro-environmental legislation of any governor in the country in recent years, plus Warner succeeded in *raising taxes* in Virginia while retaining his popularity and strengthening the Virginia economy. Don't know yet where he stands on the Iraq War, but thus far, Warner is starting to sound like an ideal candidate in many ways-- someone who "sounds like" a moderate but is, deep-down, a liberal through and through.

[nickshepDEM]

61. Correct...

He is often branded with the 'centrist' label because people have a hard time believing such a solid democrat could be so successful in a state like VA. Its hard for some people to believe that a solid democrat could receive a 70%+ Approval in VA.

So they just assume he's a centrist, rather than looking at his record, which happeneds to be very solid.

[Geek_Girl]

62. America needs a strong Progressive

but I doubt that one will be able to be elected. The American public is too stupid and easily lead by the boob tube. A strong Progressive will be trounced by the corporate media.

My guess is a moderate/conservative is the best we are going to get and I'm doubtful that we'll even get that.

[doc03]

69. Yes if we want to win, name one recent NE Democrat President

There was Kennedy but by todays standards he would be a Conservative.
Look at our Democratic Presidents LBJ, Carter and Clinton all from the south. I would like to see NE liberal President myself but they are just not electable. It just doesn't make sense to try to win 16 states and ignore the rest.

[wisteria]

79. I agree we need to reach out to all the states, but a packaged

so called winnable Dem is not the way to go. We have had many NE Presidents. Not all were Democrats, but it isn't so much about where you come from, but what you have to offer in the way of experience, and common goals that people can relate to. I refuse to believe we have to bow to the South in order to elect a good Democrat. Gore was from Tennesse, Edwards was from North Carolina in the end race, it doesn't so much have to do with where you come from, but what you have to offer to the people.

[wisteria]

70. We need someone with the experience and vision to make

some wise,and perhaps radical decisions in the near future. IMO, a middle of the road politician and one that lacks Foreign policy experience would be wrong and could lead to more kayos.

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. How about a good old moderate message like this?:

__Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth – George Orwell from 1984

Now some words from the mist:

Franklin D. Roosevelt

“The Economic Bill of Rights”
Excerpt from 11 January 1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union – link:
http://worldpolicy.org/globalrights/econrights/fdr-econbill.html

“We cannot be content, no matter how high the general standard of living
may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
...
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.”

source: The Public Papers & Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt (Samuel Rosenman, ed.), Vol XIII (NY: Harper, 1950), 40-42
_________________

Some more words from this mist:

Borrowed from:
LynnTheDem

139. a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman


Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml


The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html