MercutioATC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-13-08 01:03 PM
Original message |
I'm curious, how many who supported Dean in 2004 are supporting Clinton now? |
|
The issue has been raised a few times...is this divide primarily a product of "new politics" vs "old politics"?
The Democratic establishment was historically directed by the DLC. It determined the strategies based on "tried and true" formulae.
Howard Dean, both as a candidate and as Chair of the DNC, threw away those strategies. He's asserted the DNC's authority in the process and chosen new methods to forward the party's support.
There's a rift between the DLC's "old politics" and the DNC's "new politics". Is this the crux of the rift between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters...even unconsciously?
On a personal note, I was a Howard Dean supporter and I'm supporting Obama now...not because I'm a "Hillary hater", but because I don't believe we'll see substantive change unless we change the paradigm. We don't just need to elect a Democrat, we need to begin to change the way we deal with issues on a very fundamental level. I believe Howard Dean did that (and continues to do that in his current capacity). I believe Obama does that.
It it a surefire "winning" strategy? That depends on your definition of winning. I believe that the only way we "win" is if we change the dialog. I'm willing to sacrifice some perceived assurances of a "win" for a chance to make that change...and I don't even feel that's an issue any more.
Discuss, If you'd like...
|
EFerrari
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-13-08 01:04 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Not me and I regret that now. But, I definitely see a through line |
|
between Dr. Dean and Obama. :)
|
Lou Queb
(115 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-13-08 01:17 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Is it better to win a GE and a majority of seats in congress or |
|
to change a party for good at the risk of loosing an election ?
|
stillcool
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-13-08 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. I think they might be the same thing... |
|
Winning with the party we have, is still losing...as proven by the 2006 elections.
|
MercutioATC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-13-08 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. I agree with stillcool...but to answer your question, |
|
Edited on Sun Apr-13-08 03:13 PM by MercutioATC
yes, personally I do believe that change is more important than willing a given election.
|
Tom Rinaldo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-13-08 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. I would gladly accept incremental positive change in 2008 |
|
with 3 Supreme Court Justices needing to be replaced, with Global Warming at the tipping point, and with two wars already being fought and another potential one looming in the wings. I do not see this as a run of the mill election. If it came to it I do not accept the risks involved of being willing to trade off possibly losing in 2008 against potentially setting it up for more radical changes to occur in 2012 or later. I have never doubted that I will work for the Democratic ticket in 2008 even when there were 8 or 9 candidates running.
|
MercutioATC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-13-08 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. Thankfully, I don't believe we'll have to choose. |
Lou Queb
(115 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-13-08 04:51 PM
Response to Original message |
7. With this 2 party-system, better cast a vote for the dem ticket and |
|
that is the pathway towards change.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 07:33 PM
Response to Original message |