Does that mean that those of us Democrats concerned about getting our troops out of Iraq should just "shut up" and "disappear" from the party?
FYI, Dennis Kucinich receieved 17% of the vote in MN, despite spending almost NO money, and having an all-volunteer and largely inexperienced campaign staff. By the time of our state convention, our Progressive Caucus (composed of anti-war delegates, civil rights advocates, and progressive supporters of EVERY candidate) had at least 35% of the delegates on the floor. We pretty much ran that convention, and other groups were coming to us, begging for support of their candidates and issues.
The MN delegation knows damn well they need our help to get Kerry a victory in this state-- we ARE a "swing state" this year, FYI. Our 10 electoral votes could mean the difference between victory and defeat. Thankfully, the state party knows this, and have been more than willing to listen to our concerns and capitalize on our skill and expertise at getting non-voters involved in the process.
But apparently the DLCers are more than willing to keep whoring the party to the highest corporate bidders in order to chase the ever-elusive (and ever-shrinking) "swing vote"-- most of whom will do NOTHING to build the party before, during and after the election-- and ignore the growing tide on the left-- who are simply asking that we consider their voices and don't dismiss our passion for justice and peace.
Oh, and BTW, here's another report from one of the other folks who was in Boston:
Our M4K delegation was put through the wringer. They were real troopers and a whole lot of people in the larger Minnesota delegation
finally began to catch on to the fact that something different was happening. Others new to the process are really looking to us for leadership in the DFL as a result of how well our people did under fire in Boston. It was a grueling process; but as they say "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger!" In this instance is also makes you more well respected - and that's exactly the manner in which we have been choosing to comport ourselves in order to make real changes in the direction of the Party. Hooray for our folks -- all them.
Apparently, some Dems have not learned the lessons of the 90s & 2000, when we tried to "out-Republican" the Republicans, and consequently lost Democratic majorities in the US Senate, the US House, many governorships and state legislatures as well as city councils and county governments, too. Our sole bright spot? Electing Clinton, who governed like the best Republican president since Eisenhower.
If you honestly think you'll be able to buy another election, more power to you. But the Repubs will ALWAYS have more money, more ads, and a more "professional" organization, because they can AFFORD it.
But if you want to win elections the way Paul Wellstone used to win them, you may want to keep us around.
And please, let's drop the "then go vote for Nader" bullshit, shall we? NONE of our delegates said that, and they will probably be supporting Kerry. However, you had best not take for granted the votes of the non-voters who became energized because of the Kucinich and Dean campaigns, because they have NO LOYALTY to this party. Many of them are once again fed up and disgusted with the way the party has comported itself, and its cavalier behavior at this convention will not do it any good.
The vast majority of Democrats voted for John Kerry in the primary. They entrusted him to set a course. The people who voted for Kerry in the primaries (including me) knew he voted for the war. I conclude that a vast majority of the Democratic Party thinks that leaving Iraq immediately is a rash, irresponsible and the wrong thing to do. In my view, the people who are the peace movement need to ask themselves this question: what course will bring long-term peace not only to American troops, but to a war torn Iraq? In my view, leaving immediately creates another Afghanistan where war lords struggle, and where violence rules. It's easy to say we should leave immediately to bring peace to Iraq, but that statement is intellectually dishonest.Then you haven't been reading the news lately. 70%+ of the Democrats at the convention wanted the US to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. And only 46% of ALL Americans approve of continuing the occupation. Not to mention that 70% of IRAQIS want us to get out NOW-- regardless of the consequences to them.
Your attitude that "only the US can fix Iraq" reeks of neo-colonialism and racism. How dare we say that the Iraqis are helpless, and that only us good Americans can "rebuild" their country-- especially after the last 14+ years of undeclared war we've fought against them. You belittle the Iraqi people by saying this, and completely dismiss their own ability to organize their society to meet THEIR needs-- NOT those of US businesses. Just because the US has destroyed their country, it does not qualify us to "rebuild" it in any way, shape or form.
I also find it odd that you compare Iraq to Afghanistan-- especially since the US has "occupied" Afghanistan for nearly three years. Look at what has happened since: the country has not gotten "safer". We replaced one group of thugs with another group of thugs who are just as inhumane as the Taliban were. The country is NOT stable, and elections have been repeatedly postponed, while the country remains under the control of a warlord who is a former CIA collaborator and ex-consultant for Unocal (who will benefit greatly once their pipeline goes through Afghani territory). Violence continues on a day-to-day basis, and the country is still "hostile" outside of Kabul.
Afghanistan is a perfect example of why a prolonged US occupation will NOT work in Iraq. Our presence does more to destabilize the country than it does to help it.
And what would the "Peace and Justice" crowd gain by supporting Kerry? He won't cut the bloated pentagon budget (a dept which, btw, can't account for over $1 billion that has simply been "lost"). He will not abandon the "pre-emptive strike" doctrine. He wants to ADD another 40,000 troops to the active military. He has no plan to get us out of Iraq or Afghanistan. He supports Ariel Sharon and his thuggish Likud brethren who refuse to abide by UN resolutions to leave occupied Palestine. He supports "normal" trade relations with China, despite China's use of slave labor in its sweatshops. Indeed, if P&J issues are your biggest concern, you have little to gain by voting for Kerry.
BTW, the Kucinich delegates did not go to Boston to "start a fight". We CAN count, and we knew damn well that Kerry was going to be the nominee. But somehow, you make the faulty assumption that Kerry's own delegates supported his positions-- which was hardly the truth.
Primary voters selected Kerry because he was "electable". They thought he would be the best candidate to take on Bush. But if you look at the party platforms and resolutions from the states, you find that they're MUCH more progressive than the one foisted on us at Boston (and "passed" by 200 of the 4,000+ delegates, btw-- some "democracy").