"Team of Rivals" ......

[H2O Man]

"Acclaimed historian Doris Kearns Goodwin illuminates Lincoln's political genius in this highly original work, as the one-term congressman and prarie lawyer rises from obscurity to prevail over three gifted rivals of national reputation to become president.

"On May 18, 1860, William H. Steward, Salmon P. Chase, Edward Bates, and Abraham Lincoln waited in their hometowns for the results from the Republican National Convention in Chicago. When Lincoln emerged as the victor, his rivals were dismayed and angry.

"Throughout the turbulent 1850s, each had energetically sought the presidency as the conflict over slavery was leading inexorably to secession and civil war. That Lincoln succeeded, Goodwin demonstrates, was the result of a character that had been forged by experiences that raised him above his more privileged and accomplished rivals. He won because he possessed an extraordinary ability to put himself in the place of other men, to experience what they were feeling, to understand their motives and desires.

"It was this capacity that enabled Lincoln as president to bring his disgruntled opponents together, create the most unusual cabinet in history, and marshall their talents to the task of preserving the Union and winning the war." (from inside front flap of "Team of Rivals")

I am in the middle of Doris Kearns Goodwin's new book on Abraham Lincoln, and it seems that it might be worthy of consideration in the early months of 2006, as we approach the campaign season. It reminds me of the 2004 presidential primary campaign, when I suggested that the democratic ticket would be stronger, and hold wider appeal, if the eventual winner would make use of the wide range of talent. An example was when Richard Gephardt dropped out; although he seemed unlikely to appeal to many as a presidential candidate, he would have strengthened any ticket were he mentioned as the selection for Labor Secretary. Likewise, Wesley Clark , Howard Dean, and others would have been strong choices for a democratic administration. In fact, I believe that when Kerry's people tried to "mold" John Edwards -- steering him away from his "two Americas" approach -- they damaged Kerry, and cut the ticket's potential appeal to the "other America" that Edward's accurately had identified in the primaries.

Proof that projecting an "inclusive" image can help might be found in President Bush's courting of pseudo-democrat Joseph Lieberman. I suspect that this demonstrates not only that Bush's political advisors like Karl Rove recognize they can appeal to a specific segment of the democrats -- much as Kevin Phillips advised Richard Nixon to appeal to the racist southern "dixiecrats" in '68 -- but that the neocon movement has solid support for their Middle East policy in the pseudocrats.

What concerns me is that many of the democrats hoping to be elected in '06, and indeed those with their eyes on the presidency in '08, are going to look to the Lieberman strain of the democrats as the most important group to appeal to. I find that unaccepable.

I have noted, for example, that as a NYS democrat, I have contributed money and time to Hillary Clinton in the past. I've met her a couple times, and really liked her. But I will not invest any time or money in her campaign(s) as long as she takes a position that supports the Bush war in Iraq.

On page 16 of the January 9-16 edition of The Nation, there is a wonderful article by William Greider, titled "Rebels: Lighting a Fuse Under Lieberman -- and the Rest of the Democratic Appeasers." It advocates progressives supporting "a Democratic insurgency" in the primaries. MoveOn.org 's Tom Matzzie is quoted: "Our first allegiance is to our members, and they are just as frustrated with the Democrats as anybody else. So they've given us the charge to change the Dems, and we're taking that very seriously."

I would far rather donate my time and money to a democrat from Connecticut challenging Lieberman, than to a democrat from New York who supports Bush's Iraqi policy. It may be that we cannot end up with an "underdog" winning the democratic primary in '08, and that one of those "more privileged and accomplished" politicians of "...gifted .... national reputation" will be on the top of the ticket. But I think it is high time we let the national party know that it isn't going to be business as usual. They should not think that it is safe to take the progressive wing for granted, and that the contest should be for the pseudocrat/Lieberman wing of the party.

We need to demand representation.

[Coexist]

1. Great stuff (as usual)

allow me to be the first K&R

I, too, can only vote and volunteer with my heart this time. No more backing the candidate voted "most likely to appease".

No Hilary, no Lieberman. No way, no how.

[H2O Man]

2. I actually like

Hillary Clinton, and think that she may come around on the issue of the war by this summer. But I cannot support her campaign right now with time or money, any more than I could drive an alcoholic friend to a bar and give him $25. As a friend, I must in good conscience say, "No, I cannot support this behavior, because it is part of a disease that not only damages you, but leads to the death of thousands of innocent Americans every year."

I had not known a great deal about Lieberman before the 2000 campaign. I had felt that he made an attractive VP candidate. I know that Gore and Lieberman won the 2000 election, and believe that Kerry-Edwards won in 2004. So I find Lieberman's behavior extremely toxic at this time. I believe the democratic party is damaged by his ilk.

[Me.]

5. Does Changing Her Stance Make Her More Acceptable?

Given how tightly she has held onto her position, a change for the sake of convenience doesn't inspire confidence. As for Lieberman, I can't understand why he is still a dem. And is his advocacy for Israel so important to him that it eclipses everything else? After all, why would he turn his back on his party so totally and the voters whose views he was elected to represent? Also, when did it become acceptable for dems to aid and abet the party that is dissing them?

[H2O Man]

8. Regarding her possibly changing

her position on the war: I assume that, in part, her support of Bush's Iraqi policy is based on her attempting to be "strong on defense." The problem, of course, is that the aggression in Iraq is not part of our "defense" .... it is Cheney-Halliburton aggression. To the extent she denies that, and supports the Bush war, I will be forced to withdraw my active support for her. I would prefer that she changes her stance on that issue, even though I am aware of the nature of politicians "changing" on this type of issue.

[Me.]

10. I Will Have A Problem Voting For Anyone Connected To The Dlc

There are both ideological and trust issues with them as far as I am concerned. What was their point anyway, to move the country right to fill their coffers? Who decided that the right was the direction we should all be forced into? Is there an underlaying coating of neoconism in the DLC?

[H2O Man]

16. The neocons

started in both democratic and republican circles in the '60s and early '70s. I think that they have a broad appeal today, based largely upon the money that AIPAC invests in the political process, as well as the fundie Christian strain that infects our society.

[FreedomAngel82]

26. I remember reading sometime last year

an article somewhere (I believe like Mother Jones or the Nation) that told how many traditional republicans left the republican party when Bush and the neocons came to town. They now call themselves democrats even though they still believe in traditional republican party values.

[FreedomAngel82]

25. With me and the DLC

as a whole I'm a bit iffy with them and their republican stances considering how the republican party is now days. When it comes to individual canidates than I look at their personal stances and actions. For example John Kerry is listed as a DLCer, even though I have heard from other Kerry supporters that he hasn't had affiliation with the group since 2003, and he is quite progressive and than Mark Warner did a lot of good in Virginia and am considering supporting him. Just because one part of the group is bad doesn't mean they all are. It's like if you have a group of friends who are into gambling and other bad habits such as that it doesn't mean you are either and still be affiliated with the group.

[stoneisland]

12. Why Do You Hate Joe Lieberman?

Careful, now. For elucidation on this point, you should read the recent TRB column by Peter Beinart in The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060116&s=trb011606). I quote:

Yet, if Lieberman's view is one-dimensional, so is that of his critics. If he only sees Bush through the prism of war, they only see the war through the prism of Bush--which is why they can muster so little anger at America's jihadist enemies and so little enthusiasm when Iraqis risk their lives to vote. Kos and MoveOn have conveniently convinced themselves that the war on terrorism is a mere subset of the struggle against the GOP. Whatever brings Democrats closer to power, ipso facto, makes the United States safer. That would be nice if it were true--but it's clearly not, because, sometimes, Bush is right, and because, to some degree, our safety depends on his success. National security will never be reducible to the interests of the Democratic Party.

[Me.]

13. Funny, I Don't See The Word Hate In My Post

One dimennsional...hmmmm....welcome? Most progressives understand why Joementum is one of the best dems a pug could have. Why even his constituents do, which is why they held a censure meeting, based on the fact that he doesn't vote the views of the people he was elected to represent.

[stoneisland]

18. Well, I'm not the one who said Lieberman...

turned his back on the Democratic party or allowed his support of Israel to eclipse everything else. Two suspect arguments, IMHO.

By the way, elected officials are not supposed to be mirrors of their constituants particular intersts, they are charged with a responsibility to represent their constituants true and best interests.

[Me.]

19. One More Kiss

And he and B*** will be going steady

[stoneisland]

20. Seinfeld Moment

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[H2O Man]

14. I think that you have

mistaken disagreeing on politics with hate.

[USA_1]

3. Great book!

I'm reading another book at the moment but plan on reading Goodwin's book soon hereafter. She has appeared on C-Span and articulates her theses quite well. Her one shortcoming is her support of the military draft even though she was never in the military.

[H2O Man]

4. She's an odd person.

I frequently disagree with her opinions, though I admire her work as a historian. Her relationship with LBJ was curious, of course, but she did record some of the stranger aspects of his thinking. This may be her best book, overall .... the amount of research, and her decision to approach Lincoln in terms of his ability to work closely with political opponents makes for fascinating reading.

[DemonFighterLives]

6. Progressives are restless and are not sewn up

I mean, the DLC is presenting a picture that many don't like. Liebermans ilk is disruptive and divisive. :puke: Hillary is playing hard to get to her base in the mid to left. This continuous coveting of the elusive middle is driving me nuts and didn't help Kerry one iota.

As for Kerry and his picks. Edwards is a great person, but you may be right in that his us-vs-them 2 Americas vision may have been a turnoff to the haves and have mores. Gephardt was great in his previous runs and I thought he had worked his way to a nomination, but his one episode of fawning over w was enough to destroy him in my eyes. One has to realize the career politicians roll over quite easily when the power of dubco flashes before their eyes not to mention threats and coersion.

What were we talking about again? :9 Oh yeah broadening the consensus. Clark looked great in the appearance that I saw of him on tv, but some righties thought he was a ruthless killer because of Bosnia. Of course that is before the ruthless dictator* showed his true colors. Dean is awesome, but was destroyed by the neocon media and possibly from within the democratic party itself. He is not destoyed in my mind, because I can see past the sound tricks used on him. He now gets painted by the neocons as a moonbat and we love our Moonbat in Chief.
:dem:

[H2O Man]

7. "Edwards is a great person,

but you may be right in that his us-vs-them 2 Americas vision may have been a turnoff..." I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, as you attribute something to me that I did not say.

[DemonFighterLives]

9. I don't know how I arrived at that

I was just mentioning Edwards, Gephardt, etc. I still had trouble with the sentence when I re-read it. Something like Kerry's advisers changed Edwards message? I really liked his message, but my point was that the broader appeal might have been in question.
:-)

[H2O Man]

15. I thought that

Edwards was a perfect person to deliver the message. I know that he admires the late Senator Robert Kennedy, who was a serious advocate for the other America. But Edwards reminded me even more of Mario Cuomo, who addressed the issue so well in his famous convention speech.

[mopinko]

11. thanks for the nudge. i will see if i can grab this book today.

it was on my to do list.
re: "centrists" in our party- they are not reaching for the middle, they are reaching for the haves, and this middle stuff is a disguise. nobody who is paying attention is buying it. we are not stupid.
you cannot feed your grassroots and trample them at the same time. you will not see anything green growing. dean's record fundraising is coming from the grassroots. he who pays the piper calls the tune, and the doctor sings OUR song. change IS happening. primaries are the time to go to battle for our party. let's get out there and make sure grassroots candidates win.

[H2O Man]

21. I think that

you will like the book. I like what you write about the "center" and the grass roots. Our job, as I see it, is to advocate for the left of the democratic party. The right of the party, which insists upon falsely representing itself as the center, is already represented. And they try to sooth the left, and reassure us that they will represent us. I simply refuse to take seriously anyone who supports the Bush war in Iraq, and then tries to tell me to trust their judgement. As soon as I see their kids donning that uniform and serving in combat, I'll begin to consider the pro-war democrats as sincere enough to take seriously.

[WI_DEM]

17. Wonderful book

I'm really enjoying it too.

[H2O Man]

22. It's the best book

that I got for Christmas this year, and I really liked the others. She briefly mentions Daniel Dickinson from New York state a few times. I'm interested in his career. When he was a teen-ager, he used to swim in this pool ....

[robertpaulsen]

23. Recommended!

Sounds like an excellent book. I received a number of gift certificates for Barnes & Noble for my birthday, so I'll definitely consider getting it.

Also, I was wondering if you could recommend any books on Iran/Contra. I've read quite a lot on the internet about it, but I was wondering if there were any books you thought were particularly excellent on the subject.

Thanks H2O Man!

[FreedomAngel82]

27. Didn't Kerry write a book about Iran/Contra?

I'm not sure. What was his book "New War" about? (I believe that was the title)

[FreedomAngel82]

24. Hear hear

I agree with all of your post.