Primary Concerns (your opinion, please)

[H2O Man]

"Lyndon Johnson could win votes, enact laws, maneuver mountains. He could not acquire that something beyond, which cannot be won, enacted or maneuvered but must be freely given ….that respect, affection and rapport which alone permit an American President genuinely to lead. In his periods of downsweep, in peace as in war, he stood the tragic figure of an extraordinarily gifted President who was the wrong man from the wrong place at the wrong time under the wrong circumstances." – The Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson; Eric F. Goldman; Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.; 1969

One of the nice things about public libraries is the annual book sales. Among the books that I picked up yesterday was Goldman’s account of his years (1963-66) as Special Consultant to LBJ. He was, in effect, President Johnson’s Arthur Schlesinger. Older DUers will recall that the two did not part on the best of terms.

I am finding the book fascinating for a number of reasons. Goldman, who received his Ph.D. in history from Johns Hopkins University in 1938, had taught at Princeton for over twenty years, before going to work for LBJ. He was a liberal democrat, who had been more involved in social issues than strict politics before his service in the Johnson administration. He was, for example, researching the 1911 lynching of Zachariah Walker in Coatsville, PA at the time he was called upon by Johnson.

The book tells of how LBJ gained Goldman’s loyalty in their first meeting, just 10 days after Dallas, not by what the new president said, but rather, by listening to the nervous professor speak for :45 minutes on his views of the opportunities that LBJ had to lead the nation.

"I plunged in. Historically speaking, every so often the United States has gone through a period of serious division in public opinion, not so much over specific policies but as a result of general attitudes. Americans lined up on opposite sides with conviction and emotion. Such was the case in the years after World War II, and in this particular period the clash was more serious because there were two areas of conflict, one in foreign and one in domestic policy. …

"Whenever such a conflict had developed in the past, sooner or later a strong President appeared and found a set of policies and a tone which substantially bridged the divide in public opinion. ….

"Faced with such situations, past Presidents had drawn the country together by calling upon the doctrine of the national interest. They advocated politics and pushed legislation which represented what a variety of significant groups had come to agree upon, or substantially to agree upon, or could be persuaded to agree upon. These Chief Executives were careful to preserve a relatively nonpartisan and nonideological tone and to emphasize the Office of the Presidency as ‘the steward’ of the needs and aspirations of the general population, to use a phrase of President Theodore Roosevelt, who had brought the country out of the divisiveness of the 1890’s.

"It was important to do this, I added, because a too-sharply divided nation was an immobilized nation, incapable of carrying out a coherent foreign policy or of meeting the demands of the domestic scene. A President who effectively identified himself with the national interest was in a position to lead away from the stale, obstructive emotions associated with past divisions … It could be a proud historic function of the Johnson Administration if, in its first phase, it were to join the select group of Presidencies which moved the country solidly ahead and opened avenues to the future by providing a consensus leadership. Later it could push forward, as other consensus Administrations had done, to a different role." (Chapter 1: Call from the White House)

I am interested in DUers opinions on several issues. First, do you think that Goldman’s view about the advantages of a consensus Presidency apply to 2008? Which issues, domestic and foreign, do you believe hold the promise for consensus? Which would make consensus difficult, or even impossible?

Which candidate(s) now in the primaries can best build a democratic consensus as we approach 2008? Which candidate(s) is/are most divisive? Which non-candidate(s) could create consensus? How can the party best deliver the message?

I think that these are topics worthy of our consideration. We need the right person at this strange and dangerous time.

Thank you.

[goddess40]

1. that the media will once again pick our canidate nt

[H2O Man]

11. I wish that

I could say with confidence that this is not likely to happen in 2008. Sadly, it is a possibility, even a probability, unless the grass roots becomes more organized very soon. By "more organized," I do not mean that the democrats need to agree on what candidate we will all support now; rather, to begin to make a graph that charts what issues we can agree upon. Then the best candidates will come into focus.

[mod mom]

2. The Democratic party is split between the populists and the corporatists. The media

which is controlled by a few big corporations has alrady chosen who they want. It's up to us to push back and educate the masses.

I think Al Gore could help restore our image around the world, and has shown the leadership qualities needed in these difficult situations.

[H2O Man]

12. Al Gore

might be the most capable person at this time. I have liked him for a long time -- in fact, I liked him better than Bill Clinton in '92. I think that now that he has reached the point where it is not important to him personally to be president, that he has reached the level of maturity that he might be one of the true visionaries to hold that office.

[mod mom]

21. but...

it may not be important to him to be the president but I think he realizes how the world views the U.S. and their leadership (including the Dem leadership who have either been unable or unwilling to put a halt to *, nor to act responsibly on climate crisis despite controlling congress) and I think he realizes that the US needs a leader to can gain back the respect of the world. He has to know how well respected he is, and until I hear him say he WILL NOT RUN, I am holding hope that he will see how he can effect policy on a much broader level in the role he earned in 2000. Our country has never before faced the obstacles and issues brought on by 6+ years of a faux pResident. He is the leader for the crisis' that face us.

[H2O Man]

23. Exactly.

I agree 100%.

[bleever]

39. I agree with you

and think that, if anything, the fact that he doesn't hunger to be King of the Hill makes him an even better choice.

I was glad to vote for Bill Clinton twice, but I was disappointed that for as bright a guy as he is, and as good a speaker as he is, there were very few times when he spoke like a visionary leader, rather than the guy who was best able to stay ahead of the pack.

[Annces]

3. I suppose John Edwards

would appeal to both sides the best.

[H2O Man]

13. John Edwards offers

a great deal to many of the groups that make up America. I've had some people say things about him being a trial lawyer, as if that is a bad thing. From my personal experience, of being injured on the job, requiring extensive surgery and PT, and having an employer who would not take me back, I know what it is like to have the income disappear. I know what it is like to have the wolves at the door. And to tell my children, "No, I'm not really hungry tonight -- you can have that." And from that experience, I do know that a trial lawyer can be a best friend.

[Annces]

19. Well I am glad you had a good lawyer

I do look askance at people who are millionaires, but I have also been a spartan in that regard. I have a younger sister who was making huge amounts of money at a young age without even going to college, and I admired her, but am definitely cut from a different cloth.

[rosesaylavee]

4. Difficult questions - as usual :)

Don't know when reaching consensus is NOT desirable and useful. We certainly need it now - our nation needs to come together and make some difficult decisions on Iraq and our failing economy. I think they are both deeply entwined. The environmental crisis is upon us and the pseudo scientists are allowed more air time than the real ones. IMO, the lack of real information is preventing real discussion of these difficult decisions we need to be making as a nation. It's hard to discuss any of this with individuals who get their news from Faux or the rw-slanted local newspapers.

Current candidates who could help build consensus are Edwards and Obama. Not exactly in that order as I am not for either one at this point. I do think they are gifted in connecting diverse people and bringing them together on a topic.

My hoped for candidate, Gore, has not announced but I do think he would have the best chance of connecting the disparate groups.

Our party at the moment seems more interested in bickering than leading. Not too surprising since, unlike the Republicans, we allow and expect everyone on our side of the aisle to have a voice. I hope it coalesces soon into a voice supporting a return to our Constitution, a return to truth in our news delivery, and a voice that speaks of hope for our future that is peaceful, economically secure and safe.

[KoKo]

6. Good point you make

IMO, the lack of real information is preventing real discussion of these difficult decisions we need to be making as a nation. It's hard to discuss any of this with individuals who get their news from Faux or the rw-slanted local newspapers.

The lack of discussion in a non-partisan way of any of the crucial issues. The Think Tanks and Corporate Interests select the agenda. Most Americans don't have the hours to spend combing C-Span to see the various Think Tank Discussions that would give them an opportunity to know the people involved in setting agendas. The Corporate interests are amply represented in all our MSM ...so it's very hard for the people to ever really know except what they sense about how the country and economy is going from their everyday lives. Since Bush has kept the "good times rolling" for many upper Middle-Class Americans" (while driving the poor into silence or the churches to find their voice) it's only recently with the mortgage and stock market problems coming to light that Americans will suddenly begin to realize what's been going on for over a decade. Don't know if a consensus about how we can go forward with all this debt, decline of infrastructure, health care coverage crisis and ever increasing costs of Bush's "War on Terra" can be found before the nominee is picked, though. We might end up with either a caretaker or an undertaker in our next President if we can't get a grip on "issues" over "personality in our choice. And...our choice will be decided for us given the power of Think Tanks and Corporate Media, anyway. We have to hope their choice is a good one...although their past choices have not been.

[H2O Man]

15. Good point

on your part, as well. At its best, DU works as a grass roots think tank. We've seen, and participated, in that process many times here. But at other times, and with increasing frequency in the primary season, that potential is knee-capped by a variety of other influences.

[H2O Man]

14. "But all noble things

are as difficult as they are rare." -- Spinoza

Difficult questions, indeed. And we have but a short time to advance possible answers. You are correct, sadly, that too much time and energy is being wasted bickering, rather than keeping our eyes on the prize. And I agree with your point about the Constitution -- for that is exactly what is at stake in 2008.

[antigop]

5. I don't have a lot of time to respond right now -- I just briefly checked in and found this thread.

I will briefly add to the discussion my 2 cents:

If we can't get a consensus on upholding/respecting the constitution, then we truly are in deep $#%^.

[superkia]

7. Only one candidate is speaking out about the constitution and our rights

but we wont elect that candidate? :eyes:

I truly don't understand the American public, what is more important than our rights? Without them we lose everything else, war, health care you name it, its gone. We only get the bone that the system will throw us and we will chew on it happily like good dogs.

[H2O Man]

17. It would be nice

to have one debate focus on the Constitution. I think that would be the substance for some letters-to-the-editor of newspapers across the country, really. A lot of people might become interested in the concept. It might create an interesting contrast in the two main parties, too: democrats discuss the Constitution, while republicans wrap themselves in a flag.

[antigop]

35. I would like to see that debate on the Constitution. How do we make that happen?

So sorry -- I'm just bouncing in for a bit and then will have to leave again.

I do think the Constitution is at stake and as you said, we are living in very dangerous times.

Focus on this issue is needed.

[antigop]

36. superkia, I don't get it either. I don't think people really understand what's at stake.

Maybe there is such gross ignorance as to what the Constitution consists of, why it exists, and why certain amendments are there?

:shrug:

[H2O Man]

16. The Constitution

would seem the most obvious starting point. We know from our history books that even the Founding Fathers had some serious disagreements on specific issues when they were making this document. But they found ways to disagree without becoming entrenched in the negatives.

I do believe that the Constitution is at stake in the 2008 elections.

[antigop]

38. I agree with your assessment as to what's at stake. And I think it is a very scary situation

where we only have ONE presidential candidate who seems to care.

For crying out loud, we have so many candidates RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT who make no mention of what's at stake.

Very scary times, indeed.

[Joe Chi Minh]

8. Maybe a tenuous consensus betwen the progressive Democrats,

(which ought to be a tautology, but, of course, isn't) and the DLC, although substantively weighted in favour of the progressives.

By insisting it was their right to rule the country, in the manner that they did in November 2000, i.e. by wholesale election fraud and voter suppression, the Republicans proved the opposite to be the case. Would a shopkeeper consult with a shoplifter on his procurements for his inventory? I don't think so, H2O.

Sorry. I expect you meant within the Democratic Party, rather than significant bipartisanship.

[H2O Man]

18. I am not sure

that there can be significant bipartisanship, before the democrats find some degree of unity/consensus first. At the same time, democrats should not be fooled into thinking that they have to agree on everything .... it would then be too easy for covert rovian republicans to stir the pot, and distract us.

What do we tend to have in common? It's interesting to consider. There may come a day when people in both parties realize that they have far more in common with each other, than with most of the "leaders" in Washington DC.

[Joe Chi Minh]

50. The thing is, though, imo, it may already be the case that many

poorer Republicans - who could never really afford to be Republicans - already realsie that they have more in common with each other than with most of the other Republicans.

But since both sets of rebels ("leaders" in Washington DC) care not a fig for what the rest of you think or want, I doubt if it can have much relevance unless they can be brought into line by the electorate at the polls. But it's a bit like our two right-wing parties in the UK, though perhaps less dire and extreme in the US, because of the likes of Kuchinch and Edwards. We seem to be largely irrelevant and almost powerless, since we have nowhere else to go.

Meanwhile they'll continue to try to press the right buttons to get us salivating for justice, while having scant intention to bring a significant amount about.

Oddly enough, my main concern, (apart from a fraudulent election) would be the future. Rightly or wrongly, I already see the Republican Party as history. But in the future, when you have a welfare state, how long will it be before you get a Blairite New Democratic Party of "beggars on horseback". Beneficiaries of the welfare state who will begin to see themselves as nobs, and will then want to pull the ladder away.

[bleever]

9. I'm reading Robert A. Caro's first volume on LBJ,

The Path to Power (which is fascinating) and one of the things that comes up over and over is that LBJ was a consummate politician as far as being able to handle people and institutions to get his way, but that he had no personal beliefs or principles beyond gaining power.

Ambition was not uncommon among those bright young men {who were assistants to congressmen, called 'secretaries'}...but they felt that Johnson's was uncommon -- in the degree to which it was unencumbered by even the slightest excess weight of ideology, of philosophy, of principles, of beliefs. "There's nothing wrong with being pragmatic," a fellow secretary says. "Hell, a lot of us were pragmatic. But you have to believe in something. Lyndon Johnson believed in nothing, nothing but his own ambition. Everything he did -- everything -- was for his ambition." A saying about Johnson had gained wide currency among these young men because they felt it described him accurately: "Lyndon goes which way the wind blows." (p. 275)

I think we need a candidate (and a president) with strong, genuine beliefs about really making the federal government an instrument of forming a more perfect union, establishing Justice, ensuring peace, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty for everyone.

Specifically, I think we need a strongly populist leader determined to rectify the growing divide between the wealthy and the rest of us, and between those with power and access and those who feel powerless and hopeless.

[H2O Man]

10. Caro's books

are a fascinating study of one of the strangest men to become president. (From time to time, I ask about when the final one of the series will be published.)

I think that he was hooked on the excitement of politics, much in the manner that people get addicted to other behaviors such as gambling. The two are perhaps more closely related than commonly recognized. As he matured, the model of FDR became far more influential in his thinking than it was in his early political career. Certainly this overlapped with his drive to be "the best" as he defined it by others' opinions of himself.

You are, in my opinion, on the money with the need for a "strongly populist leader" who can help people see themselves differently, and to see the opportunities we have to make change. And he/she will then have to set the example in motion.

[many a good man]

20. Consensus usually means doing whatever the Republicans want

A majority of the minority and a minority of the majority are holding this country back from desperately needed change. The only way for democrats to break out of this gridlock is to teach and to lead. This is where our failure is the greatest.

Teachable moments are lost at every opportunity. There are many well spoken Democrats who fight the fight but there is no follow through or support from top leadership. The mass media filter is a massive obstacle to overcome which makes it even more critical that liberals do not acted like wilted lilies.

The American people are way ahead of the Democratic leadership in sensing the need and the desire for change. Democrats need to be more "divisive" in order to force these issues to the surface and to show where the differences lie and what is at stake. By being too compromising it leads many Americans to feel that maybe things aren't as bad as they appear. In fact they are far worse.

Given the current weak state of Democratic Congressional leadership, the only hope we have is a charismatic leader. One who can appear to appeal across the divide and gradually change the debate. I'm not sure if I've seen this person yet.

[H2O Man]

22. Interesting.

Very interesting. You raise important points .... I am particularly interested in your comment on the need for a charismatic leader. Over the years, I've tried to study the three main types of "leadership" in our culture, and in fact I think I posted a essay on DU some time back on this topic. I'm going to see if I can find that.

One thing that became clear in the 1960s was that the people who were true charasmatic leaders died violently. That is often the case around the globe, of course. Charasmatic leaders are usually replaced by one of their top aides, generally the one with the most bureaucratic skills. Hence, the "changes" instituted by charasmatic leaders tend to be short-lived.

Today, the "system" does not respond to the threat of charasmatic leadership with bullets, but rather with "breaking news" bulletins and media smears. Para-charasmatics, such as Reagan, and plastic charasmatics, such as Bush2, are substituted.

But the prospect of a charasmatic leader raising the level of consciousness, even for a season, has potential.

[tkmorris]

24. I'm not certain such a leader is possible anymore

The truly charismatic leader, with a sincere intent to teach and lead, that is. Such people are not allowed to build and grow in the United States; the powers that be are too good at recognizing the threat they represent and the destruction process begins before they can gain a toehold. One would have to appear on the scene ready-made, and gain the mantle of the presidency in one sweeping moment.

I think in part that is the appeal of Obama to some people. They imagine him to be just such a person. I don't agree with that notion, but his meteoric rise is the only way a sincere and charismatic leader could achieve the presidency without the normal compromises and sell-outs.

Gore has the right position to step in from the outside, but I don't think he has quite the personality to ever be a true populist. I love his slow, measured, analytical style, but all too many do not.

[H2O Man]

25. One of the difficulties

that such a leader would face would be the constant efforts to find any past mistakes or questionable behavior. That was one of the things that Malcolm X was so good at handling: whenever someone would bring up his past, he would say, in effect, "You don't know the half of it." Thus, I think that a true charasmatic leader today would have to take a similar approach --which would serve to put people in touch with the fact that we are all sad and weakly human, but capable of growth. Not a bad message ....

[tkmorris]

33. It's a good approach

But I am not so certain that it would work in todays atmosphere. Those who oppose people like Malcolm X was are much better at destroying them through public opinion manipulation than they used to be. All people know of most political leaders is what they see through the media, and that image is constructed very carefully by the very same people who oppose any sort of populist. I'm just not convinced such a rise would be possible today if the powers that be are given time to poison the well.

Then again, I could be wrong. I hope I am.

:beer:

[OzarkDem]

26. Consensus presidency is essential in 2008

The division in the country isn't so much between average Americans, but between the wealthy, authoritarian ruling class and everyone else. Consensus is necessary to restore economic solvency for the future and pull the US back from the brink of turning into a 3rd world country.

Issues for consensus:

Restoring alliances and advancing diplomacy in foreign policy

Protecting US jobs for the future

Universal health care

New energy policy to reduce dependence on fossil fuels (also ties in w/ US jobs)

Rebuilding and reinvesting in our own country

Fiscal policy - Balancing the budget, paying down debt, closing tax loopholes

Restoring faith and confidence in honest elected officials


Potential Barriers

Influence backed by money & lobbyists from the ruling class whose wealth and power has grown exponentially during the Bush years; their money is the siren call to many Dems now in the 2008 race.

The news media - it has to be reformed


Which Dem can get it done?

I'm not sure. Those in the "electable" category don't give me 100% confidence that they can do it. It will take a lot of strength and willingness to fight those who would divide the country. Consensus issues need support from everyone, but the plan to enact a consensus agenda requires someone willing to kick ass and not compromise, something that eliminates most of the front runners. Reforming the news media will be especially difficult. We almost need someone who doesn't give a sh-- about getting re-elected.

My choice? Howard Dean, second choice Al Gore.

[H2O Man]

28. Very good list

of issues that we should all be recognizing as important to each of us.

There really only appear to be two alternatives to attempting consensus, and I'm not sure which is worse: the type of hatred and violence that we have witnessed in other lands (and which did happen here during our "Civil War"), or the mindless squabbles and arguments that numb us to the fact that the light could go out on this country.

[OzarkDem]

31. Mindless squabbles more likely here

There's a real concern that even if a Dem is elected in 2008, the news media and GOP noise machine would continue to shift focus away from the real issues and promote the same faux scandals that plagued the Clinton administration. Clinton was strong enough to withstand it and keep advancing a good legislative, economic and foreign policy agenda. He was able to overcome it and pursue compromise to get things done without compromising on the big things.

[pinto]

27. Thanks for your post. Johnson was actually a populist at one time in the TX mold -

A consummate pol, ruthless, yet rooted in the Hill Country and still revered for bringing electricity to west Texas, as well as a host of other pork barrel projects, which was the standard in his day - much more than now.

He did a lot of national good - Medicare, signed the Civil Rights Act, etc. and a lot of failed foreign policy. VietNam, first and foremost.

I liked him, hated his foreign policy.

[H2O Man]

29. My father used

to say that if not for that war, he would be considered among the greatest presidents in our nation's history. He thought LBJ was an odd, but fascinating man, the 2nd coming of FDR.

[pinto]

32. Mine did, as well.

[pinto]

30. As to consensus and the primaries:

I'm a moderate Dem, obviously supporting Gov. Richardson's primary campaign.

That said, I think our key issues are Iraq, Health Care, de-politicizing the federal Departments and Education.

I think there are consensus points in each area among our party.

De-fund the war, and allow a reasonable, safe withdrawal, enlisting broader diplomatic and regional support. It need not take 2, 3, 5 or 10 years.

Move towards universal health care - realizing that it won't happen in one fell swoop. I think Sen. Clinton has come to a sense of consensus with this since her brutal attempt in the 90's.

I think all Dem candidates are horrified at the politicization of the various Departments. How best to reverse this corruption is a good point for discussion, yet rarely discussed.

Education, likewise, is an area where we can have broad consensus. Access to education, federal funding and innovative private/public partnerships may well be a good Dem agenda item.

[EFerrari]

37. I must be 'way to the left of you, pinto, but I agree about the issues

you named here.

Although I'm ideologically closer to Dennis than to any of the others, I believe Mr. Gore and Mr. Edwards play better with others and would do a good job in that regard.

[bleever]

41. Why is Kucinich "unelectable"?

I sure like him a lot, and as time goes by I wonder more and more about the idea that he can't win the presidency.

Conventional wisdom gives us...well, the conventional. And right now, that isn't what this country needs.

[EFerrari]

42. I'm working his campaign. I guess the media forces arrayed against him

get to me sometimes, bleever. I think he'd be a great executive.

And I agree. More of the same only gets us to more of the same.

[Unbowed]

52. The man certainly doesn't get the respect he deserves.

In many ways, politics is a popularity contest. People vote for United States President the same way they voted for class president. The net result is that we now have the Cheerleader in Charge running our country.

[pinto]

43. Thanks for your POV. I think that's the point of H2O's OP, who

'plays better with others' in a political sense. It's going to be a great primary run, all around.

(on edit) We've got a good slate of candidates. I'm less concerned with the occasional gaffe every candidate makes, and the hoopla that surrounds that, than I am with the big picture.

ed for spell.

[H2O Man]

48. In many ways,

I am convinced that the democrats have the most talented group of candidates in the primary that there has been in any of our lifetimes. I am concerned that the bar marking the level of debate is being lowered, both on the national scene and, at times, on DU. It seems to me that we have the ability, when we put our heads together, to come up with some outstanding ideas. I'll mention one, which was a response on this thread, that noted there is almost no mention of the Constitution in the democratic debates.

We know that the republican candidates aren't going to discuss the Constitution. They are going to pose in front of flags, and have lots of wonderful red, white and blue balloons to communicate their mindless message.

However, if people at the grassroots level began writing letters-to-the-editor of their local newspapers, and calling in on C-SPAN, and making a simple point -- over and over, because repetition is essential -- that Americans should be considering the importance of the Constitution, and the dangers being posed to it, it might catch on. It may be that more of the democratic candidates will be encouraged to discuss it in a meaningful way. No matter which candidate we favor, that would be a good thing -- because I am convinced that none of our candidates are anti-Constitution. But the public should be interested in knowing how each candidate views that document, and would apply it to the various issues confronting the individuals and families living on this land.

[GeorgeGist]

34. In my opinion the Republican Party ...

is a Clear and Present danger to the World. I'm quite certain that the right person to thwart them remains a stranger to us all.

Sorry I can't be more helpful ... but I will defend my small world as best I can.

[rucky]

40. The "unity" candidate is very clearly Obama.

but I'm more interested in justice than unity. What got Johnson elected, and the legacy he left are two different things. I'm afraid that if we forgive and forget, it will leave an even worse stain on the country than we have now.

[EFerrari]

44. Could you say a little more about your thinking re Johnson?

:hi:

[rucky]

45. He did some awesome civil rights stuff...

that was eclipsed by his escalating the war, legacy-wise. In some ways he left the country more divided than it was when he entered.

I don't claim to be a scholar, and I wasn't alive then, but that may make my point a little better - i know what he's famous for.

[EFerrari]

46. The Civil Rights Act and the War on Poverty.

That "old boy" was a racist who worked the political machine and he did a LOT of good. Yes, he got suckered into escalating Viet Nam and that was a mistake but so were many people around him suckered.

On balance, he was a good president and I admire the man. Lady Bird was a wonderful early environmentalist, too. We were lucky to have their service, imho.

[H2O Man]

47. He was a failure

at foreign policy. In part, it was because he had relatively little experience in that area -- his years in the House and Senate were almost exclusively focused on domestic policy and in being a mechanic of machine politics.

Vietnam is the most glaring example of what was wrong with Lyndon. But I would suggest that his rejection of the Kennedy approach to Central (and South) America was as great of a long-term failure as Vietnam, though many have forgotten the promise of the Kennedy approach. Within a short time in office, there was unrest in Panama, and LBJ absolutely rejected the approach of the Kennedy people.

A few of the rabid republican senators told him that by talking to the leaders of Panama, he would "look weak." And Lyndon did not want to "look weak." That was one of his tragic character flaws: a fear of being exposed as a person with human weakness.

Kennedy's attitudes towards supporting change in Central America were revolutionary. LBJ's were reactionary.

[EFerrari]

54. I agree that in respect to foreign policy he reacted where he could have

responded.

But you know, getting the Civil Rights Act passed was such a piece of magic that, on balance, I believe he was a good executive.

[Swamp Rat]

49. k&r

[redqueen]

51. Kucinich

NAFTA, Iraq occupation, drug war, healthcare

[bulldogge]

53. Another Option

Some issues to consider. First and foremost the War and the issue of post war occupation or lack there of. Foreign policy in general, who is next Iran, Korea? . Health Care, I find it hard to believe more americans aren't raising holy hell over that issue. Education is another, anyone who works with kids or has kids can see first hand what a sad institution the education system has become, secondly that is where it all begins as far as the propaganda that is force fed to american citizens. They are not there to debate the issue simply memorize it as truth and then pencil in A,B,C, or D on their quiz paper. Another issue that has been overlooked a bit I feel this time around is the environment simply because there are "more pressing" issues.

Speaking of environment I remember the first time I read "Silent Spring" by Rachael Carson. Al Gore praises Carson for stepping forward in I believe '63 and opening his eyes to what would be a life long commitment. I think on one level Gore would be the most logical candidate due to his credentials and I agree he has matured drastically over the past decade. I do worry a bit about Tipper being in the oval office (as an artist) and her desire to censor us.

Now on a side note I realize this is the DU but what about any green party members? Ralph Nadar specifically? I know he has had some unkind comments towards Mrs. Clinton but I do believe he is a valid representative. I think if anything his biggest downfall is that of Kerrys in that he may be a bit too intelligent for the general populace.

I do have to say that I really like the idea of bringing the constitution up as well. Probably the most important and valid point brought thus far?