Primary Focus

[H2O Man]

"This week I had the opportunity to debate with Mr. Nixon. I feel that I should reveal that I had a great advantage in that debate, and I am not referring to anyone’s makeup man. The advantage that I had was that Mr. Nixon had just debated with Krushchev and I had debated with Hubert Humphrey and that gave me an edge."
--Senator John F. Kennedy; Minneapolis, Minnesota; October 1, 1960

The primary season always an interesting time on the Democratic Underground. There tend to be a lot of interesting threads, which focus on the issues that are important to us, and the positions of various candidates on those issues. This includes a fair amount of people expressing negative opinions about some of the presidential candidates, as well as the democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

I have contributed to the campaigns of several of the democratic candidates in the presidential primaries. I think that it is to our advantage to have this any qualified candidates to consider for our nominee. It seems to me that each one has both strengths and weaknesses. I have not decided on any one candidate to support.

Several of my DU friends have decided on which candidate they are supporting. Some have even identified one that they hope does not get the nomination. Their decisions are based on their perceptions of various candidates’ personalities, voting records, and perceived ability to win in 2008.

I think that it is fine to pick a candidate that you will definitely support in the primary season. I would remind people that it is important to not make any firm decision about what one candidate you would find impossible to support in the general election. The simple reason for this is that while it is likely that many of the situations we find frustrating will remain the same, others may spin rapidly out of control.

The democrats in the congress have shown little interest in taking steps that could limit the administration’s ability to wage its war of occupation in Iraq. There is no evidence of any serious attempts to investigate the criminal behaviors of the administration. There is no evidence that the democrats have the will to try to hold the administration responsible for its behaviors that violate the Constitution of the United States. These are issues that cause frustration and discontent.

But what might change is the theater of war in the Middle East. There are forces at play, which are domestic, foreign, and combinations of the two, that are focused on spreading the violence to Iran. A recent Newsweek article noted that VP Cheney’s beliefs about a possible Israeli strike on Iranian targets causing a response that would justify US involvement.

Asking other DUers to hold off on making a decision to not support a specific candidate is made more difficult, because frequently that candidate’s supporters discount the chances of a conflict with Iran, and deny that the current congress has the ability to place any limit on Bush’s ability to wage war in Iraq today or Iran tomorrow.

In the past two days, I have wrote about how in politics, we benefit by making distinctions between those who we share values with, and those we at times have common interests with. The first group are our friends, and people who are our natural allies. The second group aren’t necessarily our friends, but there are times when we need to be able to coordinate efforts with them, in order to promote our common interests.

There are very obvious and very real differences in values within a party so large as ours. Yet if what results from the primary discussions and debates is anger, hostility, and more divisions, than the dark and anti-American forces associated with the Office of the Vice President will capitalize on the opportunity to spread the violence to Iran. Believe it.

We can use this time as an opportunity to advance our positions, and our candidates. We can invest our efforts in building a strong foundation for traditional democratic values. Or we can weaken the foundation, and engage in destructive activities. The choice is ours.

[Me.]

1. Heard Obama On MSNBC This Morn

And while I don't have a horse in the race, I found myself impressed by him. A family member heard Hillary speak recently and to his surprise, was more impressed than he ever expected. That being said, I am not over the moon about any of them particularly because of their stance on Iraq and the fact that I haven't heard any of them come out and say we would be insane to bomb Iran.

I just can't figure what is going on with the governing elite. Why are they so brain dead? Could the polls be any clearer. Some say follow the money and it may be as simple as that.

[Me.]

2. Another Thing

Can we avoid using ridiculous hyperbole when talking about dems?

Or two:

It is conterproductive for us to keep fighting each other in a negative way. Make the case, let people vote in the primaries and see where we stand. Being pro someone, not against someone else might help.

[H2O Man]

3. One interesting

thing is the 1960 race. It may provide more information that is of value to us than people assume.

I'm not happy with the responses of Clinton, Obama, or Edwards to the questions about getting us out of Iraq. But I do understand that they do not want to answer that they will get them out immediately, and have the republicans use it against them in the general election. I view Senator Clinton as more conservative, in many ways, but she has Gen Clark picked for VP, and he absolutely understands that to resolve the problems Bush/Cheney caused, the US has to end the military conflict, and deal with Iran. The neocons hate the thought of that, because their PNAC philosophy is to keep Iran from being a regional power. And the OSPers have tried to advance a shift in power within Iran, to help the Chalabites.

If I thought for a second that Senator Clinton was advancing the Cheney agenda, I would say that no one should vote for her. But I know that is not the case. I am interested in thoughts, however, about her ability to be elected -- not based on national polls, which mean something but not everything -- but rather on the state-to-state breakdown. Maybe she would win. Maybe not. There is simply no sure answer.

Edwards appears to be the most interested of these three in making major domestic changes. He is very serious. There's no question in my mind that he is sincere. But, could he win the election? Let's look state-by-state.

Obama has talent that has not been tapped yet. Can he be elected? It needs to be considered, state by state.

I like the second tier candidates, as well.

[Me.]

6. All The Dem Candidates, As Are

Present worrisome issues and really mean we cannot take a win for granted.

Hillary's negatives are a big concern for me. As is Bill. On the Aug. 19th Chris Matthews show, Dan Rather said her main problem is Bill and whether or not he will have been found to have done something to embarrass her.

Barack I've had problems with ever since his 'grave threats'
answer.

Edwards may not be able to go the distance, he hasn't really caught on fire, yet.

That said, I will back the dem candidate. The difference being that I will hold their feet to the fire when they are in office. They won't get a pass just for being a dem. Congress has taught me that.

By their deeds ye shall know them.

[gateley]

12. That's why I treaded around for a while - I was impressed by all the candidates.

I just found myself gravitating more and more toward Biden, and then just KNEW he was my choice -- but boy! It was confusing at first.
Good luck finding your horse (if that's a goal you have).

[Warren Stupidity]

22. When I try and determine why people are for particular candidates

or against others, I end up be astounded at the utter superficiality and banality of political discourse in our society. We don't really seem to care what we are electing our leaders to do, but rather what our leaders look like, how they appear on television. The fact, as you note, that these oddly foisted on us 'top tier candidates' can't seem to figure out that it is a war crime to be in Iraq, that there are war criminals currently in the White House who got us their through what can most aptly be described as 'treason', and that these thugs are busy plotting to expand the war to Iran, is beyond comprehension to me. I vote issues not personality. That seems to put me in a vast minority. Too bad for this nation and the world.

[Annces]

4. Well

since it is almost Friday, here are some flowers for you. Lily of the Valley.

[Me.]

7. I'm Co-opting His Flowers

Love LOV

[Annces]

8. Okay

They have a wonderful smell and grow in the shade. They used to grow wild beside one house we lived in.

[annabanana]

9. White choral bells...

Upon a slender stalk..
(totem flower for old girl scouts)

[Richard Steele]

5. Always a voice of reason, H2Oman! recommended

[annabanana]

10. None are perfect, none are horrid,

And there is a long time to go.

[snappyturtle]

11. K&R Off to the Greatest. I have a question H20 man. Do you think

we set our expectations of our candidates too high?

I've always had to compromise on my final choice and I think it's because I expect the candidate to be the cure to all ills.

[H2O Man]

14. Yes, I do.

They are, like the rest of us, sad and weakly human. The most that we can hope for is that they will step up and do the right thing at the right time. That is what the great men and women throughout history have done -- not function on the highest level daily, for years at a time. But they find that something within themselves when others would either quit, or sit quietly and not try.

Frequently on DU, when people speak of the democratic party in terms that imply the elected officials in Washington DC are the party, I try to remind them that we are the party. It's what we do, and how we lead our lives that defines our freedoms and our democracy.

A few years ago, I posted an essay about the concept of "locus of control." Many people believe that their locus of control -- meaning the ability to exert influence on their lives -- is external. That some other forces control their lives. Others believe that locus of control is internal, that they can make the decisions that tend to control their lives. Of course, even those who see it as internal recognize that there are things that cannot control .... but they choose how they respond to these.

People with a sense of an external locus of control believe they are largely victims of circumstance. They view "leaders" as having unrealistic amounts of control over virtually everything. They set high expectations for "leaders" and "heroes," including politicians, athletes, musicians, and other high profile people.

A sad truth is that our corporate media attempts to convince people that they are powerless. And snakes like Bush and Cheney attempt to convince the public that they are at extreme risk 24/7, and that only the all wise, all powerful Big Brother in Washington DC can possibly keep them safe. It makes it double hard and triple hard to help people recognize that the only true power to transform their lives is within them.

[blondeatlast]

16. Your last paragraph speaks volumes about what's gone wrong in America.

I see my non-wonk friends beginning to realize this and it makes them nearly as angry as it has made me. I find some hope in that.

[snappyturtle]

18. I have to learn the mantra: true power to transform lies within ourselves.

I have to remember that. I fall too easily into the "victim" description of how I view our plight. However, I know that I am not alone....and too often find solace in that.

A few weeks ago Bill Moyers had a guest, a lady, on his program. She talked on this very subject and I felt so enlightened after hearing her position. She proposed, as you have, that our ability to change what we don't like has to do with how we lead our daily lives to serve as examples of that we want to achieve. She also suggested changes at the local level as the best place to start.

Thank you for reminding me! I am too hung up on reacting to others and what they've done rather than showing what I want by what I do.

I will look for a link to Bill Moyer's Journal program I referred to for anyone interested to give it a look....will edit if I find it.

Here's the link:http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08312007/profile2.html

His guest was 92 year old Grace Boggs.

[bleever]

13. A scorched earth policy

is no way to treat your own house.

Thank you for putting this into the geopolitical perspective; it sheds a lot of light on comparisons that are often viewed too narrowly.

[H2O Man]

15. Yep.

We are going to have to behave on a higher level, as a society, than we have been since 1979, or we are going to lose our Constitutional democracy.

It's funny: I remember in 2004, right here on DU, when I spoke about this Constitutional democracy .... and I said that if Bush-Cheney maintained their grip on power, what we would have in 2008 would not be the rule of law we had at that time. And a few DUers (yes, I remember exactly who they are) told me that I was being overly dramatic, and asked me to please stop. Well, look where we are today.

We do not have the luxury of a highly flamable, scorched earth policy. It's not the way.

[spanone]

17. k&r

[Gregorian]

19. Unity!

Thank you for saying what has been in the back of my mind. You have brought it forward. Right now I see how difficult unity can be amongst such broad thinking people as we are.

We have much to lose. That is something we all better remember as we move toward this next election.




On edit, I would like to add my appreciation for your post above which addresses the VP's in this race. This puts a new facet on the first stage. A buffer. It softens what might otherwise be a hard blow. Wes Clark and Clinton, as you pointed out. I think this needs more attention. People might find themselves less inclined to fight over their potential nominee, remembering that there is more to the candidate than just themself.

[H2O Man]

20. Senator Clinton's connection

with General Clark is one of the most interesting things about her campaign and possible presidency. Many DUers are concerned -- and for very good reason -- that groups like AIPAC have an unhealthy influence on candidates/politicians from both parties. And there is concern that their influence will cause Clinton to follow the Cheney administration's policies in the Middle East. The concerns go beyond Iraq, to include Iran.

We know that a conservative federal court judge ruled in a Memorandum Opinion in the neocon/AIPAC espionage case (Case 1:05-cr-00225-TSE; Document 343-1; 8-14-06) that the a "thorough review of FISA dockets in issue confirms that the FISC had ample probable cause to believe the targets were agents of a foreign power ..." The two were running an intelligence operation for AIPAC, which involved illegally turning over classified US military secrets about Iran to an intelligence officer from Israel.

We know from the recent Newsweek article that VP Cheney was considering the option of Israel striking targets in Iran in order to provoke an Iranian response that would justify US involvement. The goal of these dark powers is to broaden the violence in the Middle East, not reduce it.

We know that the PNACers want to prevent the rise of any regional/global power that could challenge US interests. The invasion of Iraq was always about changing the map of the Middle East, including Iran -- look at the OVP/OSP/WHIG connection to Chalabi, who is directly tied to parts of the Iranian intelligence community. And we hear daily on the corporate media how the US interests are being threatened in Iraq by Iran.

General Clark recognizes that there is no chance to resolve the violence in the Middle East without negotiating with Iran. General Clark is not afraid to say this, even though it goes directly against the desires of those advocating military strikes on Iran. General Clark knows that there is no sane plan to keep Iran from being a regional power in the Middle East.

Senator Clinton would not have decided on asking General Clark to be her VP if she wins the nomination, if she planned to reject his advice on the very issues that he knows the most about.

[Gregorian]

21. Some of this goes over my head.

After reading your post I went back and relooked at the Huffingtonpost article on Wes Clark's support for her war decisions. I think I misunderstood it at first. Now I'm not sure what I misunderstand. Wes's position or Hillary's. I have complete trust in General Clark. I think it's his philosophy degree. And his totally hands-on work in the military.

I'm in a cloud here. It's one of those Fall mornings. The sun is at a lower angle. There is a slightly cold wind. Memories of those Falls gone.



I suppose you saw the article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gen-wesley-clark/i-support-hillarys-posit_b_67170.html