Jump to content

2008 for DEMS


ihpguy
 Share

This topic is 6066 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

With Howard Dean getting more and more vocal with the DNC, I've been thinking more and more about the race in 2008. Does anybody have suspicions concerning who will be trying for the nomination? And against which Republican - perhaps Sen. Bill Frist? First Brother Jeb?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jocoluver

First thing to do is get the scaredydummycrat pussies off Dean's back! (e.g., Biden et al trying to shut him up.) x(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Current chairman of the DNC Howard Dean maybe getting more vocal as well as media exposure but not necessarily for the right reasons. It's one matter to attack the GOP on political issues, which is very much fair game. On the other hand when Mr Dean makes remarks along the lines of Republicans in general have never made an honest living as he did sometime last week. For people who like Mr Dean and hate the Republican Party, remarks like this spill cheers for the masses. For those who dont like Mr Dean, they'll label him a nut with a screw loose.

 

Vice President Dick Cheney is no different. in an interview with CNN which will be broadcast on Monday evening. Mr Cheney had a response for Mr Dean along the lines of that maybe Howard Dean's mother may have liked him but there aren't that many people who Mr Cheney have encountered who have nice things to say about Dean. Then Cheney went on to say that Dean has never won anything as far as he knows. Expressions like these autmomatically get guys like Dean and Cheney into trouble with the media. The press in general want politicians who have stature within the repective political parties to behave themselves whilst making remarks on camera or on tape. In other words no personal snippets.

 

The only big difference in political party reaction is the GOP is much better in marketing Howard Dean as a hoodlum and the DNC dont bother responding to Cheney. Mr Dean better choose his words carefully in the future unless he wants to become of the butt of Jay Leno and David Letterman's respective monologues. Remember for a lot of people out there first impressions are everthing and these days there are no second chances, especially for a guy like Mr Dean who is outspoken. In his case he should stick to issues and not personal grunts if he wants to carry on being DNC chairman. If not then the media will see to it that he's get the ouster from his current job.

 

Rohale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this stage in the game, there are quite a lot of potential candidates that the cirus will get bigger and bigger as de facto time approaches. Alas not the tent though, it'll remain the same size, so much for the donkeys and the elephants vying for the part of the presidency.

 

Within the Democratic ranks, current conventional wisdom is that the nomination is for Senator Hillary Clinton for the taking. Not so fast, she maybe popular within Democratic circles and the great state of New York. She has a great Senate record to run on, she has built good ties with the military which incidentally her husband failed to intitiate and achieve when he was the occuppier of the White House. This is to her testimony and credit that she's taking her job very serously. She also has built good reputation amongst her collegues within the Senate. On the other side of the coin, she has one big draw back. A lot of people across America never really liked her as First Lady from 1993-2001. She could very easily become the rallying cry for the GOP to stop her from achieving the White House. She still is very much a lightning rod for conservative talk radio across the nation. Secondly, before she can even think to 2008, she has to think about 2006 and her re-election as junior senator from New York.

 

Let's look at other potential democrats, Senator Russ Feingold ( Wisconsin ), respectable guy, was elected in 1994 without spending a dime on campaign ads. Earned the job the old fashioned way, knock on doors and earned the voters respect and ultimately their votes, has a respectively conservative record to run on, co-sponsored with Senator John McCain for Campaign Finance Reform. The issue is dead in the water, but earned him respect.

 

Senator John Kerry, maybe or maybe not. Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. This guy has charisma as he showed in accepting the VP nomination at the 2004 Democratic Convention. He'll be the candidate to watch out as the political cycle heats up.

 

Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, popular guy with the voters, fomer Energy Secretary, former UN ambassador, at one point he was considered a running mate for Vice President Gore in 2000. Republicans killed his efforts with the revelation of a scientist selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese. The Republicans blamed Mr Richardson for a lack of security at the nuclear plant in California. The issue may come back again to haunt Mr Richardson.

 

I mustn't forget to mention former Nato Commander, General Wesley Clarke, he made a run in 2000 and failed miserably. He'll a bit more seasoned in 2008 and ultimately could position himself for the VP nomination if he sees his presidential bid in potential collapse.

 

Saving the dark horse for last, Former Vice President Gore, the internet jokes will always haunt him. At the same time, he's positioning himself exactly in the same mold as Richard Nixon did in 1967 as he was heading into the 1968 Republican Primaries. He was never the odds on favorite and most people still didn't like, and yet he went onto win the nomination and ultimately the presidency. In the case of Mr Gore, he says that he has no desire to run, but he caused a little stir earlier this year inside the Washington beltway when he said that he'll consider running as the alternative to Hillary Clinton.

 

Let's look at the Republican side of the equation, Governor George Pataki wants to run, the conventional wisdom in New York is that he wants to run against Hillary Clinton in 2006 for the senate seat and if he loses, he'll a political dead man walking.

 

Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, gaining stature as well as losing weight and he's seeking the advice of fellow Arkansan Bill Clinton. Although Mr Clinton will keep his distance, outside of his wife and maybe Al Gore or General Clarke, he'll probably root for the current Governor and only to watch him lose.

 

Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, not much to say about him, except he needs to take a look at what happened to John Kerry. Former Health Secretary Tommy Thompson wants to run, but lacks personna. Too bad though.

 

Governor Haley Barbour of Missippi, Former Chairman Of the GOP during the early 1990's. A nice southern gentleman, quite popular within his home state, nice charming southern drawl. He'll be facing Bill Frist as both candidates try to lock up the Christian vote. If he is able to do this, the next question is does he have the ablility to sell himself outside the Southern Beltway as he moves his potential campaign towards Middle America and the industrial states. Only time will tell.

 

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, like Hillary Clinton a lightning rod in this case amongst Clintonite supporters. He championed the cause of the GOP in the early 1990's. He governered with power and authority and because his own arrogance in 1995, he made the Clinton Presidency relevant again after the Government shut down of that year. Ultimately his own lust for power after trying to have Mr Clinton impeached did him in. In 1998, the Democrats picked up huge gains in the House and a few seats in the Senate after the distaste of the impeachment hearings. Largely Gingrich got the blame for it. If anything else for 2008, he maybe trying to position himself just as Barry Goldwater did in 1964 by inspiring a new generation of young Republicans. This is just my own opiniion of which direction Mr Gingrich will take. He still speaks his mind and is never afraid to back down and is one the best tacticians the GOP ever had.

 

Rudy Giuliani may decide to run, he may have the backing of President Bush, but ultimatley he'll probably fail. He's got a great record to run on, but he's kept a very low profile since leaving office. It'll be a lot more tougher for him to run, 9/11 made him a househould name, but his moderate record may not appeal to Conservative Christians, this may undo his presidential aspirations.

 

Must not forget to mention Senator John McCain, probably the most respected politician out there today. Looking back at presidential race of 2000. For a lot of people at the time, the race between Mr Bush and Mr Gore was a disappointment. There were those who wanted a match up between Mr MCain and Mr Bradley, both gentlemen well liked compared to the candidates who ultimtately beat up. Senator McCain is still very much the anti Bush Republican and I doubt that he's forgotten what the Bushites did to him after New Hampshire in 2000 as he prepared his campaign for the North Carolina. Karl Rove did a brilliant job in portraying McCain as a loose cannon who doesn't share tradtional christian values. This issue did him in, like Mr Kerry, McCain found his service in Vietnam to be of much debate. Hopefully he'll a more seasoned candidate this time around. If he does win the nomination then all bets are off as to who the 44th President Of The Uniited States could ultimately be.

 

In regards to McCain, I think the Bush White maybe a worried in terms of the word legacy. I remember at one point during the 2000 presidential election, about the time President Clinton started to campaign on behalf of Mr Gore. In fact prior to his campaign appearances, there was much debate as to whether Mr Clinton was going to get involved. or not. The Bush polticial team refered to Bill Clinton as the ahadow in waiting, in terms of Clinton not wanting to let go of the spot light. Not tool long after that, Mr Bush made a remark along the lines of the country as a whole just wants to get passed the Clinton Presidency and move on. I think in 2008, Mr Bush may want to have one last go with the spotlight whilst he has the chance to do so. At the same time I think Mr Bush could very well end up in the same situation as Mr Clinton did in 2000, where the good majority of voters will want to move beyond the Bush Presidency. Especially if John McCain enters the White House, he'll make the Bush Presidency seem irrelevant. Initially I think John McCain in all probability will instantly overshadow his predessor, assuming he makes it to the highest office in the land.

 

This is just only my opinion and nothing more.

 

Rohale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with and wholeheartedly endorse this brilliant essay by David Podvin:

 

RESURRECTION

 

By David Podvin

 

Most highly placed Democratic officeholders are willing to appear in public with the execrable George W. Bush but not with the honorable Howard Dean. Party regulars are appalled that Chairman Dean has begun redefining American politics in stark terms that the Homer Simpsons of this nation can easily understand. From Dean's perspective, the conservatives who subvert democracy are "bad guys" guilty of perpetrating "evil" and therefore must be "defeated". The concept of confronting Republicans has long been anathema to corporatist Democrats, so the chairman is under siege by the morally compromised Democratic establishment that would rather have the party abandon principle and lose than behave ethically and win.

 

The internal opposition to Dean is being led by corporate strumpet Joseph Biden, who has publicly declared that the chairman does not speak for him. Tellingly, in the wake of 9/11 Biden announced, "President Bush now speaks for us all." The senator represents business interests who resent that Dean is reorganizing the party to provide the rank and file with greater influence. Biden has long been a foil for the right wing, a man so unprincipled that as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee he allowed Republicans to ram through the Supreme Court nomination of the perjurious Clarence Thomas. Smiling Joe is extremely comfortable with the Democrats being a perpetual minority party because capitulation to conservatives is his preferred method of operation, and he vilifies any Democrat who plays to win.

 

Dean plays to win. The chairman is seeking to provide voters with a clearer contrast between Democrats and Republicans, advocating a populist approach that marginalizes conservatives as economic adversaries of the common citizen. He demands that the Democrats become more aggressive in challenging right wing demagoguery on social issues while refusing to concede the high ground on patriotism and religious faith. Dean is seeking to morph the Democratic team from passive victim into dominant aggressor, and the establishments of both parties hate him for it.

 

Inevitably, there will be a showdown between Democrats who want their party to serve the working class and those who insist that it serve the upper class. The difference between the populists and the elitists was highlighted by their respective positions on Corporate America's cherished Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Dean derided the legislation as an assault on consumers by the rapacious financial industry. Biden and other mercantile Democrats embraced the bill as a way to prevent consumers from persecuting multinational conglomerates.

 

The Democratic congressional contingent is infested with Joe Bidens, amoral careerists who pose as liberals while doing the bidding of robber barons. It is a tragedy for which Democratic primary voters are responsible. Prior to defeating the Republicans, Democrats must first wrest control of our party from the Quislings whom we have elected.

 

For years, that seemed like a hopeless task, but when the grass roots made Dean chairman over the anguished protests of the Democratic hierarchy it signified things just might be changing. In order to win control of the party, Dean must somehow survive until the next presidential election and then gain an ally in the White House. Survival will not be easy because the Congressional Democrats have chosen the path of accommodation, which historically produces disastrous off-year election results.

 

If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi guide their troops to an electoral drubbing in 2006, Dean will be the fall guy because the entire governing class is determined to see him go. Right wing spokesmen constantly say the Dean approach will destroy the Democratic Party, something that would never be said in public if they believed it were true. The last thing that conservatives want to face is actual opposition, so for many decades the mantra of Republicans and the corporate media has been that Democrats must be centrist or perish. Should the Democrats lose the 2006 elections, Dean will be scapegoated by the corrupt political/journalistic complex that seeks to perpetuate America's de facto one party system.

 

It is therefore crucial for liberals to support the chairman aggressively. All contributions to Democratic candidates should include a note that future donations will be contingent on the recipient's unyielding support for Dean. Progressive commentators should emphasize that the off-year elections are a Reid/Pelosi production. If things go well, the congressional leaders can claim the credit. But if next year their strategy of capitulation does not produce satisfactory electoral results, it is imperative that Howard Dean be inoculated from the blame so he can survive through the pivotal 2008 presidential campaign.

 

Dean cannot resurrect the party without the help of a president who shares his determination to transform the Washington Democrats into advocates for the average citizen. With Dean heading the DNC and a liberal reformer in the Oval Office, the Democratic Party would reassume its traditional role as champion of the underdog. Dean's presence as chairman makes the next presidential nomination especially relevant for people who are disgusted with seeing Democrats defer to Republicans.

 

Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner for the 2008 nomination because of a concerted push on her behalf by the corporate media, a fact that should set off alarm bells for liberal primary voters who were conned into supporting John Kerry after mainstream journalists declared Dean "unelectable". Nominating Kerry was a fateful mistake. The only way to have beaten Bush by a cheat-proof margin was to challenge the moral legitimacy of his regime and its benefactors. Dean was the one prominent candidate willing to make that challenge, so Bush's corporate media allies contrived an absurd scandal involving the doctor being too peppy at a pep rally. Unfortunately, Democratic voters took the bait.

 

To gain the presidency in 2008, the Democratic nominee must be willing to challenge the moral legitimacy of the conservative movement itself, and that is something Hillary will never do. She is taking exactly the opposite approach, consorting with Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay to establish her credentials as a bipartisan centrist. While Dean was enduring the slings and arrows that accompanied opposing the indefensible conquest of Iraq, Hillary was eagerly capitulating to Bush. It cannot be seriously argued that such a bright woman actually believed Bush's transparently deceitful rationale for the war. Clinton knew what was happening, and she knew it was evil, and for reasons of ambition she was willing to be complicit.

 

That ethical failure was no aberration. For all the palaver spouted by Republicans that she is a dangerous ideologue, Clinton is just another political climber as she has proven by advocating Democrats establish a dialogue with people who feel religiously compelled to murder doctors. Hillary's career in public service has been characterized by relentless expediency.

 

It is insufficient for the Democrats to regain power. That power must be used for collective rather than personal benefit. In the unlikely event that Clinton were to win, a Hillary presidency would be about Hillary first, last, and only, leaving the atrophying Democratic Party to atrophy further still.

 

Most of the other potential Democratic presidential nominees are also woefully inadequate. John Kerry could not successfully make the case against an incumbent who was an abject failure. John Edwards could not successfully make the case against the most corrupt vice president in American history. Russ Feingold and Barack Obama have about as much chance of being elected president as they have of becoming Imperial Klan Wizard. Evan Bayh is a Democrat only because the Republicans consider him too conservative. And then there is Joe Biden, who is the choice of those nostalgic liberals yearning to relive the 1984 Mondale campaign.

 

That leaves Al Gore. As a child of the establishment, Gore spent most of his life placing excessive importance on the opinions of the Washington elite, but he has changed. Following the theft of his presidency, Gore has become a born again insurgent whose wisdom and candor make him America's greatest statesman. The former vice president has repudiated his past unsavory links to the netherworld of the party. Gone is the Democratic Leadership Council Al Gore. In his place is Populist Gore, a fire-breathing champion of the masses who has boldly confronted the conservative menace while other Democrats have cowered.

 

No one in public life has spoken more forcefully against the reactionaries who are destroying the United States. Gore accused George W. Bush of "lying" about the Hussein-al Qaeda link that was used as a pretext for invading Iraq. Not "receiving faulty intelligence", as Hillary contends. Not "making an honest mistake", as Biden claims. Gore said Bush "lied", and when the corporate media excoriated him for saying it, he unflinchingly said it again.

 

Gore has labeled as an "American heresy" the effort by theocrats to eliminate the separation of church and state. He has blasted the GOP for "poisoning democracy" with its recurring campaigns of character assassination. He has called the Bush Social Security plan "an immoral scheme designed to defraud taxpayers". Most subversively, he has agreed with Dean that "corporations have too much power and people have too little".

 

A subversive can realistically hope to gain the White House only if he has previously been deemed plausible by the electorate. As an erstwhile presidential nominee, Gore has passed the plausibility test, and his subsequent radicalization does nothing to alter that. He is the one person in America who wants to reform the political system and can convince the public that it must be done.

 

Gore is reportedly undecided about whether to run in 2008. He should be encouraged to run. Led by honorable people, the Democratic Party could become an instrument of change. The Democrats would still have to operate within the parameters of a society dominated by multinational conglomerates, but even an incremental shift in power back towards individual citizens would be a significant reversal of the prevailing trend.

 

There have been agonizingly long stretches of time when the Democratic Party has not had a single courageous leader. Now it has two, and that provides a precious opportunity. Given the chance, Howard Dean and Al Gore can reclaim the integrity of a once proud political movement gone astray. These fine men will provide winning leadership, but that is insufficient in the absence of winning followership. Democratic voters must reject the warnings of corporate acolytes and rally behind the agents of change. By supporting Dean now and Gore in 2008, liberals can first take back our party and then take back our country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

Posts that do not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

×
×
  • Create New...