I had a contract with Howard Dean’s organization Democracy for America last year. They obviously valued my advice even though I am not a doctrinaire progressive. They hired me even though I didn’t even support Howard Dean’s presidential run. I am not sure that I would support a second run by Dr. Dean, but I might.
Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who electrified anti-war liberals during the 2004 presidential race, said Thursday he would consider another run for the White House – a statement that will surely be met with mixed reaction in the Democratic Party.
Dean, whose underdog presidential campaign officially launched 10 years ago this weekend, said he has “mixed feelings” about running for office again but added he would consider another bid for the Democratic presidential nomination if he doesn’t think the other candidates are adequately addressing progressive issues that are dear to his heart.
“I am not driven by my own ambition,” Dean told CNN in an interview at the Netroots Nation conference, an annual gathering of left-leaning political activists. “What I am driven by is pushing the country in a direction that it desperately needs to be pushed; pushing other politicians who aren’t quite as frank as I am who need to be more candid with the American people about what needs to happen. I am not trying to hedge, it’s a hard job running. It’s really tough. I am doing a lot of things I really enjoy. But you should never say never in this business.”
I probably will be more sympathetic to Dr. Dean’s campaign than I will be to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. I am not sure, however, whether I am ready to get on board the Dean train. I will have to see what Biden is going to do, I am certain that I will oppose Andrew Cuomo. Other than that, I am open-minded.
How about you?
For those convinced of Hillary’s run in 2016 I have two words:
Steroids
Lupus
I’d vote for, give $$$ too, and pound the bricks the Hillary (I did in 2008). If Chelsea ever runs for anything, I’d be tempted to move there so I could vote for her.
But Hillary is not going to run for anything.
lupus? steroids? explain.
sounds like the Hillary CT is already starting.
I am surrounded by doctors. All internists, all medical researchers with histories of battle zone internal medical departments (Ben Taub, Cooper Green, Ramsey). All of these have told me that in their opinion (they have absolutely NO access to Hillary’s medical records) the progression of pictures indicate a “Cushinoid” presence.
Essentially, dosages of some kind of steroid (prednisone, hydrocortisone) is used to overcome symptoms over a short period. This causes changes in the body. The changes are not absolute, are many, varied and some are quite gruesome.
The list of conditions these steroid are used for includes lupus. You can look up the others.
While the advice of doctors looking at pictures is suspect (to the least) I know these guys and you don’t get rich betting against them.
Therefore, I think Hillary has some kind of condition that is medically treatable, but physically enervating. I don’t think she has the stamina to do the campaigning.
I strongly supported Dean when he was running for President. He was smeared by the establishment. The NYT had what appeared to be a coordinated attack on him employing “news” articles, op eds, columnists and editorials. They criticized his wife’s choice of clothing (blue jeans), devotion to her occupation (primary care physician) and Mother’s Day gifts (plants for her garden).
Dean made a strong contribution as DNC chairman (from which he was dumped after the 2008 election), and also in organizing, energizing and re-establishing state Democratic Parties. His 50-state strategy helped Obama win in 2008. His organization is still working at the grass roots on issues and support of promising more progressive candidates. I’d hate to see him give this up to make another run for the presidency, and fear the same smear campaign would be mounted because he doesn’t knuckle under to the establishment. They were far more comfortable with John Kerry.
He was smeared by the establishment. The NYT had what appeared to be a coordinated attack on him employing “news” articles, op eds, columnists and editorials.
Yes, we’ve seen this happen from time-to-time over the last 20 years. Articles and letters-to-the-editor start to appear all over, with interesting timings, followed by cable and then broadcast TV news coverage.
Monsanto used this on GMOs. Today every media person in America knows that you cannot run a GMO article without stating in the first two paragraphs that no studies have shown negative effects from GMO foods on humans. Of course, they’ll never mention that no studies have verified that GMO foods are as safe as non-GMO foods. Can you imagine the FDA approving a drug without verification studies? But that’s what happened with Monsanto’s GMOs.
They did this to Dean. They did this to Gray Davis in California – oh, they tried very hard to kill him off in his 2002 re-election campaign – with the LA Time and SJ Murky News running front page articles “questioning” various CA gov’t practices that were actually started under Davis’ GOP predecessor but which the articles carefully forgot to mention (worth noting that the CA gov position was held by a GOP idiot for 23 of 28 years between Jerry Brown’s terms – what was that again about how the Democrats were responsible for CA’s fiscal downfall?). They gave it up after his 2002 GOP opponent committed political suicide, but took up the drumbeat with full force once the recall effort was launched … and drumbeated it until Ahnold was put in power to really screw the state.
And of course they did this to Al Gore in spades. Even today Al won’t even bother refuting that he in fact NEVER said “I invented the internet” – he doesn’t bother because he’s given up, figuring that the media masses are too strong against him. But of course he never said any such thing. What he did say in context was true – he was THE congressional politician who saw the commercial potential of the internet which was until then only used in military and universities and he pushed for a big increase in funding which ultimately led to the 1990s internet boom. But the goring of Gore means that only a tiny percentage of people even know that he did such a thing.
So I’m surprised Dean is even trying, to be honest. Rationally he should know that unless you’ve signed your soul away to the military-industrial complex as Obama, both Clintons, and every GOP candidate except Ron Paul (I suspect Rand won’t make the same mistake) has, then you will get slimed to death by the political media.
I like and trust Joe Biden on a personal level, but I could never back him in a primary. He is a ferocious drug warrior, a classic 80s-era “tough on crime” pol, and is quite the foreign policy hawk.
Less of a hawk than Hillary. It’s my understanding that whenever there was a debate about continued occupation or intervention, Biden sided more against both. Overall I agree though.
Plenty not to like about Biden, but against the Clintons, not so much.
If it comes down to Biden, Clinton, and Cuomo, I don’t what I’m going to do.
Pick the one with the best chance of beating Cuomo, I guess.
I think there is almost no chance that Cuomo runs if Clinton is in.
Agreed, 100%. I like Uncle Joe, especially on VAWA, but he’s responsible for a lot of ruined lives when it comes to the war on [some] drugs.
I think it would be great to see him in the race. Whether I will back him I’m not sure, but he is definitely a better advocate for my values than Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel, the two candidates who spoke for me in 2008.
I’d never back Dean or Hillary in a primary. Biden, yes. Martin O’Mally, heck yes. Andrew Cuomo, hell no.
I do not think that either Dean or Clinton could hold the Obama coalition together. Publicly, Obama supporters are very gracious to both but privately–hell to the no.
what do you think of O’Malley holding the Obama coalition together? what about Brian Schweitzer?
re: Hillary, I hope she doesn’t run. foreign policy too old school for me. also, imo she seems to prefer [not sure what verb to use] working behind the scenes. can be a strength, but not what I’m looking for in a president
O’Malley was smart. He went to a lot of state Democratic conventions and supported the President. I was a bit surprised that his DNC convention speech didn’t play as well as the state convention speech I saw. He also has ushered in great gun violence prevention legislation, same sex marriage (his framing of the issue was excellent) and I think has won a lot of Obama supporters over by campaigning well for the President.
This Obama supporter was pretty strongly opposed to Hillary Clinton in 08, but I have to say, her performance as Secretary of State has really caused me to warm up to her.
I would support another Dean run, if only to help shift the “Overton window.” The progressive message has been effectively excluded from the debate for far too long.
I also know that, if he didn’t win the primary, he’d work his butt off to help whoever did win get into office – so there’s absolutely no downside to a run.
In addition, since his last campaign he has learned a whole lot about how to control the media message, and how to push back against their virtual assassination methodology. I think it would be a valuable campaign on many levels, regardless of whether or not he gets into office.
I think that his time has passed.
More interested in Castro, Gillibrand, O’Malley, and Kaine.
Me, too. I used to love Dean, until his comments on the so-called ‘Ground Zero mosque.’
I don’t know who I’d like. I don’t trust Gillibrand, and O’Malley’s data-driven shtick makes me nervous. All I know about Kaine is his DNC/OFA stuff, which underwhelmed me.
Well Dean really pissed off those of us who were on the ground fighting for health care reform. I think that sealed his fate with many of us. Then the ground zero mosque comments…and forget about it.
I was actually a supporter in ’04 because he had a reputation as a fiscal conservative and social liberal and was actually pretty far to the right of me on some issues but I believed at the time that the election would turn into a rehashing of Vietnam social issues with Kerry on the ticket and I also thought that the country was looking for a sort of effective manager type and therefore Dean would be a better candidate in the general. I still think he would have been.
I also may have been a little bit to blame for the “deanie baby” thing since I did a lot of campaigning with an infant on my shoulder.
Dean really pissed off those of us who were on the ground fighting for health care reform
How so?
I suspect because he said that all the compromises sucked, and it was time to walk away?
Which I very hope wasn’t prescient.
He said that when Reid brought out the initial Senate version of the bill, but quickly jumped back on board when it was improved.
He seems to be an inapt target for the (rightful, justified) hostility that ACA supporters feel towards the Kill-the-Bill crowd.
The Kill-the-Bill crowd and the ACA-boosters deserved each other in a perfect, soulmate sort of way, like Romeo and Juliet.
The initial Senate version of the bill? There were two Senate versions-HELP committee and Finance and there was no way in hell the HELP version would get the votes not to mention that we were fighting the delay and kill strategy by the other side at that particular moment so we really didn’t need his comments.
I’m referring to the bill that Reid brought forward as the Senate – not either committee – version of the bill back in December 2009.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5983608-503544.html
His response, and the shift it produced in public opinion, played a major role in getting such goodies as Bernie Sanders’ health clinic funding added to the bill, at which point he came out in support again.
What I’m saying, MomSense, is that Howard Dean jumped in with the Bill-Killers, and then brought a whole lot of them back into the fold when he started backing the bill. In addition, his little stray also meaningfully improved the bill.
I don’t see how that brief stray makes him a bad guy.
He was in the “kill the bill” crowd. Talked about it being a bigger corporate bailout than AIG. I don’t know why he did that because he should have been smart enough to understand the regulatory and cost control aspects of the legislation.
He was in the “kill the bill” crowd.
Briefly, for a few days, until he wasn’t, and resumed campaigning in favor of the bill’s passage again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/09/AR2010030903877.html
Organizers of the protest said they brought about 5,000 people from across the United States to downtown Washington. They began their march in Dupont Circle, where they heard speeches from politicians and activists.
Former Vermont governor and physician Howard Dean cheered on demonstrators earlier in the morning. “We deserve a vote. . . . This is a vote about one thing — are you for the insurance companies or for the American people?”
Because it’s true.
Corporate bailout + health clinic funding = not a corporate bailout anymore?
Then why did they spend 2 million per day to defeat it? They hate the medical loss ratio and accompanying regulations?
Then why did they spend 2 million per day to defeat it? They hate the medical loss ratio and accompanying regulations?
The banksters wrote Dodd-Frank, yet that doesn’t stop them from tying to kill it now. The insurance companies also got, possibly, millions of new customers. The banksters, and health insurance companies, can play both sides of the fence you know. What’s so hard to understand about that. Some kind of bill was going to get passed, so why not control what was passed?
The banksters created the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau?
The banksters supported the Volker Rule?
The banksters required banks to fire their directors and top management before getting government help?
Um no.
What’s so hard to understand about that. Nothing. Like most false and simplistic assertions, it is very easy to follow.
They can, indeed, play both sides. In the cases of financial regulation and, even moreso, health insurance reform, they didn’t. They sided entirely with the opposition, as the money demonstrates.
Some kind of bill was going to get passed
Right, because major health care reform is such a sure thing. As we learned in 1993.
Did you read what I wrote? Does the CFPB have a permanent director? Have you noticed what’s happened in the courts lately?
Yes, I read what you wrote.
And now I’m reading as you waive your hand at irrelevant issues to distract from your sudden lack of interest in discussing the topic of how the health care insurers felt about the ACA.
Hey, look at what the courts are doing!!
They can, indeed, play both sides. In the cases of financial regulation and, even moreso, health insurance reform, they didn’t. They sided entirely with the opposition, as the money demonstrates.
And that’s why Rahmbo cut deals with Karen Ignagni and the other scumbags? That also explains Liz Fowler and her corrupt ties to that scumbag “Mad” Max Baucus, right?
Money talks, bullshit walks.
An more honest person would notice how the money went despite those connections.
Because they didn’t get as much out of it for themselves as they wanted? Got them a rabidly anti-regulation House. Haven’t they since gotten concessions on that medical loss ratio requirement? And who is going to enforce the regulations? More fine folks like those at the SEC that couldn’t spot insider trading right under their noses?
Or maybe their objection had nothing to do with the ACA but was an early preemptive strike against single-payer that will be the next step when the whole damn mess begins crumbling.
Why would you spent your money to kill something that is giving you less than you want, instead of spending it to change it?
Or maybe…
Or maybe a massive public relations effort against something, backed up with many millions of dollars, is actually an indication of opposition.
Very true. What has he done in the last 10 years? He is out of the public eye, does not have a consistent message, and is considered a wild-eyed lunatic by many.
He could run, but I would be shocked if he rose above 3rd place in IA. NH, that is more intruiging, since he was based in VT.
I don’t have much interest in a Dean campaign but I welcome his presence in the race. We need someone to push anti-war views and promote a clear break with the war presidencies of Bush and Obama. I expect that Iran will still be a pressing issue in 2016 and there will be much pressure on the establishment candidates to out-hawk the others on Iran.
I also expect civil liberties and drone policy to come up during the debates. Obama will probably end up as a foil for some of the candidates much like Bush was in 2008 and 2012. A candidate like Dean could push Clinton to reconsider her conservative tendencies.
Dean supported the invasion of Afghanistan, the Libya operation, and the war against al Qaeda – the three wars Obama has fought.
Obama himself has opposed a war with Iran.
The entirety of Howard Dean’s anti-war credentials come from his early opposition to the Iraq War, which he shares with Barack Obama.
Casting him as an opponent of the “Obama war presidency” makes no sense.
I was going off of the first line in the quoted block in Booman’s post.
“Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who electrified anti-war liberals during the 2004 presidential race, said Thursday he would consider another run for the White House – a statement that will surely be met with mixed reaction in the Democratic Party.?
I don’t expect that Obama will launch a war against Iran. Note I said this will be an issue in the 2016 campaign.
That Obama is a war President is not a bad thing. He was handed two wars and his two terms will have been spent ending them. But we need to move on from the wars and reduce our military footprint in the world. I think Dean could push some of those views.
I admire that you reflexively defend the President but I wasn’t really criticizing him.
“Electrified anti-war liberals in 2004” is not a sound basis for distinguishing Howard Dean from Barack Obama, given the way that Obama himself electrified anti-war liberals in 2004 and 2008.
This social bullying practice of proclaiming every rebuttal of a point about Barack Obama to be “reflexively defending the president” is what one does when one cannot defend a position by argumentation.
Perhaps I made my point too subtle. My comment was not a hit on Barack Obama. It was about Howard Dean. That Obama electrified anti-war liberals is irrelevant.
We are essentially arguing about nothing because you have made this about Obama. Social bullying? keep playing the victim card.
No, I understood you the first time and the second time.
You aren’t difficult to follow; you’re just wrong.
I didn’t accuse you of attacking Barack Obama. I accused you of being wrong about Howard Dean’s politics, and about how much of a sharp break he would represent from the Obama administration.
Would you, at some point, like to address what I’ve actually wrote, instead of explaining the point I got the first time over and over and over again?
We are essentially arguing about nothing because you have made this about Obama.
No, I didn’t. You made that up, because you either can’t follow what I actually said, or decided that playing the Obot card is a good way to distract people from the hole in your argument.
And you’ve yet to explain why a candidate who’s foreign policy are indistinguishable from Barack Obama’s would do a better job of moving on from this era than any of the other candidates whose foreign policy views are indistinguishable from Barack Obama’s.
I hope it’s not too reflexive of me to notice that.
And when given the opportunity to explain this, you chose instead to blather about Obots.
I just wanted to draw attention to that.
I think we put to bed the idea that a Howard Dean presidency would represent a break from Barack Obama’s foreign policy, seeing how the individual who put forward that theory won’t write a single word in support of it.
I’m only going to respond to one of your multiple replies so this is it. I’m not in favor of a Howard Dean presidency and in fact did not follow him much in 2004. The quote from the initial link indicated Dean was liked for anti-war views. You have said that Dean’s actual views are not that different from Obama’s which very well might be true. If Dean isn’t that guy then I concede the point to you. Well done.
I cannot write a single word in support of a Dean presidency because I don’t support him for President. I do support someone with anti-war views being influential in the debates and the campaign playing a role similar to that of Ron Paul. Hopefully more effectively.
“would consider running….if he doesn’t think other candidates are adequately addressing progressive issues…”
Who’s the Dem “progressive” that anyone thinks is going to run? For example, how progressive will Hillary sound on the “issues dear to [Dean’s] heart”? Isn’t this a condition that we basically know won’t be fulfilled?
Instead of toying with talk of running and supposedly “conditioning” it on reacting to what some imaginary “other candidates” might say in future, why not just spend the time cementing oneself as the known progressive “voice” out there, demand corporate media exposure on policy points, advance the issues “dear to your heart” and (better yet) tirelessly explain and denounce the catastrophic actions of the braindead and vicious “conservative” movement. That’s more likely to force “other candidates” to the left or reveal their true colors as a way to “distinguish” themselves from someone like the “crazed lib’rul” Dean.
He can get started by preparing himself to denounce the opinions the “conservative” Supreme Court is about to issue (today?) gutting voting rights and affirmative action. We’ll see how much vitriol the DC Dems are prepared to expend when the “conservative” movement and its 5 conservative male “justices” kill landmark minority voting legislation. More “outreach”, corporate media?
Sherrod Brown?
Sheldon Whitehouse?
Deval Patrick?
I have always liked Howard Dean. I got to meet and interview him at the tail end of his 2004 run, and found him very thoughtful and interested in the deeper issues underlying the typical political questions.
For 2016 I am really holding out hope for an Elizabeth Warren run, but would gladly support Dean.
Well, speaking as one of her constituents …
No. You can’t have her. She’s ours.
[growling noise]
Warren is too hawkish for me. She’s also made drug war grumblings, but that could be clarified later. Keep her in the Senate.
The statement about Israel on her campaign’s issue page was straight-up AIPAC boilerplate.
I have always liked and still like Howard Dean. I’ve long agreed with his take on ACA that it was NOT health care reform, but rather was health insurance reform and as such it was worth the effort.
Also, even my non-partisan husband said that Dean got a bad rap for that fake yelling incident during the 2004 Dem primary season.
Finally, I too met Dean in 2006 at a state party event in my red state. No DNC chair in my adult lifetime has ever visited the ground troops prior to or since. So, yes, I’ve lot of liking and respect for Gov. Dean. He’s my preference of all the ones mentioned here.
There certainly needs to be a debate within the Democratic Party before rushing to a Hillary 2016 run, although I understand from pundits that like in 2008 Hillary has it in the bag.
I think Dean would be an excellent vehicle to talk about the failing state Democratic Parties and propose ways to deal with it. There is no excuse for the neglect of state races by the Democratic Party that has occurred during the Obama administration. It has been catastrophic.
Some other candidates in the race would help as well. Maybe we can get Mike Gravel to run again but this time on the issue of secrecy, such as in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and TAFTA negotiations.
Some folks are wanting an Elizabeth Warren run, but I think that it’s too early for her–too reminiscent of Obama’s run.
However, it’s 2014 that should be the focus for Democrats. The hopeful Presidential candidates should be challenged to show their party leadership by how well they ensure Democratic victories in Congress and in state legislatures in 2014.
Because I think we are in the twilight of parties because of the corrosive effects of the Citizen United decision, making parties work for candidates again and providing a lever to provide party unity around a legislative agenda is a huge challenge. A Dean strategy for moving a progressive agenda through restoration of a party as a factor would be an interesting contribution.
Whatever Dean does, what is needed in US politics is a transformation in the political conversation.
Agree with you on all this. Dean’s org is doing great work re: Citizen United and developing state level candidates. I hope he runs to bring more visibility to his state based approach, but I think we need someone new to run in 2016. maybe a western candidate will open up the dem conversation on, among other things, rural issues, sadly, disastrously in fact, neglected
DFA did a helluva lot more for our congressional candidate last election than the DCCC. And I don’t think Emily’s List gave her anything, even after repeated begging and pleading by numerous local pols from around the district.
DFA was nonexistent where I am.
I really liked your congressional candidate. Is she running again in 14?
Sadly no. She filled a vacancy in county government instead.
well, maybe in a few years if she likes being in gov
Hey, don’t speak for our state of Maine. OFA people have been the backbone of campaigning for the local races and our state Democratic Party is going great guns in part because so many Obamacrats got involved and are now serving in our state legislature, on our state and local committees, etc.
Well, we’ve gained Maine at the expense of Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina.
So what policy changes has this success brought in Maine?
Every state on your list is a state that moved in the direction of the Democrats since the creation of OFA.
You better examine what is going on with the state legislatures and governments in those states.
They won in 2010 and controlled redistricting.
I’m quite familiar with what’s going on, thanks. Those states are all – every. single. one of them – voting much more Democratic than they were before 2008.
I wonder, are blaming OFA for the 2010 elections, or for the timing of the census?
I’m blaming whoever decided it was a bright idea to collapse Howard Dean’s 50-state initiative in 2009. Whoever thought it was a bright idea to not engage in political conversation to move the terms of debate away from default Republican. And whoever thought it was a bright idea not to put organizing and campaign resources into the field in 2010 to regain the momentum from 2008.
Since I didn’t see any OFA activity in North Carolina in 2010, I can’t rightly blame OFA. But if you think that 2012 Presidential totals mean that these states are much more Democratic than they were before 2008, you are very much mistaken. Moreover, in most of those states, that Democratic strength is so concentrated that it is very easy to gerrymander.
‘m blaming whoever decided it was a bright idea to collapse Howard Dean’s 50-state initiative in 2009. Whoever thought it was a bright idea to not engage in political conversation to move the terms of debate away from default Republican. And whoever thought it was a bright idea not to put organizing and campaign resources into the field in 2010 to regain the momentum from 2008.
So the outcome of the 2010 election, which was consistent across the country, was the consequence of political strategy and messaging.
That’s rather silly. Most people attribute the outcome of the 2010 election to the worst economy since the Great Depression, but you’re saying it was the consequence of election strategy – specifically, the decision not to give as much money and power to local organizing and message efforts.
Say, Tarheel, you don’t make any money from local organizing and message efforts, do you?
But if you think that 2012 Presidential totals mean that these states are much more Democratic than they were before 2008, you are very much mistaken.
Um…if I think that states that voted Bush twice, and then voted Obama (most of them twice), are voting more Democratic, I’m very much mistaken?
I am amused that establishment Democrats are always victims of outside circumstances. The economy sucked exactly and precisely because Democratic majorities in the House and Senate did not deal with it effectively and let folks like Holy Joe run all over them.
I know that there was a broadening of Democratic organizations going on in every county of North Carolina in 2008 and that by 2010 all of that had withered on the vine.
I live solely on Social Security now.
The economy is still bad. I guess that will be the excuse again when more states get the ALEC treatment in 2014. But they are voting much more Democratic in Presidential elections.
Yes. Much more Democratic North Carolina just cut off extended unemployment benefits for 70,000 unemployed workers they are voting so much more Democratic.
I guess Florida is also voting much more Democratic. They just made paid sick leave illegal.
Are you actually suggesting that by 2010 Obama and the dems should have solved the entire economy?
in 2008 we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. You think in two years he could have turned us into Canada? because that is what it would have taken for the dems to hold on in 2010.
I am suggesting that the Democrats could have done more and owned what they did instead of running away from Barack Obama.
I am suggesting that it was the establishment Democrats and not necessary President Obama that have created this mess.
But I see that establishment Democrats are still finding excuses for failure instead of facing up to the steep hill they are going to have to climb next year.
Sorry I’m not waving my pom-poms fast enough to suit folks but North Carolina, like Wisconsin and Michigan has become a mess. And I hold the K-Street-compromised Democrats fully responsible.
And btw, I’m not happy that the White House is doubling down on capturing all of my communications instead of working to fulfill their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.
I just want to highlight this part:
I am suggesting that it was the establishment Democrats and not necessary President Obama that have created this mess.
Not George Bush. Not the Republican-controlled Congress of the 00s. Not he banks.
Establishment Democrats.
And that’s after he moves the goal posts from pretending that campaign strategy explains the 2010 elections, to acknowledging that, ok fine, the economy played role, too.
Policy is connected to campaign strategy, something that apparently Democrats cannot grasp. It is five years since George W. Bush and somehow the Democrats cannot seem to get traction or unity or good sense. But Joe still waves his pom-poms.
Meanwhile, Gov. Pat McCrory of NC signed into law the repeal of the Racial Justice Act; it is now legal in North Carolina to discriminate in the execution of prisoners again.
There are folks getting arrested every Monday protesting the actions of the legislature. How did we get from Democratic majorities in all three branches of NC government and Democratic majorities in the Presidency and the Congress to this if not through venery, cowardice, and incompetence of those elected officials.
But for Joe, there’s nothing to see here. The northeast is fat, dumb, and happy with their Democratic political machines. Couldn’t happen there in the land of Romneycare.
So Joe goes to picking apart logic and unleashing the sarcasm.
We have a country that is in deep trouble and elected Democrats are not doing anything to get it out. What about that do you not see?
You consistently express opinions that I also hold whie informing me about things I didn’t know. Thanks.
We got there because of corporate money and media. OFA, the DNC and yes, President Obama were consistently fighting it. It was the purity progressives who jumped on board the corporate message. You could see it happening from a mile away. They got played, big time by supposed progressives and organizations who raised money and got page clicks from pushing the outrage and disappointed meme constantly.
I’m thinking of the kill the bill crowd including Howard Dean. He may have tried to walk it back when he realized he screwed up but it stuck. I had people on my persuasion calls citing his opposition to the ACA long after he changed his mind.
This is part of why I will not support Howard Dean if he decides to run for the nomination. Trust me, Dean had nothing to do with getting it passed, nothing to do with “improving” it–absolutely nothing. He only did harm. We had an effective strategy with tremendous support from the White House.
It is five years since George W. Bush and somehow the Democrats cannot seem to get traction or unity or good sense
Except winning the presidency twice, and winning the popular vote in 2/3 Congressional elections, with the only exception being the one held during the worst economy since the Great Depression. With certain notable exceptions, the Democrats have been unable to get traction in American politics.
How did we get from Democratic majorities in all three branches of NC government and Democratic majorities in the Presidency and the Congress to this if not through venery, cowardice, and incompetence of those elected officials.
Because an election was held in 2010, during the worst economy since the Great Depression, while the Democrats were incumbents. How many times would you like me to answer this question?
We have a country that is in deep trouble and elected Democrats are not doing anything to get it out. What about that do you not see?
The part where this opinion has fuck-all to do with your very special theory that the Democratic Party is not achieving electoral success.
Let’s start way back at the beginning: do you understand that “The Democrats are not enjoying electoral success,” and “There are things happening in Americans politics I do not like,” are two different statement?
Well the DNC with Kaine and Obama did not collapse the 50 state strategy–I can guarantee you that. The 50 state strategy meant running candidates who could get elected–which meant blue dogs.
It was the stupid purity progressives who thought it was a good idea to go after blue dogs thinking the problem was that they were not “progressive” enough. They even managed to get unions to buy this nonsense.
A perfect example is Blanche Lincoln. Did I like her? No. Were we going to elect someone to the left of Lincoln in Arkansas? Obviously,no.
It seems like there are a lot of people who want to blame President Obama for everything. I have to wonder why that is.
From my perspective as someone who has also worked on progressive issues for a very long time–we have accomplished more with President Obama than we had in decades.
I have zero patience at this point for the whiners. Corporate media pushed the “disappointed” meme relentlessly from March of 2009 through election day 2010 and the purity progressives jumped right on board and handed the Republicans the House, many governorships, and state legislatures.
It was OFA and local Dems who tried to fight it. OFA did the bulk of the calling all over the country and there are numbers to back that up. We also worked tirelessly to improve the VAN so we could win in 2012. I was part of a team of organizers around the country who spent 3 hours a week on the phone with the OFA folks just working on the VAN.
Lol are you seriously arguing that the primary against Blanche Lincoln is what made her lose the general election?
What I am saying is that there was this pervasive idea before the 2010 midterms that the problem with Democrats is that they were not “progressive” enough hence the stupid idea to primary Lincoln. They were pushing this not progressive enough criticism of the President and it drove the “disappointed meme” on the left. What you don’t do before a mid term election in a terrible economy is push disappointment.
What I’m saying is that it was totally BS and yet I kept hearing it–still do. You tell me what purpose primarying Lincoln served. Did it strengthen her position? Did she have more money to fight all the Republican aligned big money in that race? I thought it was interesting that on election night Lawrence O’Donnell asked Ed Schultz about whether he regretted it since he was one of the more visible peddlers of that nonsense.
There are no purity progressives in North Carolina. There were no purity progressives in Virginia where Democrats lost.
There was no OFA activity in North Carolina visible in 2010.
OFA in North Carolina in 2012 worked only to elect Obama; there was not a unity campaign in North Carolina to turn out folks for state legislative seats. Even the offices were separate.
It is only you who interprets criticism of establishment Democrats as “blaming President Obama for everything”.
The 50 state initiative involved more than candidates; it involved putting more field organizers into building the party infrastructure over all of the counties in the state–and effort especially necessary in the South where the establishment Democrats had let county infrastructures become so ingrown and corrupt that they collapsed. That revitalization between 2005 and 2008 stopped dead in its tracks in the South.
Circle the wagons all you want; this country in a mess and someone is going to be held accountable in 2014. And Democrats in Congress are so damn complacent, the blame will likely be split creating another disastrous year.
There are a lot of folks who worked tirelessly here as well. But all that hard work means squat if the elected officials continue with business as usual.
Ok, I know you live in NC and I do not live in NC but am regularly in contact with my friends in NC and spent time there campaigning.
There was/is definitely an OFA in NC–even in little hamlets off the beaten path. Is it enough? No. Will it take time? Yes. And I’m sure you are aware that there is an overlap in many states among the people who are active in progressive issues. My friends who are participating and getting arrested as part of Moral Monday are also active with OFA and Democratic party politics.
The thing is that you seemingly spend more time on this site criticizing Democrats, the President, talking about divisions in the Democratic Party, etc. It seems to me like the real problems are corporate money, the influence they wield on lawmakers (especially the Republicans) and the fact that they are not just enabled but encouraged by corporate media. Focusing your criticism on the Democrats who are trying to fight it (however ineffectually in your estimation) is counterproductive.
Do you find this tactic of constant criticism helpful in recruiting people to help you organize around important issues? It certainly has never worked for me and the groups that use this method never seem to get anywhere.
OFA in NC in 2010? I live in one of the most Democratic areas in the state; I did not see it.
In 2012, OFA was active down to the neighborhood level–for the Obama campaign alone. We canvassed our neighborhood as a part of that effort. And wondered why there was no effort to turn out votes for other candidates.
I find it interesting that you perceive a “tactic of constant criticism”. I’m saying that the Democratic Party organization and infrastructure in North Carolina has serious problems and that the established Democrats are not desperate to the point that they are going to deal with them. I’m saying that we are behind the barrel in North Carolina because of failure to grasp opportunities since 2008. And that the necessity of having to do civil disobedience in a state that a generation ago was seen as progressive (despite one Jesse Helms) is a symptom of that failure.
Part of the reasons for this failure is the establishment Democrats taking corporate money to the point that they violated the law.
I don’t focus on the Democrats who are trying to fight it. I’m glad they are hanging in there. But I am not going to gloss over the fact that the fight is against the Democratic establishment and the corporate backers that have bought it out. Mike McIntyre’s vote against Food Stamps is an embarrassment, for example.
And if there are strong OFA chapters in Princeville or Lumberton or wherever, that is something to celebrate. But the job isn’t done until there are similar folks in every county. And that is not where I see resources going.
And I am not sure that there is any realistic effort to try to turn seats in NC in 2014 or just feel victimized by the PVI.
Michigan, at the state level, is controlled by Tea Baggers. We now have “Right-to-Work”, Medicare was not expanded, and teachers have been vilified to the point that I want to quit the profession.
Pretty much the same here in Indiana – a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Industries.
If O’Malley doesn’t run, then I’ll consider non-Hillary options. I was a Dean supporter in 2004. I even went to Iowa to canvas. But, he is not all that liberal and I prefer other candidates over Dean now. I just hope he doesn’t dilute the non-Hillary vote.
Shouldn’t the vehicle for the progressive message be, you know, a progressive?
Look, I like Dean. I caucused for Howard. I was a Dean delegate to my state convention. But he’s no Bernie Sanders. Or Maxine Waters. Or Jan Schakowsky. Wasn’t when he was governor. Or candidate. Or later. Isn’t now.
He’s indistinguishable on policy from any of the other Democratic names being tossed around for 2016.
He has the right enemies, and blows them up regularly on TV in memorable and entertaining ways, though.
Maybe that’s enough.
I completely agree that he isn’t Bernie Sanders and so on. I did actually read his book in 2004 and was a huge supporter of his. But he seems to believe in giving power to the grass-roots which is a big thing even if he’s only a little farther left than Obama. Of the people listed in the post he is by far the best Democrat.
Hillary and Joe B are typical Dem corporatists. And both essentially very conservative people. Not what’s needed.
Agree Cuomo is a no go. For a 1001 reasons…
Who’s that leave? Dr. Dean, for sure. Any progressive Senator (Brown, Whitehouse, Murray, but not Franken), especially Warren, since she has a fundamental likability that we need to win. (Deval and O’Malley seem to lack that, coming off as bland mid-level manager types.) Gillibrand is a complete non-starter for me.
In my most optimistic fantasy, Michelle Obama. A lot like Barack, she simply exudes decency, common sense, strength, etc. I highly doubt that there are any circumstances under which she’d even consider it, and I think the establishment press would be deeply offended (which to me is all the more reason TO do it.)
In other words, we’re likely doomed. As usual.
Brown and Whitehouse both sound good to me, from what little I know. (Especially Brown.) Gillibrand is a non-starter for me, too. Why for you?
Though I’d vote for her over Michelle Obama in a heartbeat–not that I imagine Obama would in a million years want to run.
Really I’d like a progressive asshole. Who is the most assholish progressive? Grayson?
The woman that once served on the BOD of Walmart? That has never run for political office and therefore, has no track record on which to form an opinion on her public policy positions. This is what I detest about politics.
“No track record”? She was secretary of state. She’s been a public figure for many, many years. Her opinions on most subjects are quite well known.
Maybe you just haven’t been following the news. I have for many years. She’s no mystery at all, and in fact that is one of her advantages – pretty much everything about her has already been exposed. No surprises.
comment was about Michelle Obama
Michelle Obama. Not Hillary Clinton.
With both Dean and Clinton. Their generation is in voting power decline and never have been particularly amenable to voting D. Plus, Democratic pols of that age group tend to have internalized the political consensus of pre-1994.
In short, I don’t see how an old and white Democrat gets young Latinos off their asses and to the polls in Texas.
The GOP is waging war not only against President Obama, but against the Democratic Party. They are doing everything they can to consolidate the GOP at state levels. Even if they can’t win the Presidency, if they can hold the US House or gain the Senate they can still force their policies on this country. if voters don’t pay attention, then they will continue blaming the Democrats and continue to hold real power over people’s lives. I live in Indiana and the GOP did away with 4 at large council seats in Marion County govt (Indianapolis), held by Democrats, giving the GOP a majority. They are wrecking all kinds of havoc. I want Democrats to focus on winning and I don’t want to see a divisive primary that ends up with the hurt feelings of Hillary vs Obama supporters which still seems to be ongoing for some.
I appreciate Dean. I thought Hillary was very impressive as SOS, but I don’t want to go back to the old days for either of them. I would back Gov. O’Malley. MD has made impressive strides on progressive issues and I think he can appeal to the Obama coalition we need for the win. The GOP is likely to pick another asshat to run and O’Malley has the credentials to show that he can deliver and take action for the people.
I’m not happy with establishment DNC leadership either, but I sure as hell don’t want the GOP to win. I want them crushed like a bug. I just hope the Dems don’t shoot themselves in the foot again like 2010. I don’t see the US as a progressive country. The middle class likes stability and progressive issues are popular because they are readily understood as beneficial to them personally. O’Malley for me.
While many may not consider Dean presidential material, consider that his running puts his name in the hat for a prospective place in any Democratic administration. Which cannot be anything but a good thing. He brings a lot of great things to the table.
Say what you will about Dean, he is a force to be taken seriously. And while he has said some questionable things, much of which I have seen as liberally taken out of context, he strikes me as always having the best interests of the American People. And ditto what others have said about the Establishment showing him the door.
Maybe he just strikes me as a trustworthy character, and that makes me biased? I used to think Rahm Emanuel was pretty nifty too, but I’m not so sure any more. Who’s 50 state plan was it anyway?
How about some other women running, besides Hillary – though, I imagine if she runs, Democratic women will step-aside and wait until 2020 or 2024, to run.
Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar, would all make terrific candidates and Presidents.
Klobuchar was one of the few Democratic senators who voted for the expansion the FISA court powers, or disempowers, or something, in 2007. To remove the need for warrants for people ‘reasonably believed’* to be outside the US.
* by whom, and with what criteria, we’ll never know.
I’d love Warren to run, but I can’t imagine she will. She seems far too conservative–in a good way–to run so soon after winning her senate seat. And I’m sure she’s barely made a dent in the things she wants to address in the Senate.
Klobuchar is great on some issues, bad on others. But as a MN resident, I can tell you she has a sort of kryptonite that the GOP can’t crack. She won the majority of votes in Michelle Bachmann’s district. Twice. That woman can crush republicans with her bare hands.
Warren can serve honorably as a Senator for many years to come but is too old to consider a quest for the WH.
Klobucher and Gillibrand have time, but a lot less of it if Clinton hogs the spotlight for the next four to twelve years.
No. Dean was the only Democrat with a snowball’s chance in hell to beat GWB in 2004 and was/is as conservative as any self-respecting liberal/progressive should consider supporting. But too few Democrats were smart enough to have seen that. Too many easily manipulated into joining the Wes Clark parade that was never anything other than a stop Dean effort to pave the way for Hillary in ’08. And too many of those that supported Dean fled the moment the MSM chose to begin taking him down.
The earliest the outlines of the 2016 issues will begin to emerge is after the mid-terms. More troubling is how many seem to want a third Obama term or fifth Clinton term led by someone from the geriatric set. As if modern presidential campaigns aren’t physically grueling for the candidate. Romney was about as healthy and youthful looking as a sixty-five year old candidate can be and yet he walked and talked like the old man he is. Biden would be the oldest candidate ever — some people need to get real. Plus the GOP isn’t going to nominate another grandpa in 2016.
If all I wanted was another neo-liberal that could win, I’d switch parties and go for Christie.
All true, but, but … at this point, who are your Top Three hopes and dreams? Love to hear who you’re wishing for.
Anyone that “gets it” and is four to six years away from reaching his/her political maturity. At the national level, Sherrod Brown is the only one that comes close and is skilled at electoral politics, but not quite young enough for a 2016 run.
Kamala Harris is one to watch. Brian Schatz may be even more promising, in part because he’s younger.
Would need to look more closely at Gillibrand and O’Malley to have an opinion.
Hopes and dreams? An electorate that knows and cares more about public policy and how it impacts all our lives and the world than the latest popular, garden variety murder trial or what a Kardashian wore today.
” …what a Kardashian wore today.”
Now you’re just being silly.
You seriously think that more Americans could name the VP than know the latest Kardashian news? I don’t.
God, no. I think you’re silly to have such outlandish dreams! I mean, asking for ponies is one thing, but asking for an electorate that cares more about policy than about Kim?
Speaking of which, she just named her baby North. No middle name. Squee!
Thanks, really needed to know that. It might take away speculations and surprises as to the names they’ll choose for their three kids, but the diehard fans will remain obsessed and squeal OMG when East makes his/her appearance.
Aren’t dreams supposed to be, you know, outlandish? Still waiting for that promised dream of a flying car — instead they gave us creepy little phones connected to the NSA. That’s what we get for complaining about TPC, Ma Bell, and Ernestine.
“Still waiting for that promised dream of a flying car — instead they gave us creepy little phones connected to the NSA.”
That’s like a great jumping off point for a standup comic. Kind of expected we’d have equal pay for women by now. Instead? Vajazzle.
LOL. We could keep this going for a while. But will need contributions from people more clever than me.
Twenty-eight hour work week with decent pay; instead three sixteen hour a week jobs at 3/4ths the minimum wage when I had a dream.
Autonomy and freedom from all government interference wrt my reproductive choice; instead we get mandatory vaginal probes and forced births.
Give Peace a Chance;
Now we have the perpetual war on Terra, ….
drugs, crime, Christmas, women, cancer, poor people, immigrants …. ….
When ever any problem is identified by anybody,
they wanna start a war about it …….
And the beltway bubble heads and congresscritters
go along with it,
As long as the tax payers money
goes to the right corporate coffers ……
And I dunno about Harris. I was just reading this, about DAs and prosecutors and such: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/06/21/aaron-swartz-plea-leveraging-the-bordenkircher-problem/
They kinda scare the pants off me. And:
“On August 24, 2012, the Los Angeles Times published an editorial calling on Harris to release Daniel Larsen from prison. Larsen, who was sentenced to 28 years to life under California’s three strikes laws for possession of a concealed weapon in 1999, was declared actually innocent by a federal judge in 2010 and ordered released, but has remained in prison because Harris’s office has objected to his release on the grounds that he missed the deadline to file his writ of habeas corpus.”
That’s from Harris’s wikipedia page. Larsen got released by a federal court, but Harris’s office is appealing his release, trying to get him back in jail, and he’s apparently absolutely innocent.
Probably should scratch any former DA from a list of future leaders.
California’s “get tough on crime” policies over the past fifty years have been dreadful. What we once spent on higher education, we now spend on prisons.
Romney “walked and talked like [an] old man,” not because he was 65, but because he was completely out of touch with the mainstream–“aircraft” for “plane,” for example. His language reflected someone disconnected from the culture the rest of us participate in. He lives in a rarified atmosphere.
As do most with a certain level of wealth and those inhabitants of the Beltway. But for some strange reason people want to be ruled by those of wealth and privilege. And could anything be more anachronistic the the continuing embrace of and support for kings, queens, princelings, and princesses in the UK, etc.?
But I digress. Kerry in 2004 walked and talked like an old man — as have all the other old men the GOP has nominated over the past thirty years.
older candidates have more gravitas, which appeals to a chunk of voters, another chunk votes for youthful looking ones for their vitality and (supposed) ear for newer ideas, either way they have to be marathoners to take the pressure of a 2 year presidential barnum and bailey run, favouring the youthful, who still are pummelled with the performance schedule and demands for mediated perfection.
americans will vote for a physically handicapped person though, if (s)he articulates the aspirations of the masses well enough.
I will not vote for Hillary for the Primary.
if she makes it past the primary and wins it, like a candidate should, instead of being coronated, like her bullshyt supporters are pushing for…I’ll vote for in the general, because I refuse to not vote.
I’m with you completely on this.
She’s not running.
In order:
I won’t bother with anyone to the Right of Hillary.
My vote will entirely depend on the state of Black America in 2016. We have to stop unconditionally handing our votes to the Democrats at the rate of 90% per election. That is why we get nothing in return so I will keep an open mind until I can determine who will do more than the current administration is doing about the deplorable condition of the Black community.
There is a saying that if you want to keep getting what you’re getting, keep doing what you’re doing. Right now we are getting nothing.
“nothing in return”
So I take it you already have health insurance? If you don’t think that’s going to make a difference, I don’t know what to tell you.
I take it you’ve never read BAR?
Yeah I have health insurance and no I don’t think it’s going to make a difference. If a man is unemployed and has a family to feed ask him would he rather have a paycheck or the government forcing him to buy private insurance. I think the answer in obvious. And to have the IRS enforcing it with penalties? It’s going to be a nightmare.
I take that you are still breathing – have you tried something different or is everything perfect in your world?
my 2 cents: well, this is the internet and commenter Drawteel sounds too much like a Romney talking point for me to take him/her for who he/she claims to be. OTOH, I highly respect you and others of my fellows in the commentariat who engage in dialog.
We are so brainwashed to just blindly follow and think whatever the Democrats want us to think. Its true that the Republicans are NO alternative but the Dems should have to earn our vote, work for it just like they do for other groups. Its frustrating that we’re not sophisticated enough to see that. You’re right, it’s the internet and I have no way of knowing that you are who you claim to be either. But you sound a lot more like Samuel Jackson’s character in Jhengo than I ever will. I’m pro-Black and my loyalty lies with what is best for my people and that is not necessarily what the Democrats want me to think.
Breathing is an involuntary function my friend, we do not choose to breath. But I do choose to be an independent thinker. The step n fetchit, chicken and biscuit eatin buck dancers just can’t understand that.
So you can’t control your breathing? Holding your breath until something changes isn’t an option?
I’d approach this question differently.
What are the characteristics I’d like to see in a candidate?
1) extensive executive or federal legislative experience, and preferably foreign policy/military experience (we need a President who has enough stature to stand up to the corporate/MIC influences coming from both parties
2) no drama, scandal free (one of Obama’s greatest assets)
3) someone who’ll win with a mandate (i.e. run a left-of-center campaign) for fundamental change on our environmental, economic, and counter-terrorism policies
4) someone who’ll help with a lot of the down-ballot races
I don’t see a single Democrat who fits these criteria.
Maybe you said this more eloquently than I did, but this is exactly what I have been trying to say here. They should have to work for our votes. Right now we are the reliable 90% vote that can be ignored. I’m not talking about voting Republican, there are other alternatives but we must demand that our issues be addressed before we hand over our support.
All of that applies to Dean except the manufactured “Dean Scream” scandal and foreign policy experience. What foreign policy experience did Obama have? No wonder he kept Bush’s team in control.
That’s why I don’t want another candidate like Obama — someone with so little experience that we project onto him/her whatever we want to see and who’ll have to fight off the accusations of being inexperienced and radical by appointing people like Clapper and Geithner.
My wife and I would have no problem working on Howard Dean’s campaign if he does decide to run. Whether he runs or not, he already has inspired us to become the activists and civic engagement leaders we have been since 2003 here in Pasadena, CA. This is a blog post I did back in 2010 that speaks of what it was which inspired us:
http://greeneggsandham.org/wordpress/?p=533
These are some pictures from back in the day when we worked on his campaign and even precinct walked in Tucson, AZ right before he bowed out in Feb 2004 (he won Pima County though – smile).
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=39995061@N00&q=howard%20dean
It is just nice to see you even mention that Dr. Dean might run again. We don’t hero-worship him but he has our respect and he has been our inspiration. We even have a new group in Pasadena that is working to create a more civically engaged community. I think these links tell our story well:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/112651944/Occupy-Democracy-Pasadena-Blog-Post-and-Flickr-Links
We’re on board. We hold no illusions. We believe if he runs it will be good for the country even if he doesn’t get the nomination.
I willing to jump on the Dean Train for President at minimum someone’s VP Candidate. Bring out that Bat Gov. Dean and i’ll send you some money.
Not a word about any truly anti-war, anti-PermaGov candidates. Not a word about anyone who will in any way approach Ron Paul’s public statement about when he would bring the troops back home if he was elected president:
“As soon as the ships could get there,” he said.
This is not a pro-Ron/Rand Paul post, it is a simple, straightforward statement of fact. The root of the problems here in the U.S. is militarism…militarily enforced economic imperialism. It produces many times more enemies than it kills, thus promoting its own growth in the name of “safety;” it is hideously expensive and that expense starves both the physical and social infrastructure of the nation; it constantly ramps up the whole climate change process with its trillions of dollars worth of petroleum-fueled weapons systems; it steadily moves the world closer and closer to a nuclear war that could quite conceivably end our reign on this planet and…bone deep simple…it simply isn’t working. Are any of you better off than you were 6 or 14 or 22 or 30 or 38 or 46 or 54 years ago? I don’t think so. Are you ready to be surveilled into total acquiescence in the name of “protection?” Protection that would largely be unnecessary if those so-called “protectors” had not wantonly murdered millions of people in the brownish parts of the world in the name of better Burger King outlets and the right to buy gasoline at 1/3 the average cost in the other so-called developed nations? I guess you are, judging from this series of posts.
Sigh.
Nothing but a series of pro-PermaGov, pro-economic imperialist names above. Must we alter the meaning of the word “progressive” to include support of a permanent war system? Seems like. Why? In the name of an illusory political practicality? Is this country’s political system working in any truly practical manner whatsoever?
It is?
Oh.
Nevermind.
Y’all are beyond help, mediatranced into total submission.
Nevermind.
Yore ex-“progressive” freind,
Emily Litella
Booman’s “Getting On the Dean Train” post. WTF?
Duh!!!
AG
Ron Paul is a Right Wing troglodyte joke.
Or…Barack Obama is a corporate/centrist/economic imperialist wolf in progressive’s clothing.
We’re gonna find out who’s right…or at the very least who’s winning…real soon, TVITW. My own bet? The corporate/centrist wilderness of which you think that you are “The Voice.”
You’re not, of course.
You’re just another media-entranced sleeper.
Sleep on, friend.
The awakening is going to be a tough one, I think.
Enjoy your rest while you still have it.
AG
We both are right.
No names were mentioned because the Democrat who’ll do right by the American people and who has a chance of winning doesn’t exist. The system is set up to make sure of that. Obama is the proof.
Bet on it.
If hat is truer…and I believe that you are dead right here…then why remain a Democrat?
AG
Because while the lessor of two evils is still evil, it is also LESSOR.
Until you got an alternative that is viable, I’ll continue to vote against the R’s.
^
^
|
|
What he said.
I support Joe Biden, but i’ll always have a soft spot for Howard Dean.
Very intersting and useful tips.I read step by step this informations and help juegos motos me very much.Thank you very much for this!Cheers