2008
Just a heads up: I won’t be voting for Hillary Clinton or John Edwards in 2008. Even Dean and Kucinich are ruled out now. I’m not sure about Russ Feingold. Maybe I would vote for Cynthia McKinney. Not sure of course if Nader will run again. Camejo and Cobb are other possibilities. There were fewer of us this time, but you never know when you might need us!
posted by Tom Cleland @ 11/04/2004 07:12:00 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
Russ Feingold would be good if he ran. I'd also like to see Jim Jeffords run and Howard Dean should try again. I'm not very interested in Hillary Clinton anymore. She's gotten too political.
I didn't see her trying very hard to get Kerry elected, and I imagine there's something to the fact that she knew she'd have to run against Edwards if they won. But she's a bit too much like Tom Daschle in my mind.
However, I think you are making some big assumptions if you really think we are going to have a democracy left by 2008. Bush was already dismantling it, and the republicans just picked up something like 5 senate seats.
Basically Bush has a free ride to do whatever he wants. Actually I should say Cheney has a free ride. Seems like since Bush is just a pawn of Cheney's that Cheney shouldn't get to run in 2008. In reality he will have already had 8 years as President.
You may be on to something with the possible dismantling of democracy. With the continuing depletion of oil, I’ll be happy if we’re not exterminated during this term! If we are though, it will be part of the bipartisan script.
Since your vote for Kerry was wasted, just think: You could have voted for Nader, helped us build our movement, stood up for democracy and fair ballot access, opposed the war, and had a clear conscience.
If you numbskull Naderites had not been diverting energy from the liberal cause maybe it would have gone the other way!!!! Don't you dare turn the tables on this. You effectively voted for Bush whether you admit it or not.
Listen, I can’t prove that Kerry threw the election. All I’m saying is that it would make sense if he did. I’m no campaign expert, but Bill Hillsman is. Here’s what he had to say in today’s (11/7) Twin Cities StarTribune:
"Let's put the blame where it belongs. There's plenty to choose among: weathervane party Chairman Terry McAuliffe. The legions of soulless and grossly incompetent Democratic pollsters. The free-spending, formulaic and uninspired communications of wealthy media consultant (and perennial loser) Bob Shrum & Co."
Click this link for the full article:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5071433.html
Sheryl, Kerry lost the election himself because he was such a poor candidate. And the Anybody-But-Bush crowd who supported him helped bring about that loss by putting up such a poor candidate. Whenever you put up a Bush-lite (supported the war, voted for the Patriot Act, is hawkish on military intervention globally, supports anti-worker trade bills and initiatives) people will see two candidates with similar values and end up voting for the "real thing," the real conservative. The fault lies with the corporate leaders of the party and the ABB crowd, those who have sacrificed principle for political expediency. The fact is, given Kerry's conservative record, he ended up being a flip-flopper on the important issues and everyone saw that. Instead of nominating a real liberal, they picked a neo-liberal that tried to falsely be all things to all people. Of course that is what the corporate leaders of the party want.... they've always been willing to sacrifice their liberal base because their values don't fall in line with them.
I'm convinced by the argument that the leaders of the Democratic Party will push for even more conservative nominees in the future. Kerry was conservative enough (again look at what he stands for), but the common misperception that he is a liberal will be persuasive enough to many that what is needed is a social conservative. At this juncture, with the Democratic Party in its death throes, all the better if we would simply do away with the Democratic Party and take an independent course.
Check out www.counterpunch.org for similar arguments in the context of the 2004 election.
Jerry Brown warned us about NAFTA in 1992, how it was written behind closed doors, how it would hurt the environment and the rights of unions.
I think the Kerry campaign could have done more to respond to the following issues:
Flip-flop
Global test
Cheney’s daughter
Kerry’s Vietnam record
Vietnam war crimes
I think a good commercial would have been to show a pancake slow motion in mid-air, interspersed with Bush’s quotes on whether it was important to catch bin Laden and his debate quote saying it was an exaggeration. At the end of the commercial, the pancake lands and the announcer asks, “Who’s the flip-flopper?”
Nice blog! I agree about Russ Feingold. I think he would be a great candidate in 2008.
I wasn't familiar with him until recently, but his progressive roots seem strong. Plus he seems to have the intangibles that are needed to be elected:
(1) He has experience to be "presidential" and to be taken seriously in the Democratic primaries when people are not accepted until they have "waited their turn".
(2) He comes from a swing state (Wisconsin) who folks in other midwest states like Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc. can relate to.
(3) His liberal/progressive record is unblemished, no flip-flopping here.
(4) He is the only Senator to vote against both the Patriot Act and the War in Iraq (those positions are only going to become more popular in 2008).
(5) He has a record of accomplishment (McCain-Feingold) in the Senate.
(6) He has only missed something like 2 votes in 12 years in the Senate.
(7) He is articulate and comes across well on camera.
(8) He has a populist message with a record of support for fair trade.
(9) He is one of the 2 biggest deficit hawks in the US Senate. (This is going to help with fiscal conservatives who are seething at Bush's record deficit.)
(10) He won his election in Wisconsin 55%-44% running on a true progressive platform while Kerry squeeked by in Wisconsin running on a Republican-lite platform. Contrary to a growing popular opinion, Kerry didn't lose because he wasn't conservative enough. Feingold's large margin points to the opposite, that Kerry wasn't progressive enough.
Just check out these commercials (especially Level Playing Field) from Feingold's recent campaign, and see if you don't agree that they would have been more effective in the swing states than the ones that the DNC ran for Kerry.
Hey Ted,
My friend Ryan forwarded me an email suggesting that Nader should demand a recount in Ohio due to some fishy things being uncovered there (since Kerry has bailed and won't do it himself.) I posted a link with the suggestion at my blog: http://szettner.blogspot.com .
But I also posted Ohio's request for HAVA funds as well. I thought maybe since you are living in Ohio that might interest you.
Anyway, I emailed the Nader campaign like my friend suggested. I think it's a great idea.
Sheryl
I can't speak for Nader, but I don't see why not. Thanks also Jim for your post on Feingold.
I wrote Cameron Kerry because I saw a page saying that he was looking into these things. He sent a DNC email address to people saying that if you personally know of fraud or voter intimidation in Ohio or Florida to contactthe Voter Rights Institute at the DNC: vri@dnc.org.
I guess they just figure that if they are going to reverse their concession, then they would first need an air tight case. Don't want it backfiring like that veteran letter, where they spent weeks deciding about whether the th was really on the typewriter back then.
I'd also contact the Cobb campaign if I knew anything as well, because Nader wasn't actually on the ballot in Ohio, but Cobb was.
(I just created a new post devoted to the topic of election fraud.)
Post a Comment
<< Home