PDA

View Full Version : Replacing Bush



Chris Knipp
11-07-2007, 04:55 AM
REPLACING BUSH

Finding a viable and worthwhile democratic candidate

There is a campaign to draft Gore now. The reason is sadly obvious. The democratic field is dominated by three people, a woman, a black man (both risks since US voters have never had a candidate of either type for president) and a previous loser, John Edwards. The full-on campaigning has also weakened democratic hopes by starting too early. Candidates could be burning themselves out before things have even really gotten going.

DFA, Democracy for America, "Social Progress, Fiscal Responsibility, Grassroots Activism"--a new online grassroots political group-- has just done a <a href="http://democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll/results?&&r=1">poll</a> (Nov. 6, 2007) asking participants which Democratic Party candidates for President they preferred right now. Gore was a write-in possibility.

The DFA poll results looked like this:

Representative Dennis Kucinich 31.97% 49364
Former Vice President Al Gore 24.77% 38242
Former Senator John Edwards 15.6% 24078
Senator Barack Obama 13.86% 21403
Senator Hillary Clinton4.21% 6504
Governor Bill Richardson 4.09% 6309
Other 2.05% 3171
Senator Christopher Dodd 1.56% 2415
Senator Joe Biden 1.12% 1723
Former Senator Mike Gravel 0.77% 1182

Gore came in second even though you had to write him in. Gore was my own personal first choice--I want him to get attention as a real contender. He really won numerically before--why not give him his due? And look how he has grown since that dim moment seven years ago. Paradoxically, in the context of the recent democratic campaigning, he has the advantage of not having burnt himself out, because he hasn't even been there; he's been out on his own winning an Oscar and a Nobel prize and generally looking smart and independent and influential. The trouble is, Gore thinks being president is not the best place to accomplish the things that he wants to accomplish and that sadly may be true. The presidential campaign is a very traumatic memory for him too. But in view of the absurdly drawn-out and premature campaigning of a confusing and somewhat lackluster field of democratic candidates, Gore is looking more and more like perhaps the only possible Democratic Party candidate (if he chooses to become one) who might have both the vote-getting ability and the true leadership to be worth supporting in 2008.

Otherwise my first choice would be Kucinich. He's the only candidate who is truly progressive and smart on all the issues. Unfortunately, as fellow progressives who have watched him over the years as an outspoken congressman and previous presidential candidate well know, he has no pizazz--the stuff you need to win big. As YouTube progressive politics prodigy Theo van der Deer <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP5t-vxCNjo">puts it</a>--Theo's only 16 but is just about the wisest political voice on that huge site--Kucinich is "a 'girl'" on too many issues. Kucinich is right, but he doesn't know how to make being right sound sexy enough. And being right and being green, progressive, and compassionate on issues is sexy and could be very profitable and everything else, but you have to make people see that, somehow. This is where Gore might come in. But he still remains an unknown, and he has only said he does not want to run again for President, that he strongly dislikes the idea.

Winning a national election is an extremely pragmatic issue. Theo and I both recognize Kucinich is the smartest and the most compassionate of the candidates by his voting record in Congress and his stated positions. And so do all those nice tens of thousands who participated in the DFA poll. But he lacks that macho spark that excites voters and gets you elected. Of course Hillary is plenty macho. Women political leaders are often more man than any man. See. Ms. Thatcher, Elizabeth I, Golda Meir, and many others. Not only does this not make her appealing: it makes her slightly disturbing. She has the possibility of being more brutal than her husband was, and he was not exactly a softy when it came to bombing countries randomly. As for Obama, he has probably flip-flopped more than Hillary, because he came from further behind and so he changed his face more when he realized that he had a chance (Theo says this in the video cited above--he says a whole lot in a nutshell, there. Cool kid.) It's nice to see Obama out there, but he seems too inexperienced, too green, to be President.

This poll made me feel happy, for a little while at least, knowing that I have some kindred spirits out there. It's also cool, as you can see on the nifty interactive map DFA provides, that Kucinich carried the vast majority of the states in this poll. Of course this is only a few tens of thousands so it doesn't mean much.

Or does it? It doesn't seem to take too many thousands of the right votes in the right places to make a President. And had Gore been a current candidate and not a write-in, he'd probably have been at the top of the DFA poll. And a lot of more mainstream ones.

Pragmatism is daunting to the progressive. Considerations about viability vs. worthwhile-ness in presidential candidates are always troubling. But do we need so much to compromise or do we Americans as a people simply need to get cracking, start caring, awaken our slumbering outrage at the abominations that have been visited upon us over the past seven years?

What we need is a huge grassroots movement--and to get the sanctity of our vote back, assuming we ever had it. It seems like progressives are continuing to win in Latin America, witness the victory yesterday in Guatemala of Álvaro Colom, a center-left businessman, who defeated a scary right-winger, retired general Otto Pérez Molina. In this election the rural vote played an unprecedentedly important role. That's grassroots action.

The thing is, in the US it's still not a foregone conclusion that a democrat will win the next presidential election despite a campaign with the immediate background of the worst presidency in living memory. You can always fumble the ball when your team is slated to win a tie game. And every US presidential election is a tie game. Those Diebold gnomes who stole the last election have been working out with steroids and are eager to try out their new muscles in the next one. Besides which, the democrats have been visibly fumbling the ball ever since their slim victory last November. And finally, after this administration, the idea that the "lesser of two evils" doesn't matter--Nader's rallying point--has lost its credibility. It darn well does matter to have the lesser of two evils.

Johann
11-07-2007, 07:58 AM
Dennis Kucinich is a man I like because he wants to impeach Cheney BAD.

I can't believe Nancy Pelosi said "Impeachment is off the table".

What the fuck kind of insane statement is that?!
I think impeachment has been BRANDED into the table.

I have this overwhelming suspicion that Hilary Clinton will win.
As I read on Mike Moore's website she is whatever anybody wants her to be, such is her slimy political manner, such is her greed and sick ego.
I can't stand to look at her phony godawful face.

It would be nice to think that Gore would run and win, but the whole U.S. voting system is rigged.
"The Voter" is wasting his time in my opinion.
I have a profoundly powerful feeling that the whole voting system is pre-determined, and every persons vote doesn't mean jack squat.
They already know who's gonna win, they already know who will be the next person to do "front of house" work.

As Gore Vidal said, they've had 8 YEARS to perfect their corruption, 8 years to really put the straightjacket on democracy.

When you cast your vote, do you know what happens after you leave the ballot box? Neither do I.

I heard that 2 companies, Diebold and Sequioa have exclusive rights to look at the info on the voting machines- no one else can, due to "trade secrets". What the fuck is that all about?

In 2004 many U.S. states asked for a paper trail on the voting machines, but were not given any until the summer of 2005.
Long after Bush won, long after anybody can contest it.

It sickens me, and it's not even my country man.

Voting has been hijacked.
I think casting a vote doesn't amount to a hill of beans, especially when you have super-rich people in the political arena.
We aren't there- we have no clue what backroom deals they make.

The Bushes and Clintons seem to be working in tandem.
But what do I know?
I'm just going on my gut feelings.

Chris Knipp
11-07-2007, 08:20 AM
Sorry I didn't see you'd posted this. Check out my post again--I revised and expanded it because I wanted to make it one of my Politics essays on my own site.
It would be nice to think that Gore would run and win, but the whole U.S. voting system is rigged.
"The Voter" is wasting his time in my opinion.
I have a profoundly powerful feeling that the whole voting system is pre-determined, and every person's vote doesn't mean jack squat.
They already know who's gonna win, they already know who will be the next person to do "front of house" work.That is the kind of thing you write too often, Johann. The whole voting system is rigged only if we let it be. Eternal vigilence is the price of freedom. This is the ACLU exists, why it's essential to be on some level a political activist. Yes, we can knuckle under and let the fascists take over the government of our country, but that is not what we can do. Your attitude seems to me not only profoundly pessimistic, but also essentially regressive. You want to let the right wing win, the worst elements of the US Republican Party take over and manipulate the elections to put themselves perpetually in control. BUt that is actually highly unlikely as an outcome in America.

But anyway, I'm glad that in spite of your chastizing Gore for losing, and then for conceding that he has lost since the circumstances were so unfair, you still think it would be "nice" for Gore to run and win.

Gore Vidal is extremely clever and witty and even in his dotage his political comments have bite, but I'd not exactly consider him the most reliable of writers on these matters. He is as pessimistic as you are. But even though things keep getting progressively "worse" in the world, they aren't as bad as pessimists like you and Vidal would like to have us think.

Not everywhere has computerized voting, so those companies don't control everything. There has been a move toward a paper trail in many states. Anyway, considering how close the elections have been, simply giving a democratic candidate an overwhelmingly large vote would solve this issue of jiggled results. You can only jiggle so much.


I think casting a vote doesn't amount to a hill of beans, especially when you have super-rich people in the political arena.

You think; but I think you're wrong. If it didn't matter, the super-rich people wouldn't be out there bothering.

Johann
11-07-2007, 08:37 AM
The right wing already won Chris.

Before Hunter Thompson died he said to Bob Dylan:
They won, Bob. The Fascists won.
Bob replied: Yeah, but we don't have to join them.

I think my instincts on this are good.
All the signs are there that this is a lost issue.
My pessimism is well-rooted, true.
I don't like being negative at all- it's profoundly depressing to me.

"We" have already let the voting system become rigged, "we" have already allowed evil slime to run things for 8 years.
"We" have settled into a consumer, secular, capitalist way of life that doesn't really care who's president as long as "we" can watch American Idol.

The apathy and indifference to politics by the majority of the public is a large reason why I feel things aren't gonna change one iota. It's tremendously sad, and I want to believe in a better world, but with the suspicions I have about a New World Order, one orchestrated by bankers and investors and greedheads all on the horizon, I find it very very difficult to be positive about ANY poiltical candidate or their plans for a "new America".

Chris Knipp
11-07-2007, 10:11 AM
What you have said is certainly true, and I respect you for the strength of your convictions, but it's not in my nature to be a prophet of doom, and I think it's an obligation to keep fighting the good fight, and if the "fascists had won," things would be a whole lot different than they are. There would be no Michael Moore and the libraries couldn't refuse to spy on their borrowers, and so on and on and on.

Not everybody has settled not a consumer, capitalist style of life. And at the same time, that is what most of the world wants. I know apathy in some of my friends, but not in others. I live on the edge of Berkeley, after all. However, again, you have a strong point there.

Johann
11-07-2007, 12:24 PM
It's hard to be optimistic on this.
Really hard.
I mean, look at the candidates.
This is the absolute best the United States has to offer for leaders?
A lawyer who was first lady and few long, long shots?
Wow.
I'm stunned by the choices.
This is really really bad.

My only idea on why the Presidential talent pool is so thin is because most intelligent people don't go near politics- it's a potential life-breaker. You could be run into the ground by smear campaigns and unknown forces working overtime to bring you down if you are not willing to toe the line on certain things, something the Investment Class wouldn't hestate to do.

We need someone who believes in the words of a poet like P.B Shelley:

The Mask of Anarchy

'Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you-
Ye are many- they are few

Chris Knipp
11-07-2007, 12:38 PM
Bravo, Johann!

Chris Knipp
11-10-2007, 04:48 AM
Kucinich is still very much pushing for impeachment of Cheney, as described yesterday right here. (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/09/1455244)

Johann
11-21-2007, 07:03 AM
Check this out- I think it's a clear-cut omen folks...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGqtV8lC5hI&feature=related

Johann
11-21-2007, 07:13 AM
And this is also quite lovely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npbftGodGGI