Al Gore Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Akash]

The Nation
October 29, 2007
The Online Beat
By John Nichols

Al Gore The Write-In Frontrunner

A funny thing happened when the Deaniacs were asked to decide who they might want to back for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

The supporters of the 2004 presidential campaign of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean and their allies, who form the base of the Democracy for America organization nationally, have been participating in recent days in a poll to see whether a liberal "consensus candidate" can be identified.

It's an online vote, certainly not a scientific survey.

But the voting so far has been revealing. The announced candidates for the Democratic nod are all pictured on the DFA website -- www.democracyforamerica.com -- and several of them have taken advantage of the opportunity offered them by the group to dispatch emails explaining their candidacies to DFA lists.

So who is winning as the contest heads toward its November 5 conclusion -- a date that conveniently falls two months before Iowa Democrats will be attending what could well be definitional caucuses?

It's not Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama; not even John Edwards, who has made a serious play for DFA support. It is not even Dennis Kucinich, the anti-war progressive who is arguably the candidate most in tune with DFA positions in global and domestic issues.

The front-runner is a write-in candidate: former Vice President Al Gore.

Here's how the numbers looked as of Monday afternoon:

Al Gore (write in) 26499... 26.68%

Dennis Kucinich 23951... 24.11%

Barack Obama 18253... 18.38%

John Edwards 15065... 15.17%

Bill Richardson 5726... 5.76%

Hillary Clinton 4421... 4.45%

Other 2056... 2.07%

Christopher Dodd 1551... 1.56%

Joe Biden 997... 1%

Mike Gravel 814... 0.82%

Gore has maintained a lead for more than a week.

It is not likely that the recent Nobel Peace Prize winner will be lured into the race by an online poll. But his unexpected showing tells us two things:

1. Gore has genuine support among progressives. DFA poll participants had to go to extra trouble to write his name in and got no prompting from the group on the possibility of going for the former vice president and 2004 Dean backer. This suggests that, for so long as Gore teases about a race, former "Draft Gore" activists and their grassroots allies -- who have stepped up their activism in Iowa, New Hampshire and other early caucus and primary states -- will find support for their entreaties.

2. The Gore possibility is a serious problem for announced candidates who seek to position themselves as alternatives to presumed Democratic front-runner Clinton. DFA rules require that a candidate get more than 66 percent of the vote to earn an endorsement from the group, which maintains a reasonably solid infrastructure nationally and which serves as a useful bully pulpit among liberal Democrats. It is unlikely that Kucinich, Obama or Edwards could get to the 66 percent level even without the loss of 27 percent of the vote someone who isn't even running. But with the write-ins going to Gore, there is little likelihood that any announced candidate will get near the numbers that are needed for an endorsement.

As such, Al Gore is actually helping Hillary Clinton. For so long as he remains a prospect, he blocks opportunities for other candidates to make their moves.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=246846



Edited By Akash on 1193766247

[Akash]

Does anyone think Gore will put his money where his mouth is? After his son got arrested on drug charges - another reminder of the ridiculous "drug war" in this country - he could follow suit with an arrest/protest of his own. Something tells me though that Gore is more comfortable telling young people that they should engage in civil disobedience than actually doing it himself. Kind of like how all the other hypocrites in Congress are okay sending other people's economically deprived children to war.

They're all the same people. Every last one of them. "Can't someone else do it?"

THE NATION

If Gore Were Arrested...

by MARK HERTSGAARD

[posted online on October 24, 2007]


Fresh from winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his climate change evangelism, Al Gore is apparently considering an invitation from a prominent environmental group to engage in civil disobedience against the construction of new coal-fired power plants.

Rainforest Action Network issued the invitation to the former Vice President, according to RAN executive director Michael Brune. The San Francisco-based group has a twenty-year history of protesting against destructive logging practices and other causes of climate change; it specializes in targeting corporations as much as governments.

"We came across a quote from Gore in an interview with [New York Times] columnist Nicholas Kristof back in August, saying he didn't understand, quote, 'Why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them constructing new coal-fired power plants,'" said Brune. "We thought, 'Great idea!' That's the kind of activism we do at RAN. So we decided to invite Gore to join us."

Gore's office confirmed that the former Vice President had received RAN's invitation and was considering it, though no decision has been made.

"He has not accepted any of their offers to date," Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Gore, said of the RAN offer. Kreider did not deny that this phrasing leaves open the possibility of Gore saying yes down the road.

RAN plans a national day of protest against coal on November 16, according to Brune.

If Gore did end up getting arrested during a protest against a coal-fired power plant, it would make front-page news throughout the world and put a spotlight on what some climate scientists and activists consider the single most important priority in the fight against climate change: halting the use of coal as the world's top source of electricity production. Coal is the most carbon-intensive of the three major fossil fuels (the others are oil and natural gas) whose combustion produces most of the carbon dioxide that is helping to raise temperatures and change climatic patterns on earth.

NASA scientist James Hansen, the man who first warned during testimony before the US Senate in 1988 that man-made greenhouse gas emissions were warming the planet, has called for a complete ban on new coal-fired power plants "until we have the technology to capture and sequester the CO2." That technology, Hansen estimates, is "probably five or ten years away." Any plants built without that technology "are going to have to be bulldozed," argues Hansen, if the earth is to avoid "dramatic climate changes that produce what I would call a different planet."

John McCain, the Arizona senator and Republican presidential candidate, reportedly told a crowd in New Hampshire this week that he would consider supporting a ban on new coal-fired power plants if he could be shown possible alternatives. McCain was responding to a question from activists with Step It Up, a grassroots organization pushing for bolder federal action against climate change, including a total ban on coal. Step It Up plans a national day of demonstrations on November 3, exactly one year before the 2008 presidential election.

The State of Kansas recently denied a permit for construction of a coal-fired power plant due to concern over the plant's CO2 emissions. "I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment if we do nothing," said Roderick Bremby, secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and the Environment, in explaining his rejection of the permit for the Sunflower Electric Power company.

In neighboring Iowa, Hansen is offering expert testimony in a lawsuit aiming to halt construction of the Sutherland Generating Station Unit 4 coal-fired plant. "Coal will determine whether we continue to increase climate change or slow the human impact," Hansen testified.

A native of Iowa, Hansen contended that a decision by his state to reject coal-fired power plants could be an important tipping point that would trigger broader shifts in public opinion and institutional behavior. "If the public begins to stand up in a few places and successfully oppose the construction of power plants that burn coal without capturing the CO2, this may begin to have a snowballing effect, helping utilities and politicians to realize that the public prefers a different path, one that respects all life on the planet."

Asked why he is focusing on Iowa when China is building many more coal-fired power plants, Hansen replied that China and other developing nations "must be part of the solution to global warming, and surely they will be, if developed nations take the appropriate first steps." The United States, Hansen noted, is responsible for three times as much of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere as any other nation.

True enough. But if China keeps building new coal plants at a rate of one every ten days, it won't much matter if US companies turn away from coal. The campaign against coal must be global if it is to succeed.

Al Gore could launch this campaign with a bang if he joined activists in facing down the bulldozers. But a word of advice, Mr. Gore: make a US power plant your first target, but don't leave out China and the rest of the world. Carbon is a climate killer, wherever it originates.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071105/hertsgaard



Edited By Akash on 1193266345

[Akash]

And now Ralph Nader sums it up wonderfully for counterpunch. He's correct on Iran, on Terrorist Bush and on the bumblefuckers controlling the House and the Senate.

October 23, 2007
The Bombs Away Mentality
Bush's Catastrophic Rhetoric

By RALPH NADER



Mired in the disastrous Iraq quagmire, opposed by a majority of Americans, George W. Bush has reached new depths of reckless, belligerent bellowing. At a recent news conference, he volunteered that he told our allies that if they're "interested in avoiding World War III," Iran must be prevented from both developing a nuclear weapon or having "the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

To what level of political insanity has this Washington Caesar descended? Only two countries can start World War III-Russia and the United States. Is Bush saying that if Russia, presently opposed to military action against Iran, persists with its position, Bush may risk World War III? If not, why is this law-breaking warmonger, looking for another war for American GIs to fight, while his military-age daughters bask in the celebrity lime light?

Why is he using such catastrophic language?

Surely he does not think Iran could start World War III. His own intelligence agencies say that, even assuming that the international inspectors are wrong and Iran is moving toward developing the "knowledge" of such weapons, it can't build its first such weapon before 3 to 5 years at the earliest.

Why would a regime ruling an impoverished country risk suicide, surrounded as it is by countries armed to the nuclear teeth, such as Israel and the United States? This nation of nearly 80 million people hardly needs to be reminded that the U.S. overthrew its popular premier in 1953, installing for the next 27 years the brutal regime of the Shah.

They recall that President Reagan and his Vice President, George Herbert Walker Bush urged, funded and equipped Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran-a nation that has not invaded any country in over 250 years-which took around 700,000 Iranian lives.

Moreover, the undeniable historical record shows that U.S. companies received licenses from the Department of Commerce, under Reagan, to ship Saddam the raw materials necessary to make chemical and biological weapons. Saddam used such lethal chemical weapons, with the tolerance of Reagan and Rumsfeld, on Iranians to devastating effect in terms of lives lost.

Then George W. Bush labels Iran a member of the "axis of evil" along with Iraq, ignoring a serious proposal by Iran in 2003 for negotiations, and shows what his language means by invading Iraq.

The authoritarian Iranian government is frightened enough to hurl some defiant rhetoric back at Washington and widen its perimeter defense. Seymour Hersh, the topflight investigative reporter for the New Yorker magazine has written numerous articles on how the crowding of Iran, including infiltrating its interior, has become an obsession of the messianic militarist in the White House.

The Pentagon is more cautious, worrying about our already drained Army and the absence of any military strategy and readiness for many consequences that would follow Bush's "bombs away" mentality.

Then there is the matter of the Democrats in Congress. After their costly fumble on Iraq, the opposition Party should make it very constitutionally clear, as recommended by former New York Governor, Mario Cuomo in a recent op-ed, that there can be no funded attacks on any country without a Congressional declaration of war, as explicitly required by the framers of our Constitution.

But the Democrats are too busy surrendering to other Bush demands, whether unconstitutional, above the law or just plain marinated in corporate greed. Some of this obeisance was all too clear in the Democrats questioning of Bush's nominee for Attorney General, Michael B. Mukasey.

After the two days of hearings, no Democrat has yet announced a vote against Mukasey, even after he evaded questions on torture and argued for the inherent power of the President to act contrary to the laws of the land if he unilaterally believes he has the inherent constitutional authority to do so.

This position aligns Mukasey with the imperial views of Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Gonzales on the "unitary Executive." In short, reminiscent of the divine right of Kings, the forthcoming Attorney General believes Bush can say that 'he is the law' regardless of Congress and the judiciary.

After two recent lead editorials demonstrating its specific exasperation over the Democrats' kowtowing to the White House, the New York Times added a third on October 20, 2007 titled "With Democrats Like These" The editorial recounted the ways Democrats, especially in the Senate, have caved on critical constitutional and statutory safeguards regarding the Bush-Cheney policies and practices of spying on Americans without judicial approval and accountability.

Accusing the Democrats of "the politics of fear," the Times concluded: "It was bad enough having a one-party government when the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But the Democrats took over, and still the one-party system continues."

There is more grist coming for the Times' editorial mill. Last week, the first African-American chair of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, Charles Rangel (D-NY), declared that Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, Jr., fresh from Wall Street, had persuaded him, during a decade of increasing record profits, to lower the porous corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25%.

"We can live with that," Chairman Rangel declared.

Would the working families in his District, who would be paying a higher tax rate on their modest income, agree?

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader10232007.html



Edited By Akash on 1193201908

[OscarGuy]

His leadership is to pose for photo shoots! How wonderful. You must think Bush on the Aircraft Carrier with the banner "Mission Accomplished" is the greatest photo of all time!

[criddic3]

Oscarguy:

Well, Criddic, it's good of you to admit that the only day Giuliani showed any leadership was ON 9/11.

Me:

People like Rudy for a number of reasons, including his leadership on 9/11.

I didn't say his only leadersip was ON 9/11, but that is the biggest example of his leadership.



Edited By criddic3 on 1193175287

[Akash]

It's like they read our comments on this board. So now even the moderates masking as liberals at the NY Times are criticizing the Democrats for not living up to their standards.

October 20, 2007
Editorial
With Democrats Like These ...

Every now and then, we are tempted to double-check that the Democrats actually won control of Congress last year. It was particularly hard to tell this week. Democratic leaders were cowed, once again, by propaganda from the White House and failed, once again, to modernize the law on electronic spying in a way that permits robust intelligence gathering on terrorists without undermining the Constitution.

The task before Congress was to review and improve an update to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, that was pushed through the Capitol just before the summer break. That bill endorsed warrantless wiretapping and gutted other aspects of the 1978 law.

House Democrats drafted a measure that, while imperfect, was an improvement to the one passed this summer. But before the House could vote, Republicans tied up the measure in bureaucratic knots and Democratic leaders pulled it. Senate Democrats did even worse, accepting a Potemkin compromise that endorsed far too much of the bad summer law.

We were left wondering who is really in charge, when in a bipartisan press release announcing the agreement, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Kit Bond, described the bill as “a delicate arrangement of compromises” that could not be changed in any way. The committee’s chairman, Jay Rockefeller, didn’t object.

As the debate proceeds, Americans will be told that the delicate compromises were about how the government may spy on phone calls and electronic messages in the age of instant communications. Republicans have already started blowing hot air about any naysayers trying to stop spies from tracking terrorists.

No one is doing that. The question really is whether Congress should toss out chunks of the Constitution because Mr. Bush finds them inconvenient and some Democrats are afraid to look soft on terrorism.

FISA requires a warrant to spy on communications within the United States or between people in this country and people abroad. After 9/11, Mr. Bush ordered the National Security Agency to spy, without a warrant, on communications between the United States and other countries. The N.S.A. obtained data from American telecommunications companies by telling them it was legal.

After The Times disclosed the program in late 2005, Mr. Bush looked for a way to legalize it retroactively. He found it this summer. FISA also requires a warrant to intercept strictly foreign communications that happen to move through data networks in the United States.

That Internet age flaw has a relatively simple fix. But the White House seized the opportunity to ram through the far broader bill, which could authorize warrantless surveillance of Americans’ homes, offices and phone records; permit surveillance of Americans abroad without probable cause; and sharply limit the power of the court that controls electronic spying.

Democrats justified their votes for this bad bill by noting that the law expires in February and by promising to fix it this fall. The House bill did, in fact, restore most judicial safeguards. But the deal cooked up by Mr. Rockefeller and the White House doesn’t. It would not expire for six years, which is too long. And it would dismiss pending lawsuits against companies that turned data over to the government without a warrant.

This provision is not primarily about protecting patriotic businessmen, as Mr. Bush claims. It’s about ensuring that Mr. Bush and his aides never have to go to court to explain how many laws they’ve broken. It is a collusion between lawmakers and the White House that means that no one is ever held accountable. Democratic lawmakers said they reviewed the telecommunications companies’ cooperation (by reading documents selected by the White House) and concluded that lawsuits were unwarranted. Unlike them, we still have faith in the judicial system, which is where that sort of conclusion is supposed to be reached, not in a Senate back room polluted by the politics of fear.

There were bright spots in the week. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon managed to attach an amendment requiring a warrant to eavesdrop on American citizens abroad. That merely requires the government to show why it believes the American is in league with terrorists, but Mr. Bush threatened to veto the bill over that issue.

Senator Christopher Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat, said he would put a personal hold on the compromise cooked up by Senator Rockefeller and the White House.

Otherwise, it was a very frustrating week in Washington. It was bad enough having a one-party government when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But the Democrats took over, and still the one-party system continues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007....d=print

[Sabin]

I wish I could retroactively go back and vote for Nader. Al Gore ran one of the worst campaigns in history. Unbelievable. I was completely convinced that he would win, and yet when voting for him all I could think about was how much more I appreciated what Nader was saying and what he stood for. This was in Arizona which went strongly for Bush as predicted. Shoulda just voted for Nader. In '04 when I voted for Kerry, all I could think about was how much I wished anybody else was running. He did a bang-up job in the first debate but after that, what a cold finger up the ass he came across as! I look at him now and what a pussy! What a fucking worthless pussy! I voted for Kerry and felt dirty then, and I will tell my children the same. I voted for a pussy over voting for evil, and that's what the 00's were all about.

This go-around...I really couldn't tell you.

I refuse to deify Gore even though I think he could win. He ran such a dipshit campaign back in '00 that I don't think he deserves to come back as much as he has even.

I refuse to single out Hilary for actions she has taken that many others have joined her on the road to, even though I must say she hasn't done anything herself to win me over either.

I refuse to find something hopeful and meaningful in Obama, that walking Tabula Rasa who peaked at the Democratic convention and is running a campaign almost as bad as Gore's. But I really, really want to.

Edwards, Biden, Richardson...

I can't jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon. I find the man a lifeforce during debates and I think he is incredibly influential, but the man wants to disband so much of the government that I don't think we can live without.

I look at the Republican candidates and I have no idea whom I am more disgusted with. I seriously don't. Guiliani is a troll, a venemous pitbull of a troll. McCain is a coward. He waited decades to turn coward in life and I find that sadder than had he made a deal to get out of his POW camp in the first place. I would call Fred Thompson a waste of human flesh, but at this point he more resembles a bowl of rice pudding than a man. Romney is...a Mormon. Honestly, I can't get past that. I think the religion is completely ridiculous. I won't vote for a Scientologist and I won't vote for a Mormon.


I'm left with Dennis Kucinich. I know where he stands and his wife is fuckin' bangin'. I know it's hypocritical but at this point, I look at Fred Thompson and all I can think of is "This Man Will Die". I can't believe that Dennis Kucinich is only seven years younger than that walking obituary of a man. Kucinich has been twice divorced, his wife is only four years older than me and the kind of loaded I would have to get to go hit on her isn't really amusing anymore. She's British, she's got a tongue stud, she's probably his third hot wife...all I'm sayin' is, I know where I stand with Dennis Kucinich.

(NOTE: I started my Dennis Kucinich paragraph about to lead into a point that I am about 90% likely to vote third party because the Democratic party has worn out all the good will in my veins. Then I stated looking at Dennis Kucinich's hot wife, and goddamn if I didn't get distracted. I know it's hypocritical because Thompson looks so fucking old, but A) Denny's gotta be doing something right, and B) seriously, his wife's really, really hot.)

[Damien]

I've generally thought it was more important to vote for someone who reflects your own viewpoint rather than go with the lesser of two evils, which is why my first time out in 1976 I voted for Peter Camejo for President (Socialist Workers) and Barry Commoner (People's Party) in 1980. Every once in a while, though, it seems so imperative to end a completely horrible Administration that you have to hold your nose, such as when I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992.

But I would again vote for Ralph Nader in 2000, because Gore was runing as an asshole and didn't deserve to win.

[Akash]

But I'll tell you what is going to happen, or at least is more likely to happen. Rather than vote for a more progressive candidate in the primary, people just aren't going to vote at all.

This is sadly, likely to be true.

And since the Republicans are already treating the Electoral College like an Etch-a-Sketch, rerouting districts so they win no matter what, this may all be irrelevant anyway. Expect more roadblocks and disenfranchising of minority voters again.

[Sonic Youth]

You're right. I apologize for the youthful idealism crack.

But for the rest, you're making a mistake. It's not my intention to conflate whatever you said or didn't say with what I wrote below. I'm just speaking generally.

And isn't THAT argument of yours self defeating? How will "enough people" ever opt out of refusing to give the Dems a liberal vote unless, you know, some of us actually do it. How can I keep telling people they're foolish for voting for these cowards and that we should all teach them a lesson by withholding the liberal vote if I'm not willing to do myself? Principles only matter if you stick by them when they're inconvenient. Find, call it "youthful idealism" all you want, but it's a principle I'm willing to stand for. The Democrats should NOT be getting the votes of real liberals/progressives in this country because they don't represent anything liberal or progressive. And if you keep voting for them then you shouldn't bother calling yourself a liberal, a progressive, a leftist or anything other than centrist (at best).

I'm not saying people shouldn't vote for a progressive over the mainstream Democrat. I'm saying, it's not gonna happen. It's a little late for groundswell.

But I'll tell you what is going to happen, or at least is more likely to happen. Rather than vote for a more progressive candidate in the primary, people just aren't going to vote at all.

[Akash]

Oh and my personal hero, journalist Alexander Cockburn (unfortunate last name, I know)

But at least it's pronounced Coburn.

He was always a favorite of mine, but I had kind of forgotten about him because I hadn't seen his byline in a long time. Thanks for posting the article.

I was hoping someone on this board would say they remembered him. lol. Thanks Damien. He apparently spoke last week at Columbia University. A friend of mine who does work for the ISO and the Anti-War Movement told me he was a riot.



Edited By Akash on 1192584905

[Akash]

Ok Sonic, I'll give you that Hillary bashing may be a bit unfair and that we should indeed hold all the hypocrites accountable and not just the ones that are cool to bash at the time. Fine. I think they're all hypocrites and wouldn't vote for any one of them happily (except maybe Kucinich)

But I still disagree with what you condescendingly label "youthful idealism." I honestly don't think any of the viable Democratic candidates are going to do that much. And I don't necessarily believe this bullshit that had Gore been President the world would be so different. I really don't. That's not idealism, that's resigning myself to reality. You say the risk is "thousands of dead people." Um...Democrats voted for this war too and keep giving Bush money for it. And Clinton and Gore had no trouble bombing Baghdad, remember? I was still learning how to jerk off back then but surely you were old enough to remember that? The article I provided by Alexander Cockburn from counterpunch.org reminds us that Gore actually pushed Clinton towards bombing Iraq, and that the bombing gave Clinton an 11 point jump in his approval rating. So how do you really know all these lives are going to be spared on Hillary or Obama's watch? Or would have been spared on Gore's? I'm sorry I no longer believe the Democrats are peacemakers just because they say so and NOTHING they've done then or now has significantly proven otherwise. Talk, talk. All talk and no action from a sniveling group of cowards.

You also dismiss my assertions easily with "We said that in 2000." Ok, Old Timer. I was like 15 then. Cut me some slack. I really do not intend to vote for any of the potential Democratic candidates (again unless Kucinich got the nomination and he won't) and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Of course I know "enough people" won't follow, but so what? I'd rather not endorse something or someone I don't believe in.

And isn't THAT argument of yours self defeating? How will "enough people" ever opt out of refusing to give the Dems a liberal vote unless, you know, some of us actually do it. How can I keep telling people they're foolish for voting for these cowards and that we should all teach them a lesson by withholding the liberal vote if I'm not willing to do it myself? Principles only matter if you stick by them when they're inconvenient. Fine, call it "youthful idealism" all you want, but it's a principle I'm willing to stand for. The Democrats should NOT be getting the votes of real liberals/progressives in this country because they don't represent anything liberal or progressive. And if you keep voting for them then you shouldn't bother calling yourself a liberal, a progressive, a leftist or anything other than centrist (at best).

Oh and I never endorsed Gore. I posted the Cockburn article and implied (though I should have been clearer) that I AGREE with his position on Gore winning the Nobel. I didn't say Gore should run because I like him. I said he should probably run if the Dems really want to win and I agreed with Sabin that a Gore/Obama ticket would dominate the election. That's all. I think he's just as weasley and spineless as Bill Clinton was (and as many of these candidates are).

And I really don't care how fuckable Hillary is. None of these men or women are fuckable and that's ok. It's as irrelevant a distinction as the one people made in 2000 about wanting to vote for Bush because at a barbecue he'd be fun or drunk or whatever the fuck.

But I'm surprised youthful idealism even allows me to remember as far back as 2000...



Edited By Akash on 1192584603

[Sonic Youth]

Sonic, I understand where you're coming from and as you can see from my responses to criddic, I do believe this country is VERY sexist and that any woman running for President would have a hard time of it. But I think you're overlooking the fact that some of us grow wary of a self-defeating process. Some of us are older, more tired, less willing to chase that ignis fatuus that a Democrat will maybe, sort of, kind of, turn things around. Sure Hillary is not the only shifting opportunist, but she's the one with the best chance of a Presidential nomination and that opens her up for criticism. Why should liberals (real liberals) bother wasting their ammo on someone who's not even in the running?

Then that's hypocritical. It's a method of rationalizing that we are above mass opinion. And as a tactical matter, it makes zero sense.

So we're only going to get on the ass of the frontrunner for being an opportunitist. First of all, they're ALL in the running. Some have a better chance than others. They should ALL be talked about. And if opportunism is such a concern, then it should be shouted down wherever it exists, in all the candidates. Otherwise, I tend to doubt the naysayers are in earnest.

Just below, flipp said Kucinich's wife would be one of the classiest first ladies we'd ever have. She'd certainly be the hottest. But here's another example of overall hypocricy (which I'm not implicating flipp in, mind you). Kucinich's wife is such a doll. She's smart, she's pretty, she has vitality, etc. But what about Fred Thompson's wife? Ask the Democrat, and they'll tell you she's the token wife, it's a repulsive marital arrangement, how transparent. Never mind that Thompson's wife is 40 years old, and obviously at an age to make her own decisions. Never mind that Kucinich's wife is ten years younger than Thompson's wife! Never mind that Kucinich is OLDER to his wife than Thomspon is to hers. But that's not a token marriage, oh no. How can it be, because Kucinich is such a fine, upstanding citizen, and Thompson is a pig? I've seen Thompson's wife interviewed, and she came across as a perfectly intelligent woman. She's a lot more cognizant about the world than her Alzheimer's afflicted husband. But Kucinich doesn't have a chance in winning, and Thompson does (or did). So, that's the rationalization. It's because Thompson is a potential candidate, while Kucinich never was. But that's not the real reason. The reason is, because that's what everyone else is doing.

I'm with Eric on both points. Again, I don't see why she's any worse than the other candidates, and I don't see why Gore is so deified. Except that, it's the thing to do. It's hip! It's now!

And okay. We're only going to bother with the frontrunner. Good. Then, after she's been swift-boated, she may no longer be the frontrunner. But someone else will be. Most likely, another political opportunist. And then you'll be stuck with him. Unless you manage to shout him down and then get the third political opportunist on down the line. How this is productive as a practical matter is beyond me.

If you only fuck with the front-runner, then it becomes all about the front-runner. But the message about why we don't appreciate like-minded Dems never comes through unless we implicate ALL of them.

I'll admit I was very young when Kerry ran and I realize now I was way more naive. I bought the whole "Anyone but Bush" mentality. I really believed that if we could just get a Democrat in there, we could make everything ok. I was like so many people of faith - I didn't need proof or empirical evidence (even though there was ample evidence that the Dems were working AGAINST liberal interests) because I had faith. I wanted/needed to believe that the current system could offer real change. I bought the pretty idelology of the party, the empty words that hid the earthly/corporate muck and murk the Dems were ensconced in. So much so that I failed so see the truth, the sad truth. Failed to see that every liberal/progressive test given to Kerry came back negative. I was not alone. I met many others like myself who believed in the same thing. We gave this party our time, our money, our commitment and most of all, our faith and where did it get us?

How do you know you're not buying into something now?

I said this back in 2000 and voted for Ralph Nader. I lived in Connecticut, a state where my vote didn't make any difference on the election's outcome. It was an easy Gore state. But enough people said what you said and that's how Bush stole the election.

I don't believe for one second the Dems are going to offer REAL change. But let's not pretend there's any other choice.

Which brings me back to why I believe pilloring only the front-runner is hypocritical, a rationalization, and not the least bit constructive. Leading the House and the Senate are two of the most despicable political opportunists I've ever seen. The disgusting Harry Reid and the even worse Nancy Pelosi. They have sold out our party and our vote because they are chickenshit social climbers, and probably liars too. (I remember all the cheering back in January, "Yipeee! Our first female Speaker of the House!" Happy about it now, suckers?) They deserve our animosity. They deserve our insults. They deserve non-stop protests and picketing on the White House lawn. Instead of wasting ink and breath on Hillary-and-only-Hillary, it might be a little bit productive to let this aholes know how betrayed they've made us feel, and to shout it out. And maybe the Democratic candidates would then take notice.

But is anyone doing that? Code Pink, whom we're supposed to look upon as freaks. Cindy Sheehan, who we're supposed to look upon as a pawn (never mind that she has no money.) But is Air America shouting down congress? 'Course not. How can they, when they're practically an arm of the Democratic party?

Now a few years later, some of us are older, wiser and perhaps more hardened against the Democrats. You say if Hillary gets the nomination you won' put the presidency at risk by voting for a third party. Well fuck it, that's your choice, god speed, but you know what? I no longer believe any of it makes any damn difference. You still believe the "Anyone but..." idea and well, good for you, I hope you're not disappointed later on. But I can no longer pretend the Democrats in any way represent liberals in this country.

Oh, I'm sure you knew all this in '04. So did everyone on this board, even as we were revering Kerry.

Of course I'll be disappointed later on. When Hil is prez, I'll dislike 90 percent of everything she does. And I'll take it over a continuation of the most horrifying degredation of this country there probably ever was.

Shame on me really. In 2004, even as young as I was, there was the example of Bill Clinton. A man with an odious track record of his own. A man who pulled his party even more towards the center-right. A man who never pushed a real liberal/progressive agenda. We had Clinton to look back to and we didn't. Well I won't be making the same mistake again. Now Democrats have the House and the Senate and STILL these trolls have given us nothing and signed off on one heinous bill after another. And they've gone back on everything they promised. I swear, these people couldn't keep a pinky swear promise on the playground if their political futures depended on it. Or perhaps that's the point. Their political futures DON'T depend on it because people like you (and me in 2004 and 2006) refuse to hold them accountable.

Not people like me. See above.

I'm going to send money to Kucinich's campaign to keep him running. And I'm voting for him in the primary if he's still on the ticket.

But don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying I'm not going to vote for Kucinich in the regular election because I wouldn't do such a thing. I'm not voting for him because he's not going to be on the ticket. That's all.

Plainly, this Hillary bashing is a distraction in order to not hold congress responsible.

So...yeah. I guess my point is that some of us didn't know better before (even though we should have) and we refuse to pretend to know less now.

As it stands, the Democrats will NOT get my vote in 2008. And they will continue NOT getting my vote until they decide to really represent liberals/progressives in this country. And until they do I will criticize them all I want for being just as bad the Republicans and yes that includes whoever they decide to push into the spotlight. And I encourage everyone who calls himself a real liberal, a real progressive, a real lefty, a socialist, a pinko commie, a progressive - to do the same. If you believe in a more egalitarian society, a more progressive society, if you'd like real change, DO NOT vote for these cowards.

We said that in 2000.

Perhaps the only way they'll learn is if a large number of liberals cripple them in the election by voting for the third party.

We said that in 2000.

Yes it will be a victory for the pubs and that's a risk, but I ask you: what risk is it really?

What risk is it? George Bush and thousands of dead people (and probably 9/11, too.)

We said that in 2000.

Trust me, it hasn't worked. And there will never be enough people to do what you say unless the system itself is revamped.

Go ahead. Say "and that's YOUR fault." I can't argue with youthful idealism.

That instead of getting a corporate whore who won't do a damn thing to promote universal healthcare, pull out of Iraq, promote progressive policies and challenge white privilege, you'll instead get someone who will promise to do all those things and then won't?

Sometimes faith isn't enough.

On that we agree.

[Damien]

Oh and my personal hero, journalist Alexander Cockburn (unfortunate last name, I know)

But at least it's pronounced Coburn.

He was always a favorite of mine, but I had kind of forgotten about him because I hadn't seen his byline in a long time. Thanks for posting the article.

[Akash]

Sonic, I understand where you're coming from and as you can see from my responses to criddic, I do believe this country is VERY sexist and that any woman running for President would have a hard time of it. But I think you're overlooking the fact that some of us grow wary of a self-defeating process. Some of us are older, more tired, less willing to chase that ignis fatuus that a Democrat will maybe, sort of, kind of, turn things around. Sure Hillary is not the only shifting opportunist, but she's the one with the best chance of a Presidential nomination and that opens her up for criticism. Why should liberals (real liberals) bother wasting their ammo on someone who's not even in the running?

I'll admit I was very young when Kerry ran and I realize now I was way more naive. I bought the whole "Anyone but Bush" mentality. I really believed that if we could just get a Democrat in there, we could make everything ok. I was like so many people of faith - I didn't need proof or empirical evidence (even though there was ample evidence that the Dems were working AGAINST liberal interests) because I had faith. I wanted/needed to believe that the current system could offer real change. I bought the pretty idelology of the party, the empty words that hid the earthly/corporate muck and murk the Dems were ensconced in. So much so that I failed so see the truth, the sad truth. Failed to see that every liberal/progressive test given to Kerry came back negative. I was not alone. I met many others like myself who believed in the same thing. We gave this party our time, our money, our commitment and most of all, our faith and where did it get us?

Now a few years later, some of us are older, wiser and perhaps more hardened against the Democrats. You say if Hillary gets the nomination you won' put the presidency at risk by voting for a third party. Well fuck it, that's your choice, god speed, but you know what? I no longer believe any of it makes any damn difference. You still believe the "Anyone but..." idea and well, good for you, I hope you're not disappointed later on. But I can no longer pretend the Democrats in any way represent liberals in this country.

Shame on me really. In 2004, even as young as I was, there was the example of Bill Clinton. A man with an odious track record of his own. A man who pulled his party even more towards the center-right. A man who never pushed a real liberal/progressive agenda. We had Clinton to look back to and we didn't. Well I won't be making the same mistake again. Now Democrats have the House and the Senate and STILL these trolls have given us nothing and signed off on one heinous bill after another. And they've gone back on everything they promised. I swear, these people couldn't keep a pinky swear promise on the playground if their political futures depended on it. Or perhaps that's the point. Their political futures DON'T depend on it because people like you (and me in 2004 and 2006) refuse to hold them accountable.

So...yeah. I guess my point is that some of us didn't know better before (even though we should have) and we refuse to pretend to know less now.

As it stands, the Democrats will NOT get my vote in 2008. And they will continue NOT getting my vote until they decide to really represent liberals/progressives in this country. And until they do I will criticize them all I want for being just as bad the Republicans and yes that includes whoever they decide to push into the spotlight. And I encourage everyone who calls himself a real liberal, a real progressive, a real lefty, a socialist, a pinko commie, a progressive - to do the same. If you believe in a more egalitarian society, a more progressive society, if you'd like real change, DO NOT vote for these cowards. Perhaps the only way they'll learn is if a large number of liberals cripple them in the election by voting for the third party. Yes it will be a victory for the pubs and that's a risk, but I ask you: what risk is it really? That instead of getting a corporate whore who won't do a damn thing to promote universal healthcare, pull out of Iraq, promote progressive policies and challenge white privilege, you'll instead get someone who will promise to do all those things and then won't?

Sometimes faith isn't enough.



Edited By Akash on 1192570069