HOWARD DEAN IS FIRST AND BUSH FRIGHTENS ME!!!!!!

APPY ALLOWEEN ALL

Anyone dressing up for Halloween? What are you going as?

I think I'll go as Al Gore dressed up in a polar bear suit. ;-)

s m wrote "Sad to say, even though they all are bozos as you state, anyone who becomes the republican nominee [will defeat Clinton in the general election]."

This is just a careless response to my question. In other words, Duncan Hunter will beat Hillary Clinton in the general election.

I think as a Democrat, you need to take a closer look at who is vying for the Republican nomination. What I will call the top 4 candidates have evoked huge groans from the party faithful because of their inadequate conservative bona fides. A thrice-married abortion rights supporter, a lobbyist trying to figure out who Terry Schiavo is, an immigration and campaign fundraising reform champion, and a flip-flopping Mormon have not lit the Republican firmament on fire.

Face facts. If Democrats have problems with some of their candidates, Republicans have a crisis of monumental proportions.

Tom,

Mitt Romney can likely  beat Clinton 2.0. She will bring out their base like no other candidate and they will have a standard bearer. Edwards will be formidable against Romney, especially with Obama as a running mate.

Or Al Gore if he ever decides to run.

Indy wrote "Anyone dressing up for Halloween? What are you going as?"

Think I'll dress up as the next President of the United States.  Any guesses? 

I'm in a kind of mischievous mood today. Watch out!

A rockin' Obama? With an electric geetar!

3

Sorry I certainly didn't mean to leave a careless response.  Of course I was referring to the top candidates.  I know perfectly well who they are and what their stand is on the issues.

That being said I still think that if Hillary is the Democrat nominee she will not win the general election.

Indy wrote "Mitt Romney can likely beat Clinton 2.0. She will bring out their base like no other candidate and they will have a standard bearer."

The Mormon who might be for right to life laws if he’s not against them? The former governor of the only state to go for McGovern in 1972 who helped pass health care reform? The businessman who is dumping a part of his fortune into his campaign to prop up its flagging fundraising? The candidate who will consult an attorney to see if we should invade Iran? The "conservative" of the field who supports gay marriage if he doesn’t oppose it? You’ve convinced me.

Indy wrote "A rockin' Obama? With an electric geetar!"

No, but good guess. I’m going as Mitt Romney with Hillary Clinton’s head in my bag. Trick or treat!

I hope Phil gets to award Dennis a Howardly for his impeachment res. soon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

audrey

I have another 10 days or so to go with harvest so if I'm not around that day you go ahead and make the award.

Tom,

I'm not as articulate as you, but please read this.  I don't think it is going to have anything to do with what Hillary's and whoever the republican nominees policies are (one of the top four of course), it is the personal dislike people have of the Clintons.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/hillarys_high_negatives.html

http://chrisdodd.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Champion of the Rule of Law, good debate performance. Time to pulse poll him up a couple of notches in appreciation.

the ditto heads, the Clinton haters, and women haters shouldn't decide our nominee ...   it should be the policies and how She would govern.

She has staked out the position as a Hawk on Iran (and seeing those polls of support for an attack, no surprise).

I personally think she has what it takes to be a decent President if she can free herself of some of those bad influences, and wouldn't mind sticking their bigotry down their throats of some of her detractors.

She does need to decide where to come down on immigration issues.

I favor Spitzer's approach but think it a minority position.

BTW I still consider John Edwards as the best combination of personal qualities and policy and will be in his group Jan.3rd unless Gore has an exploratory committee by then.

s m wrote "I'm not as articulate as you, but please read this. I don't think it is going to have anything to do with what Hillary's and whoever the republican nominees policies are (one of the top four of course), it is the personal dislike people have of the Clintons."

There’s no need for your endearing humility. Your ability to articulate your views are plainly evident.

I am not dismissing Clinton’s negative ratings among opponents or even her own party’s base. They’re well publicized. The article you cite, however, is political agitprop, written by a Washington Times reporter to help bolster the slumping spirits of Republicans. While Clinton would face the ferocious hatred of Republican Party radicals if nominated, her opponent will have an entirely different problem, specifically, the ambivalence of his own party’s voters towards him.

Right now, Republicans are using whatever tools are at their disposal because they are in deep. The base regards the party’s top tier candidates with disdain and the pundits and pollsters know it.

I'm caught up on the threads now and of all the great comments and links, this one warms my cockles the most - I just wish the US media would report it.

3.

Sam Ross
Wed, 10/31/07
12:59 am


Couldn't happen to a nicer guy....

Rumsfeld flees France fearing arrest

http://wor.ldne.ws/node/8596
***********************************************************************************

JudyforDean -- thanks for all the great posts on the overnight. Who needs a newspaper. Thanks for clip on Rob't Goulet - I saw it. He was a big star when I was young - but a little too pretty for my taste in men. Those eyes were blue tho. Last summer I went to Verbier in the Alps to hear Rene Pape sing If Ever I Should Leave You, Goulet's signature song from Camelot.

On the clip from Samuelson, I can't say I memorized it but I more or less read most of it. I think his thesis was that the industrial revolution made us all happy and fed? Too bad there are so many awful things associated with it -- pollution, us working like robots at jobs that start at 8 and end at 5, gluing endless widget parts on endless widgets, ugliness of the landscape. I love history but am seriously undereducated in the subject. However, I thought I read somewhere that it was the richness of the Tigris-Euphrates (which we plunder as I write) that allowed humans to advance and create civilizations, b/c they had enuf to eat.

**********************************************************************************

Halloween creates a polarity not unlike that of left and right in the USA in my tiny town in N FL. On the one hand, there's not much to do here, so parents and kids go all out -- I bought 400 pieces of candy and am worried about running out. On the other hand, this is a very religious (Xtian) community and there are those who feel Halloween is the work of the devil and they do not celebrate at all -- so much so that the Comm Coll where I work is calling the Halloween Party a "Day of the Dead" observance, even though they are having a costume contest. Every year some young man carries a huge wooden cross across one of the side streets - I guess to the church.

**********************************************************************************

I didn't watch the debates last night b/c 1) I forgot and 2) had to see Barry M on Dancing with the Stars. He rather croaked out his songs -- Barrynet says he cancelled shows this weekend b/c of flu so he was just being a good trouper.

*********************************************************************************

I am worried that Hill as female and Barack as black can't get elected. Dodd is looking better and better.

********************************************************************************

Seashell please surface - welfare check :~)

15. Phil - on Spitzer -- 1) he is such a disappointment to me -- when he was a prosecutor or AG or whatever in NY he was such a star. Doesn't seem like he's much of an administrator. 2) Not to get in a fight on the DL thing, but just on pure logic, I'm bothered that someone illegal can get a legal thing. If someone were writing a computer program, the computer would probably go in an infinite loop or something.
And btw I've quit watching Dobbs -- to much bloviating, not enuf news. I've been watching BBC World News instead, where btw I haven't heard the Rummy story.

...driveby......vroom....beep beep


Kool


Music/Art/Creative enthusiasts (definitely mprov)


Screen Test
Video Installation/Rock Concert
http://current.com/items/77339111_theo_f...

Tom wrote:

" I don’t have the slightest doubt that Clinton will be elected in the general if she becomes the Party’s nominee"

While I agree wholeheartedly with Sitka that the "electability" meme is bogus, and agree with just about everyone that the Republican field is a sorry lot of bozos, just cast your memory back to 2000.

Bush was as sorry a bozo as any of the current Republican field, running against a sitting vice president who was virtually an incumbent presiding over a prosperous nation at peace. Repug dirty tricks and sleaze (aided and abetted by a rabidly biased press) got Bush close enough that he could steal the presidency with the help of the Supremes.

What makes you believe that history won't repeat?

Biden: Rudy's Sentences Consist Of "A Noun, A Verb, And 9/11"

Rudy: "Biden Has Never Run Anything But His Mouth"

In either case, truer words were never spoken!

This weekend thousands of students will be descending on Washington, D.C. for Power Shift 2007, the first national youth summit on solving the climate crisis. The Alliance is a proud sponsor of this important event and you can find out more at powershift07.org.

John wrote "What makes you believe that history won't repeat?"

Because Republican bigwigs, fundamentalist Christians, and right wing extremists all got behind him big time.  He had virtually no desertions among the usual culprits supporting Republicans at election time.

Every Republican hopeful this cycle is viewed skeptically by one or more of the three factions above.  Technically speaking, Giuliani, McCain and even Romney are not the boobs that Bush was, meaning they can actually express and explain their respective policy positions on issues.  However, Bush won the legal lottery in 2000, and hung on because of perceived national security issues in 2004.  It's more than unlikely that similar circumstances will improve the fortunes of Republicans in 2008.

Thanks to Corbett Kroehler for the previous blog about the Fla Convention. Just another reason we didn't attend this year and may not next year for the same reasons.

Ever since Karen Thurman (former Congresswoman), currently using Republican tactics as well as lobbyists, became the Chair of the Fla Party, things have increasingly been doing downhill in this state. She herself is divisive as is still part of the Washington insiders.

Nothing will change is Fla. Dem politics until the party dumps her greedy butt.

Phil Specht
Wed, 10/31/07
12:09 pm

Edwards made many great points in last night's debate. Didn't hold back on differing with Clinton on special interests, health care, Iraq, Iran, and many other issues. I am glad he has decided to take off the gloves.

He did it without making personal attacks (despite Richardson's pandering for VP). That is what Democracy is all about.

Are you saying that Gore can wait until Feb. 5th to enter the race? I think he has an obligation to enter before then and lay out his plans to the voters. That is what open democracy means.

Annilow

I think a regularization process that includes a "green card" which then allows for taxes and access to banking and DL takes care of the out of status problem by creating one.(and gives opportunity for criminal backgroud checks) a shadow  population of exploitable workers who break additional laws just driving to work serves no one.

I can see why Republicans don't want 10 million new Democratic voters plus a group to gin up hate against always works on their base.

Hillary didn't have a complete set of poll numbers from Penn. lol

the issue will be front and center in 08

HILLARY'S CREDIBILITY--NON-EXISTENT

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_russ_wel_071031_even_when_hillary_ge.htm

Back in June, Hillary announced that if elected she would create the position of Senior Advisor to the President for Preventing Nuclear Terrorism. (Incidentally, few are aware that when John Kerry ran for president he also proposed a cabinet-level office to prevent nuclear terrorism. Also, his nuclear platform was equally as sound as hers.)

Encouraging as all this sounds, the issue with Hillary is not, as she and her team persist in believing, how strong she is on defense. Her credibility is still her Achilles heel.

Hillary talks a good disarmament game, but do we really want someone with her finger on the button who we neither believe nor trust? The character of some her campaign contributors is a case in point.
London's The Independent reported last week that an "analysis of campaign contributions shows senior defence industry employees are pouring money into [Hillary's] war chest in the belief that their generosity will be repaid many times over with future defence contracts."

To quote Moscow again from Baker's article, "That Hillary Clinton's campaign is involved with this particular cast of characters should give people pause." File that under "understatement."

Nothing else springs as straight from the conscience as the issue of nuclear disarmament. Talk about faith-based, it's the ultimate in such initiatives. Yet, especially since the demise of the Nuclear Freeze movement, it flies under the public's radar.

Is someone who has few qualms about accepting money from an international fugitive, a corrupt financier, a gun runner, and the defense industry capable of summoning up the integrity to implement such a policy -- especially when her hands aren't being held to the fire by the public?

For those who care, take look at this one and you'll understand why the "establishment" wants to prevent an Edwards' nomination:

 I think he has an obligation to enter before then and lay out his plans to the voters.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

we disagree

the campaigns last too long and the very last day to enter and pick up a majority of the delegates would be the most transformative of our process (which is broken)

annilow,

We've quite watching Dobbs also, quite a long time ago. I've always viewed him as a 100% phony, blathering about saving the middle class.

Having a money show is all about being  Republican. His incessant illegal "alien" pursuit is not for the sake of anything except for use as a divisive tool to be used in next year's election. He has a problem though since it didn't pan out the way he figured. Politically speaking, Repugs want Mexicans here for the $ bottom line while the Dems want them here for the Hispanic vote. So that kinda leaves Dobbs hanging in midair without a parachute.

Gore can wait til the filing deadlines for big Feb 5th states that don't have Draft Gore getting him on the ballot, if part of his goal in running is to end the madness of the ever earlier calendar.

if he thought Edwards was running away with the nomination he probably wouldn't enter, but that isn't happening

Phil Specht
Wed, 10/31/07
12:58 pm

While that may have been a reason last spring, we are now 65 days away from Iowa. That is short even in a mayoral campaign. It is not democratic, IMO, to wait until the last possible moment to enter and try to avoid the inevitable attacks and crticism that ANY candidate must experience.

That reminds of the old system making a nomination on the basis of back-room deals during th convention. No deal.

Phil Specht
Wed, 10/31/07
1:02 pm

if Gore doesn't enter, do you think he would endorse Edwards? And would that make a difference in Iowa?

Tom wrote:

"Every Republican hopeful this cycle is viewed skeptically by one or more of the three factions above. "

 I would submit that their fear and loathing of Hillary will trump their distaste for the nominee, and they'll dutifully line up behind him.

Meanwhile, look for wholesale desertions among indies and angry Dems.

don't forget all of those union endorsements for edwards. they're the boots on the ground folks for gotv.

Phil Specht
Wed, 10/31/07
1:02 pm

Momentum of winners coming out of Iowa and the early states will be too strong by then. It is not automatic that EVERYONE will turn to Gore. That is just wishful thinking by his supporters.

And ignoring major early states is, in effect, snubbing millions of voters.

John wrote "I would submit that their fear and loathing of Hillary will trump their distaste for the nominee, and they'll dutifully line up behind him."

Who knows?  We'll see.

Clinton is the least electable, but I thought we weren't going to let "electability" effect our judgement this round.

Republicans are on a slide but her nomination would rejuvenate them. They sure want that matchup.

focus on the policies

Mark wrote "don't forget all of those union endorsements for edwards. they're the boots on the ground folks for gotv."

Wake me up when the endorsements do anything for Edwards.  AFSCME will endorse Clinton today.  Will you be changing your vote?

mprov
Wed, 10/31/07
1:05 pm

Exactly....that is the trump card that overcomes all the big money candidates.

Dodd made a huge statement at the end of last night's "debates," which aren't debates at all. He threw up his hands after trying to answer a very complicated question in 30 seconds or less, a question that could be discussed over a period of hours, an opinion perhaps in ten minutes. Good for him! It revealed what the entire Republican-designed spectacle was all about.

Two minute answers to being to the forefront Iraq/Iran. Thirty seconds for domestic questions, a fact that Kucinich noted after one of his answers. Good for him!

Tim Russert repeated attacked Clinton using all of his available researchers to dig out bits and pieces of out of context archieved statements she made and weigh them against each other. That is not the way a debate should be held. Clinton handled these attacks well. Good for her!

All of the "debaters" were excellent given the scenario they had to work under.

The losers -- Brian Williams and Tim Russert who looked soooooo transparent in their partisanship.

I wonder if the Repug candidates would allow Keith O. and Chris M. to question them for two hours. Wouldn't that be a sideshow. Bring it on!

THE TWO HEADED PARTY

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bernard__071031_a__22two_headed_party_2c.htm

It's not that Dem leaders are conned or frightened by the Republicans, . No, the Dems act they way they do because they actually believe much of what the Republicans believe, and/or are beholden to the same corporate lobbie$ and media giant$ that get them elected and re-elected.

The essence of the argument is this: There is actually only one party in America -- with a Republican head and a Democratic head -- controlled by the political/economic elite that really runs things. (Sometimes this elite is termed "the oligarchy," or "the plutocrats," or, simply, "the Establishment.")

America for centuries has been dominated by parties that hover around the center, the parameters of which are set by the "powers that be" in American life.

Sometimes that center is more left-oriented (during FDR's administration in the '30s and '40s, for example, or in the years following Nixon's disgraceful, lawless presidency); sometimes it's more right-oriented (during the term, say, of Reagan). Rarely have we seen such a lying, rampaging, corrupt, take-no-prisoners element in charge, as we have today with the CheneyBush extremists.

But Americans in general, and American corporations in particular, desire stability and predictability. And for that reason, the action invariably returns to the (shifting) center, even if there was a temporary visitation to the outskirts of the party in charge.

Since it costs so much money to finance a viable run for state, Congressional and national office, it follows that most candidates have to get the required cash from somewhere other than their own bank accounts. Who has that kind of money or can raise it fast? The usual suspects: the wealthy, the organized interest groups, the corporations, the lobbyists, et al. Which translates to: Candidates, beholden to these supporters, tend to stay within the ideological/political parameters set by their major donors.

In addition, elected officials and the major candidates generally come from the same wealthy economic/ideological class as their large donors.


The long and short of this situation is that American voters tend to have a severely limited pallet of candidates with which to paint their votes. These candidates more or less agree with one another but hype relatively insignificant differences in order to make the choices seem more dramatic and meaningful than they really are.

When a rare candidate comes along who catches fire with the public but doesn't necessarily want to draw within the lines prescribed by the elite who control things -- some even going so far as to cut themselves off from the traditional financial-support teats (such as Paul Wellstone, Dennis Kucinich) -- he or she is marginalized, rendered ineffective, and effectively disappears from the political scene.

AFSCME was pretty much a foregone conclusion. But did you see this?

 Nod Of The Day: John Edwards got a pre-debate boost when members of the New Hampshire Service Employees union announced they would back his campaing, despite heavy lobbying from Clinton and Obama. SEIU couldn't come up with a national endorsement, so they freed their state chapters to do what they wanted. Edwards now owns nods from New Hampshire and Iowa, which means other state chapters can't send volunteers in to help their candidates of choice. Labor prizes left to win: AFSCME, which is said to be on the verge of endorsing Clinton, the National Education Association and the Communications Workers of America, per the NYT.

~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Edwards has NH and IOWA SEIU endorsements which means he can bring other states into those two.

Edwards will have a good night in Iowa. It is alright with me if the media wants to call Hillary the "winner" two months out, as that path is counter-productive here.

I think Gore can wait and see how Iowa and New Hampshire shake out before he enters if he is on the California ballot (if he wants to). We know he can carry Florida again in the general.

His best chance for the nomination would be to announce on Leno, probably, but it would be a killer for Edwards, because yes, those two are closest on many issues. (The people not the powerful) 

BTW, there are many members of our Dem Club and our DEC who do NOT support Gore. They would vote for him in a general election, naturally, but not in the primary.

Perhaps we are blinded by only weighing our own opinions about a Gore candidacy here on this blog.

Those speaking of how Repugs would not vote for Clinton in November may be just as unlikely to vote for Gore. We will need them, Indys and Dems to win.

Is Edwards high enough in New Hampshire to use an "Iowa bounce"? He will have plenty of supporters nationally if he gets rolling. He is pretty close to the center of the party policy wise.

40. my vote hasn't changed. gore-edwards-dodd.

I still consider John Edwards as the best combination of personal qualities and policy.

I still consider John Edwards as the worst combination of personal qualities and record in office.

Gore would have an easier time winning the general than the primary Joan, I agree.

because of a big well qualified field no one has the solid support of over 15% of Democratic voters yet

five out of six are still up for grabs or will have to change

It's not that Dem leaders are conned or frightened by the Republicans, . No, the Dems act they way they do because they actually believe much of what the Republicans believe, and/or are beholden to the same corporate lobbie$ and media giant$ that get them elected and re-elected.

Yes. DCDems don't need to grow spines. They need to grow consciences.

Phil wrote "[Gore's] best chance for the nomination would be to announce on Leno, probably, but it would be a killer for Edwards, because yes, those two are closest on many issues."

Good grief.  Gore was speaking about what a foolish enterprise plunging into Iraq would be when Edwards was crafting the bill to authorize it.  Your idea of being close on issues and mine differ dramatically.

Tom

you remind me of the brass monkey with the hands over his ears and haven't heard a word Edwards has said since 2003

 I would submit that their fear and loathing of Hillary will trump their distaste for the nominee, and they'll dutifully line up behind him.

I would submit that Hillary loathing is vastly overrated. She won a large number of GOP votes in 2006 with 67% and carried all but 4 counties.

Those who wish to derail Hillary had better stick to her sorry record in office (same as Edwards', Biden, Dodd) than the canard of electability. But then, the supporters of those other candidates would be damning them as well.

So they find themselves without anything substantive to criticize Hillary about. 

Phil Specht
Wed, 10/31/07
1:21 pm

He just got the NH SEIU endorsements. That prevents Clinton from bringing in the New York SEIU and allows Edwards to bring in other states to NH. 10,000 + of NH supporters on the ground can overcome the money.

IF Edwards wins Iowa, he can come in 1st or 2nd in NH. That knocks out Obama and sets up a Clinton - Edwards match for California. CA SEIU endorsed Edwards. 600,000 members.

Nothing has happened that eliminates an Edwards - Obama ticket which would sweep in November.

Edwards - Obama in 08

Obama in 2016. He would be 54 and seasoned.

Phil,

If you are supporting someone, you can be any or all of the three monkeys when it comes to their past records.  When you oppose someone, anything they have ever done can be brought up to represent their "lack of judgement."

Edwards sponsored the IWR.

Hillary was a Goldwater Girl.

Biden had that stolen speech.

Gore was a member of the DLC

...and so on

So, we should only elect people as President who make up their mind and stick to it no matter what!  Let's see, that would be.... 

haven't heard a word Edwards has said since 2003

Back then Edwards still supported Bush's invasion without reservation.

The trouble is, too many who are eager to support him are also willing to forget what he said and did back then.

Tom Bearse
Wed, 10/31/07
1:25 pm

People change.  Some even admit mistakes and correct themselves and move on. Others don't and stay mired in their old views. I prefer the former. They adapt. Get out of Iraq.....No war with Iran.

"Let's see, that would be...." ME! MPROV FOR EMPEROR OF THE UNIVERSE!

mprov
Wed, 10/31/07
1:39 pm

Are you wearing clothes???

who needs them if i'm emperor.