I’m surprised that someone who has been in federal office for so long doesn’t understand what would be problematic about a Department of Peace that attempts to deal in both foreign policy and domestic issues (like intimate violence),
or why the war in Afghanistan was an appropriate response to 9/11 (though obviously it could have been prosecuted much better than it was).

I am afraid that next to Kucinich, Bush will look like someone who has some command of reality.
This would be very bad, as in fact Bush lives in the alternative BushWorld universe, in which UNFPA funds forced abortions and there is no hunger in Texas.

Well, I don’t mean to “natter on about electability” but I guess I’ll have to. Kucinich is simply not electable. That is not a self-fulfilled prophecy, but a foregone conclusion. The difference? The overall conservatism of our country, the skepticism with which the electorate views candidates with consistent ideological positions (Dean has a certain advantage in being able to shrug off inaccurate claims that he’s a “raging liberal”), and the fact that much of Kucinich’s critique of class, race, sex, etc. is what we’ve been saying all along until we were blue in the face—but have you noticed how this critique just falls on deaf ears? That doesn’t mean one gives up, but it does mean that one should recognize the distance between one’s ideals and the reality one lives in, and then split the difference. More often than not, elections are difference splitting time.

Dean makes a good split. In fact, so does Kerry. They are both center-left professional politicians practiced at the art of compromise, which is not a bad quality to have in a pluralistic democracy like ours (one which would be greatly improved by instant runoff voting and proportional representation, but that is a topic for another post). John Isbell makes a good point that Kerry is in fact a bit more left than Dean. But the factor that makes me lean Dean’s way is the war: he came out early and consistently against it. Yes, critics point out he let up a bit when the war started, but, c’mon, the whole country was holding its breath (save for the brave souls protesting the war during its early days). Kerry on the other hand dithered, registered his grave concerns, then voted for the stupid resolution authorizing Bush’s war anyway. Blegh.

Dale Franks is right that Dean’s passion is attractive. But what attracts me more is knowing that there is a reasonable Democrat whom the left can work with. Again, the same could be said of Kerry, and if Kerry gets the nomination, it’s not a bad thing. I think Dean makes a better candidate for the general election (and why wouldn’t you consider the general election when voting in the primary? Why wouldn’t you consider the long term consequences?) because he’s got the fire in the belly and obviously the ability to motivate grassroots involvment.

As for Lieberman, if he and Bush run against each other, what would be the point? A vote for Lieberman is a vote for Bush in the most substantial sense. Moreover it would signal the triumph of the DLC over the Democratic party’s base. At which point, just abandon both parties completely and join the Greens.

Anyway, all of the above simply goes to answering Barry’s puzzlement over why progressives would support Dean, but I doubt any of it is a convincing argument. Partly because I didn’t try to mount one. Coffee is still brewing, after all. But I hope it at least explains what I think is a fairly common position among progressives I have talked to.

As opposed to…?

I sympathize with your annoyance, because I got tired of hearing it when I cast my votes for Nader in 2000 and 1996. But in 2004 we face a very different set of circumstances. Not just that Bush and his cronies have been far worse than one could have imagined, but because the fears generated by September 11th and the constant warmongering since have created an environment so poisoned that we are closer to fascism than we have been in 50 years. And I do not use the “F” word lightly. There is room for maneuver for progressive politics, but not much. Oddly, an impassioned establishment type like Dean makes a good tonic right about now.

What does matter is how good the President is at fighting the conservative attempt to set the agenda and drive public debate. We need a President who can forcefully denounce Republican ideas and convey to the people just how bad they are. Right now, it looks to me like Dean is the best candidate with the best chance of battling an opposition Congress. Like Clinton, he wouldn’t be my first choice for enacting a progressive agenda, but for fighting defense he seems pretty good.

I haven’t yet decided whether to vote against Bush, or to vote for someone who actually represents me. It’s an extremely difficult decision, because I can see both sides of the debate with the same clarity and passion. But I won’t be bullied into one vote or another with “electable”s.

Compared to other Republicans, Bush is unelectable, and look what happened to him. (Actually, he was unelected. Heh.)

PS. I do appreciate hearing other people’s reasons for why they plan to vote the way they plan to vote, as long as they’re reasonably polite. I add them to my stockpile of potential rationales.

I respect that position. And if my only criteria were getting rid of Bush, that would work for me. But I also want to get rid of the rightward tugging that Lieberman and the DLC stand for, turning the Democratic Party into Republican Lite by creating policies that punish the poor with perhaps less fervor than the GOP.

That’s really what the primary season is for in my view: alienating the DLC, making Lieberman out to be the lame alternative that he is. Folks like Dean, Kucinich and Moseley-Braun make that possible by consistently attacking the DLC as sell-outs. Lieberman’s little speech the other day only estranges their milquetoast positions even further.

Still, if Lieberman gets “the nom”, I will seriously consider a Green, even a Libertarian. If the Greens actually have someone worth voting for, that is. But I doubt it, so I may have to eat crow, not write-in Bullwinkle as I have sworn to do, and vote for Lieberman with as much gusto as, well, I get up to go to work in the morning.

Although…now that I think of it, and sorry for yet another thread, Barry, but…Oregon is a heavily Democratic state. It would probably go Lieberman’s way, anyway….hmmmm…..what harm could there be in giving a decent third party candidate the nod? Which is exactly the kind of speculation that drives my fellow Dems crazy.

I’d like to get rid of that tug too — I’d like to see a much more leftward slant myself — as I’ve mentioned here before, on the order of the NDP in Canada, especially the way that party often runs things in the central provinces. Very much in the original Tommy Douglas spirit — fiscally responsible and socially progressive. But I also think another 4 years of Bush would dig us a hole so deep that people like Lieberman would seem far-left to Americans, and that doesn’t bode well for creating a future with a balanced America. I think this is a situation, much more so than with Nixon or Reagan, where arresting the slide is critical.

That said, I also think the best approach for the Democrats is someone who is seen as very different from the GOP, not someone who’s seen as conservative. Otherwise you get in a position where even though I think there actually is a big difference, many people would say if there isn’t that much difference why not keep the status quo. I think that a Democratic candidate who is very obviously not the staus quo has a better chance in the election. I also think that most of the talk at present of various front-running Democrats as being “unelectable” is nonsenical posturing for attempted position. It oughta be dropped, IMO.

What has kept the moment growing is the sense that he’s interacting with the electorate…he makes them feel like he’s listening (hell, he sent me a personally written email (or as it would seem, and perception is realitiy)) to what the people have to say.

It also helps that he comes off, at least most of the time, as very charasmatic.

If Dean and Kucinich had swapped their tactics–IOW, if DenKu had come out as the angry, pragmatic antiwar candidate–then followed it up with the energetic interactive presence, I think what you would have would be Dean struggling somewhere along with Edwards and Graham as a melancholy also-ran, and DenKu fighting it out with Gephardt as a niche-y 3rd candidate. (and let me qualify the niche-ness comment–both Gephardt (labor) and DenKu (progressive) appeal more strongly to a specific demographic–not good, not bad, but they do.)

It doesn’t really matter, tho, because whoever wins the dem nomination will win the general…as long as we remain vigilant and don’t let the idot in chief slither away…

Um, no. Bush and his cronies were exactly as bad as I and a lot of others imagined they would be, and we had to sit through watching a bunch of people say, “Oh, they won’t be that bad,” knowing that in three years they’d all be walking around acting as if they had no clue what they were supposed to expect with these farkin stunned looks on their faces. Hey, he’s a foamy-mouthed fascist! Gosh, who knew?

Dean is my candidate. He’s mobilizing, and yes — his pro-gun stance is a positive thing for me. I never thought I could ever vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-gun Democrat in my life. He got me to register Democrat, finally.

And then there’s that little civil unions thing. Yes, I want marriage, ultimately. Nothing less will suffice, and Kucinich SAYS he’ll support gay marriage. Well, Clinton SAID he’d lift the ban, too — did he? You know what would happen, and if you deny it, you’re lying to yourself: Kucinich would get in office, try to institute gay marriage, end up failing and running into a shitload more opposition than he ever imagined, and end up waffling, backing down, and putting somem crappy thing in place like DADT that’s worse than what we started with. Civil unions aren’t ideal and they AREN’T a stopping point, but Christ, it’s more than what we had.

Don’t tell me what you SAY you’ll do. SHOW ME WHAT YOU’VE DONE. Dean has DONE something. And he had to wear a kevlar vest after he signed it, because the same people who would kill ME would have wanted to kill HIM. That’s gets a guy on my good side.

Get out of the theoretical perfect plane and stop trying to be ideologically pure — and try to solve some problems. When faced with a choice between a candidate who will hold the line of ideological purity versus one that will actually accomplish something toward the goal, I’ll take the second please, Alex … I’m trained as a hard scientist — don’t tell me why your theory SHOULD have worked if the world were perffect. Tell me why it DOES work, or don’t open your mouth.

Show me the data that supports this statement. I’ll believe this when I see a poll of “If the election were held today and your choices were (Dem candidate name here), GWB or no vote, how would you vote?” for each of the 9 Dem candidates, broken down by registered Reps, Dems, Grns, Libs, Socialists and unaffiliated.

My question is what percentage of Dems would vote for Kucinich in that case? Do you really think it would be significantly less than would vote for Dean, Lieberman, et al? If so, what makes you think that? Or are you worried about appealing to registered Republicans? How about the 3rd party/independents? Will they prefer Bush over any of the 9?

The reason someone is unelectable, without hard data, is self-fulfilling. I won’t vote for X in the primary because he can’t win the general election is a self-fulfilling prophecy unless you have the data to back it up. Self-fulfilling because you don’t vote for X in the primary.

I hate to keep harping on this subject, but I gotta. Opinions of unelectability are just that. Opinions. I want to hear no more of it until I see supporting data.

But then again, maybe there is data and I just haven’t seen it. If so, I know that you will kindly & politely point me to it.

I haven’t yet decided whether to vote against Bush, or to vote for someone who actually represents me.

Do I need to add a “BUSH SUX!” disclaimer?

Just wondering…

Oh, yeah, and screw Lieberman. If the Democrats want a fucking Right-Winger to run and still bring in the Jew vote, they should dig up Barry Goldwater and persuade him to switch parties. Re-animated after forty-odd years, he’d still have about ten times the charisma that Lieberman does alive. Bleah.