by adam1285, Thu Aug 24, 2006 at 08:09:02 AM EDT
*Cross-posted on Politics with a Pulse*
I found an interesting article on TomPaine.com written by Robert Reich, former secretary of Labor under Clinton. He talks about what the Democrats should avoid doing in Congress if they do succeed in becoming the majority party again following the November elections. The type of "partisan wrangling" that would bring about a host of Bush-bashing committee investigations in Congress. I agree it would back-fire on the Democrats as it did on the Republicans when they went after Clinton so incessantly.
It would not do good for the Democrats to just bash Bush if they took back Congress. Rather, as Reich writes, they should "use the two years instead to lay the groundwork for a new Democratic agenda...[in order to] put new ideas on the table... [and] frame the central issues boldly." This means taking Bush out of the equation and inserting real alternatives. I hope the Democrats can be competent enough to put forth such a coherent plan. Senator Biden's recent editorial in the Washington Post laying out an alternate plan for Iraq is an important step in the right direction for the Democrats. It is a coherent and well structured plan to come to grips with the increasing sectarian divide in Iraq.
But, as always, I do remain pessimistic about the Democratic Party. As this article from AlterNet attests, there are those inside the Democratic Party who too advance a corporate agenda akin to the Republican Party. These are Democratic consultants who switch between politicians and lobbying firms similar to that of the K Street Gang.
The report for which the article is based off of says this trend began under the Clinton Administration. It comes under the guise of "centrism" that Lieberman and Bill Clinton embraced along with the DLC; to promote narrow corporate interests over public ones. It is narrowing the gap between Republicans and Democrats into what the article called "the Beltway Party" of big money and big business.
Though I hope the Democratic Party does take the House since it will provide atleast a breeze of change in Congress, these trends of seeping corporate interests are alarming. I think its important for people to understand this increasing corporate influence in the Democratic Party. If it continues, I think it may alienate many voters.
by danwalter, Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 02:11:10 PM EDT
Herman Cain on TownHall.com calls the Democrats who've been taking on Wal-Mart "Hezbocrats."
"Leading Hezbocrats, ... a roaming band of militant guerrillas... including Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), attended rallies in Des Moines to slam Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer. Wal-Mart's crime? According to the Hezbocrats, Wal-Mart has abandoned the middle class by not paying what they consider a "living wage" or providing its employees free healthcare coverage."
Herman Cain is a right-winger who belongs to the group "Working Families for Wal-Mart." The irony is that Cain was welcomed to that group by his good friend and protege Andrew Young, who was a national Wal-Mart shill until he got the boot for bashing Jews! So anyway, Cain compares Dems to Hezbollah guerillas the way BushCo tags anyone who questions the war as terrorist sympathizers.
by Interrobanger, Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 08:39:24 AM EDT
(I posted this at dKos last Friday. But if you haven't seen this here, I thought I would share. It's a pretty rad video.)
Last Tuesday President Clinton was in Taylor Michigan to campaign for Jennifer Granholm's reelection -- up on YouTube now there's a 7-minute highlight reel
, which is worth seeing. Very high quality.
Yes, you know that Bill Clinton is a magnetic public speaker, but he's really, really on in this one. Well worth a few minutes out of your day. Maybe someday our President will speak proper English once again. A man can dream.
by thinkforyourself, Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 06:22:21 PM EDT
Seems like money talks no matter what side of the aisle you reside on. What is Hillary Clinton afraid of? That Mr. Tasini might actually appeal to those NY voters who are against the Iraq war? And why isn't the blogosphere standing behind Mr. Tasini to help him raise money as they did Ned Lamont? Is it because Ned Lamont is a millionaire? Is it really all about money? If so, that is very disappointing.
by populist, Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 12:22:00 PM EDT
...Clinton, along with Schumer, voted to give the reactionaries running our country the green light to shell Iraq. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan offhandedly admitted the attack was illegal. Sure, they broke the law. With Hillary's help. It would be very naïve to think that someone as shrewd as she really believed that Iraq was a threat to us, after the debilitating sanctions decade, fairly constant bombings, and satellite and cyber surveillance. The time to challenge war is before it starts. Millions did...