Ridiculous - Gingrich and Clinton indistinguishable? Someone wasn't paying attention in the 90s. Newt is trying for an image makeover, hence the nice things he has to say about HRC. He's also distancing himself from the Republican Congress, even though many of the GOP slimeballs came into the House under him. The fact remains that Gingrich is a hard-core, Norquist conservative. If it wasn't for Bill Clinton, Gingrich would have gutted the federal government and destroyed our way of life.
Ask folks who get the EITC if Bill Clinton left them to fend for themselves. Ask the millions of Americans who were lifted out of poverty during the Clinton years. Ask the kids who, despite everything, were able to go to college because of Bill Clinton. You think that would have happened under President Gingrich?
Something I've been bouncing around: say, despite all of our best efforts, HRC wins the Democratic nomination. At this point, I think her best option would be to pick Obama as her running mate. Several reasons:
1. Neutralizes her lack of appeal to moderates and progressives.
Brings out tons of new voters (Obama is incredibly popular)
Inoculates her against the dynasticism charge; the campaign could be more about the future with someone like Obama on the ticket
The way I see it, HRC has a slim chance of winning, but if she puts someone like Obama on the ticket, who has enormous popularity, she could win over enough voters. What do you think?
Go for whoever you want. I don't have a candidate yet (Clark, Warner, Bayh all look good to me, provided Gore doesn't jump in). But once the party picks a nominee, either get on board or be prepared to hear some shit when President McCain nominates Pat Buchanan to SCOTUS.
You're right. I can't help but think that the netroots is only playing games when it insists that it's not ideologically motivated. Let's be honest: Lieberman is being targeted because of his moderate to conservative views. Nothing wrong with that, but let's be honest. I see the netroots as the left wing of the party. Whenever Kos or others insist that the blogosphere is really after some other intangible factor, I have to question it.
If the goal of the netroots is to advance progressive ideas, then perhaps elections shouldn't be the focus as much as shaping media and public discourse. After all, elections are about coalition-building, which might be distasteful to purists.
You're exactly right that good candidates aren't enough. If Barack Obama ran for President, it would still be a tough fight, because the right has an apparatus with which to fight any Democrat. We have a long way to go towards building our own such apparatus.
Bottom line: Bill Clinton represented where most Americans were during the 90s, and I would suspect even today. Moderately progressive, with an eye towards the future. Clinton stood up for our progressive principles when it came to judicial nominations, and he grew our economy for everyone. He fought off the far-right's attempts to take away a woman's right to choose, to eliminate public education, and to get rid of the social safety net. He grew the Democratic party, and gave progressive values a shot in the arm. Anyone who fights Newt Gingrich is a hero to me.
Fair criticism. I'm a Clinton fan, but he did not do a very good job of building up the party. Still, I will say this: before the progressive movement completely ditches the Clintons and joins the right wing in blowing off the accomplishments of the 1990s, it should consider the massive numbers of people who are now Democrats because of Bill Clinton. The man expanded the reach of the Democratic party, making people like Mark Warner viable candidates.
No, I'm all for a big tent and I'm glad Webb and others have found their way to our side. I also appreciate why they found themselves in the grasp of the GOP. I guess I just really have questions about why he would have endorsed Bush in 2000. Security was hardly a huge issue in that election, though Bush did run on military themes. If these guys believed in a woman's right to choose, they had serious reason to be concerned about then-Gov. Bush. If they were economic populists, they definitely would have preferred Gore. So if they just picked Bush because he was Republican, and they thought that was the right party at the time, despite their principles on non-security issues, you have to question their judgment.
You're right, I shouldn't discount Mfume entirely. Still, I think we need to be honest about whether or not Mfume can play among suburban white voters. I don't know - I'm not from MD. It's just that based on what I know about the race, and about Mfume's weaknesses, that Cardin has the aura of electability. But I really am worried about putting a white candidate up against a black one, especially one like Steele, who has major national GOP connections.
I guess we can use that against him, though. My suspiciion would be that most black voters in MD are not huge Bush/Cheney/Rove fans, and Steele is best buddies with that crowd. Plus, it really stuck in my craw when he equated public assistance with letting "the goverment raise your kids". If that doesn't piss off the black community...
Plus, how many black folks were going to vote for Allen to begin with? It might be better to hit him on his AWOL status (IA, NH, SC, etc). The only way you beat someone like George Allen is with their own ambition.
Are we screwed in Maryland? I mean, we can't nominate Mfume, clearly. He has no chance of winning the thing. At the same time, nominating Cardin will just push black voters towards Steele. Bottom line: Steele is bad news, but he is a real threat to Democrats. So, those of you from Maryland, what's your insight? Can a white Democrat win an election in which the storyline will be "Black Republican" 24/7? How do we change the narrative?
BTW, the most telling thing I've heard from Steele came in his announcement speech, when he said that his mom didn't take government assistance, "because she didn't want the government raising her kids." What a slap in the face to all the parents out there (including, yes, black ones) who have to get some public help. Are they not raising thier kids? Can we turn this kind of thing against him?
Haha, maybe not the reaction you were hoping for, but it was entertaining. I really don't know who I like better in this thing, but I do have some concerns. I guess I can't help but feel like Webb opposed the war because if his expertise, then saw the chance to advance on that. He went for Bush in 2000 and endorsed Allen. How do we know he won't change again? If someone can help me out with those qualms, I might feel better about Webb.