Chris, you're right on with this blog. The republicans are frat boys. They've always had it easy and they are arrogant and banal.
Kennedy understands what it means to be a senator who fights. He's been doing it for 44 years. I've been impressed by his performance this week and proud that he represents me.
Biden and Shumer are absolute, total media whores but Biden is the whoriest of all. There are too few of these bozos who take their responsibilities seriously. That's why primary fights are essential, not just for Joementum but for too many Congressmen who have been their too long and think they are only representing themselves.
Culture of Corruption is good for 2005/2006 because some of the scandals are fresh, but the Dems have to stand for more than "against corruption," because most people think it's endemic to Washington and outsider Repubs can run on it too.
I think corruption has to be linked to incompetence. The Bush admninistration and Congressional Repubs have been both.
They lied about the reasons for war, fought it with UNDEREQUIPPED troops, had no plan for securing peace and transition, have antagonized millions in the Middle East and elsewhere and created more terrorists. Ignore this and the Dems are crazy. We condemned Saddam (rightly) for warring against civilian populations but we won't address 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths (at least) via invasion and bombing and an ongoing death toll?
The deficit is a huge issue. Clinton administration reduced the deficit. Bush (and Reagan, good to remember) exploded the deficit, mortgaging our children's future. This is the culture of irresponsibility. Thomas Paine said let us fight now so that there will be peace in our children's time. The Bush administration has given the rich tax breaks now so our children can pay, created a more dangerous world for our children to live in, underfunded their schools and supported theocrats who want to weaken their curricula, and has continued to despoil the natural world that is their inheritance.
National health insurance--of course. Canada's system has problems. No shit. But ours is broken. A better organized primary care/preventive care system is the key to a future rational health care system.
Fair trade, not free trade. No tax breaks for corps. that export jobs en masse. Use community colleges as job training/retraining centers. Yes, minimum wages should be pegged tocost of living indexes by state.
Republicans: a culture of corruption, cronyism, incompetence and irresponsibility.
Amazing. A cop tells a D.A. to shut up and everyone says she needs a lesson in etiquette.
Do you think, for a minute, that if a male DA was talking lightly outside the church while waiting for the coffin to come out, that anyone would have told him to shut up? If he had been "chuckling" about something, it might have pissed some people off, but it wouldn't be described as "giggling" and no cop would be saluted for telling him to "shut up."
I don't like Pirro and I'm not a knee-jerk supporter of female candidates, but this is really sexist and a classic example of the relative difficulties experienced by women in p[olitics--the cultural power differential and the way some men think they can talk to them and about them, and get kudos from an unconscious media.
But on progressive blogs, there should be some awareness of the double standard.
I think it's b.s. that Corzine didn't do a good job as head of DSCC. He recruited outstanding candidates, as was frequently emphasized early in 2004 when it looked like the Dems would pick up seats. You can't blame him or DSCC for Daschle's loss or Wellstone's death. Castor was a good candidate for Florida, as were Bowles and Tenenbaum in the Carolinas. They just didn't win--and Tenenbaum never had much of a shot.
As for monkey feces jokes--I've always thought roasts were a stupid idea, some weird male behavior rooted in competition, homophobia, and collective self-loathing. Trying to be the funniest guy at a roast is an exercise in self-destruction. The funniest lines resonate with truth and while the roastee laughs heartily to show what a good sport and regular guy he is, he's also taking notes--and people remember the "best" lines and the astute ones know that you probably meant it. The best strategy has to be low-key and low profile.
This isn't 1860, or even 1960. Experience matters enormously, especially in times of international instability and terrorist threats (manipulated or otherwise). Obama is young as well as inexperienced in terms of national electoral politics and international politics. And you may have noticed that he's black.
That will be an issue for a sufficient number of possible swing voters. Black and a seasoned hand (Colin Powell) is one thing. Black and female (Rice) or yopung/inexperienced is another.
How could Obama be as assuring in terms of international relations as Clark, Gore, Clinton, Kerry, Richardson, even Biden (for God's sake), or Feingold? Never mind McCain, Hagel, Guiliani, Allen, etc.? It's just really weird and netrootsy to think that a majority of American voters would vote for Obama over a more experienced candidate. Not gonna happen.
VP? Absolutely. 2012? Let's hope it's not necessary. 2016? After two terms in the Senate--absolutely.
Well, I guess we know there won't be any movement from the triangulation strategy. When does triangulating become pandering? When do progressive Democrats stop thinking they know HRC is REALLY more of a progressive and is just playing the electability game?
She is neither the best candidate we could have nor the most electable, so let's be clear about the need for more than an anti-Hillary candidate. We need a full field of viable candidates so the exchange of ideas can at least help shape the campaign. The Democratic Party would be better off in 2008 if HRC is NOT a candidate.
ANyone who thinks Hillary lacks charisma has never heard her speak--or is a very poor judge of charisma. She is a phenomenal speaker and a great campaigner. That's why she was able to go into NY as an outsider and roll to a huge victory in a senate race.
If she wasn't charismatic, she wouldn't be a lightning rod. She is also one of the most intelligent politicians in the country. Feingold and Clark may be as bright but some others (Biden and Kerry, for example) are sporting her about 40 IQ points. She has enormous experience in responding to critics, in various media formats, and on the stump. Nobody will outdebate her.
Centrist? Well, the Repubs sure don't think so--and neither do I.
Her voting record is pretty clear. She is a liberal Democrat who is smart enough to position herself towards the middle on issues that absolutely demand it for electability--international relations, abortion, etc.
One other dimension--toughness. Can you imagine her letting something like Swift BVfP derail her campaign? She would come out SMOKIN' and have the strategic help of the savviest pres. candidate of the last half century.
She will not be defeated by a Dem candidate to her left (like Feingold). Only a Southern more centrist candidate can stop her--or a freak combination of someone catching fire while she shares votes with candidate(s) like her. Warner, Edwards and Clark have the best chance of being the Non.
I don't think the LA Times piece was so favorable. He sounds like a self-important, grandiose tyrant. These early stories are always about the buzz--why would anyone profile a potential candidate without any prospect of being a viable candidate?
But there was a lot of interesting negative material here--reading about his 100 mph don't mess with me fanvcy SUV sure made me think of former SD governor Janklow who killed a motorcyclist while speeding (as he habitually did) and ended his political career.
Richardson couldn't (or wouldn't?) deliver NM for Kerry after Gore won there in 2000. He was supposedly building a new Dem machine in the state. He has the negatives of Clinton (rumors of sexual misbehavior; lack of personal discipline in other areas) without the positive TV presence. Richardson absolutely sucks on TV--too careful, too centrist, too "packaged." His demographic and regional appeal is undeniable--he might be an ideal VP nominee. But as the top of the ticket? I don't think so.
I don't see him beating Warner, Edwards or Clark in early primaries (if they all run) and he would need to do that whether or not HRC was in the race