I don’t remember Joe McCarthy being elected president. I do remember Hillary being blown out of the water on health insurance reforms early on in Bill Clinton’s term, which, consequently, halted any positive legislation for social change. Hillary’s platform was shot dead. Maybe, she learned something, about how to get the job done. Maybe, she’d like to get some red states. Excuse me, but has a Democrat been elected to the presidency in the last two elections. I think she knows what she’s doing to get elected. She is a brilliant women and when she’s elected will bring much positive social legislation to this country. You should support her insted of dreaming about third parties (yeah, that has a chance to getting someone elected)and other reasons which won’t get Hillary elected. Hillary will get the job done, which to me is getting us out of Iraq, massive environmental reform, healthcare and getting more money in taxes out of the rich who are looting our economy. Trust Hillary. yourdrum

Gawd! This is grrrrrrrrrrrrrreat stuff! I am so glad I found Molly here. I’ve been following her since I was knee-high to a grasshopper ... or so it seems. Somewhere back in the last century I met her at one of her “lectures” when she visited the University of Washington (in Seattle) on a book tour.

This is pure Ivins!!!

Wow—-God bless Molly Ivins for saying what we all should have the guts to be saying.  Looks like no one has updated this for awhile, so I may be talking to no one, but here goes anyway.  I’m from Texas and Molly makes me proud—-it isn’t easy being a liberal in Texas (Heaven help us!).  I’ve always lamented the fact that I wasn’t born in California—-always wanted a bumper sticker that said “I wasn’t born in California, but I got here as soon as I could”, except that I’m still in Texas.  I try to find comfort in telling myself that perhaps God put me here for a reason.

I believe the percentages that Molly quotes concerning people’s views in this country.  But there’s just one small problem—-it doesn’t matter what their views are if they don’t vote.  According to things I’ve read, as much as 40-50% of eligible voters don’t vote.  If that’s true then 31-26% of eligible voters are deciding the elections.  And do you think those 40-50% that aren’t voting are conservatives—-I venture to say that most of them are not.  Democracy isn’t rule by the majority—-it’s rule by the majority of those who vote and whose votes are actually counted!  We lost our Democracy a long time ago—-all we can hope for now is that it’s not too late to get it back.  The farther we let it recede from our grasp, the harder it will be to retrieve it, there coming a point past which it will not be retrievable short of true, all-out revolution, the sort that our forefathers fought against the British.  How unbelievable to allow that to happen, but all it takes is indifference.  The bulldozers of the world are neither lazy nor indifferent. 

And it seems that politics has become something that no one talks about—-none of my friends want to talk about it, no one talks about it at the office.  I have to find some entity on the internet to talk to about it.  How can anyone know what the hell is going on if no one will talk about it!  It’s almost as if no one really wants to know so they can live a nice, quiet, peaceful life and not have to worry themselves about it.  But you can’t have a Democracy with rampant apathy, indifference and complacency!  Democracy, by its very definition, is participatory.  How can people not care about this!  Help me, I think I’m losing my mind!!         

A few have mentioned Gore as being “on fire” and that perhaps he is our hope.  I read the transcript of his speech and it was great.  But speeches are only words.  Once one steps out of the pulpit, words mean little.  What one does to back up those words is what matters, and that’s where I’m afraid to trust him.  All I can think about is the fact that 6 years ago he and the entire Democratic party stood by and allowed the presidency to be stolen out from under them (and out from under the American people) without lifting a finger to stop it.  I sat watching the television with my mouth open in disbelief—-it’s still open.  I still have visions of Gore standing there as President of the Senate and dismissing every one of our black leaders as one by one they stepped up to the podium to register their official protests against what was happening with the vote count in Florida, and not one—-not one!—-Democrat would say a word to back them up.  Again I sat in disgust and disbelief.  I’m in disbelief every day at what is happening to our country.

We must have campaign finance reform—-without it we might as well forget about saving our democracy.  And runoff elections would also be invaluable, I believe.  Those two things could give us some decent candidates and create a democracy to be proud of—-if we get off our asses and vote.

And I have certainly been impressed with Barack Obama, but I haven’t heard much from him lately—-what is he up to?  And then there’s Molly—-there’s a vote I’d be tempted to cast.  How about it, Molly?  Or perhaps Walt—-you make wonderful sense.  And although I’m shy about Hillary, I will NOT stand by and let the Republicans in their current incarnation continue to be in charge if there’s anything I can do about it.

There is a third party that I wish people would get behind and support—-the Green Party.  I think they may just be the revolution.  I voted for Nader in 2000 and then I did something I had promised myself I would never do.  In 2004, although I wanted to vote for Nader again, I voted for Kerry because I knew Nader wouldn’t win and I was desperate to get Bush out of the Whitehouse.  I love the things that Nader stands for, although he isn’t pretty and charming and charismatic—-I think it’s sad that that sort of thing influences people so much.  I felt disappointed that I had abandoned my values and my ideals out of fear, though Bush is something to be afraid of, and afterwards I renewed my vow and determined that I would never let that happen again. 

But then I realized something—-I believe in my ideals and I won’t abandon them because I believe that, however lofty they may be, they’re attainable.  I believe that Utopia is not only possible, but inevitable—-being only a matter of time.  But in the meantime I plan to try my best to be intelligent enough and strong enough to know that I might have to compromise on the road to realizing those ideals.  But for me the ideal will always be the ultimate goal.  I don’t plan to settle for mediocrity, although I plan to be happy along the way.  Idealism doesn’t mean that you can’t or don’t do what needs to be done on any given day—-it just means that you still believe in and have sight of your ultimate vision.  It means that each decision you make, each action you take is calculated and well though out as a step toward the realization of that vision.  I think our vision should be grand, our hopes high and our faith and love strong.  There’s no limit to what we can achieve—-but we must remember that it’s all about quality, not quantity and it must include everyone.  If anyone is left out the dream will fail.  God bless America!!!!!

RE: INSTANT RUNOFF.

Minority parties will still have to woo the voters, including organization, fund raising, publicity, personality, policy development, etc.

Instant runoff simply gives them a chance to even the odds a little vis a vis the Republicrats. One measure of how threathening this is to both major parties can be gleamed from the way they reacted to this San Francisco ballot measure-in a word, apoplexic.

“This country has enough of the cult of personalities.  It is indeed sad that Gene McCarthy is no longer with us.” Uh, what’s the difference
between culting McCarthy & liking him? Funny. It
all still rests on a single personality.

Good to know that instant runoff makes things like
having policy and being organized unnecessary.
Just change the laws all around the country to
instant runoff, and voila, success!!! The
established parties will be so full of themselves,
they won’t know how to respond - like deer in the
headlights. Uh, will there be room for
personalities in this new party?

Well, a third party seems the only way out of this conundrum of modern politics….who will lead?  The past “Perot’s” seem incapible or at least unwilling to learn from our country’s past.
(Where are the pragmatic americans of my youth?)
Dead, I guess…)
Gore Vidal has the right idea, who will stand with him?  Libertarian Progressive….......
Who will fight the good fight?  (I wish I could, but the media would find my skeletons…)
So nominate a winner, Paul Hackett from ohio, Barak Obama from chicago, or some presently unknown leader from the sticks…
The time is now, say something for humanity’s sake….greg

As a damned foreigner, may I suggest that someone nominate Molly for President?

Finally a sane voice about Hillary Clinton.  This country has enough of the cult of personalities.  It is indeed sad that Gene McCarthy is no longer with us.

Mashrout asks rhetorically why haven’t other third parties succeeded. (Comment #57) The answer is, they focused on raising funds, getting endorsements, organizing, and all those other things they and Mashrout thought they must do better than their opposition in order to win. They were playing the game by the rules of the Republicrats.

All the while, the secret to success was under their noses, but they cannot see. It is called ‘instant runoff’, and the San Francisco voters are the only ones smart enough to get it passed into law.

This is how, and why, it works for the third parties: Say your heavily Democratic congressional district is ‘safe’ for an incumbent Democrat who no one likes (Leiberman?). They are stuck with him/her because to vote Republican might further strengthen a party in Washington they despise. What to do?

Currently, the Dems probably stay home and stew. But in San Francisco, you can select a Green (or Brown, or Whatever) as your first choice, and the Democrat as second choice. On election day, the Whatever Party gets 35% first choice votes, and the unloved Dem 40%. But since no one receives a plurality of the votes cast, the third choice, the Republican who only gets 25%, is eliminated. The second choice on his ballots (all but 5% picked Whatever, since Republican voters cannot bring themselves to vote Democrat) are applied automatically, by the computer program, to the two remaining candidates, the Democrat and the Whatever. The progressive on the Whatever ticket wins with 55%.

How, you ask, could a third party such as Whatever get such a high (35%) first choice vote? Because the fear factor the Democratic party uses so frequently and cynically (‘If you don’t vote for me, you are wasting your vote and the boogey man Bush will get you.’) is GONE. WE ARE FREE, free at last.

Note: This type of voting is Constitutional. It can be instituted at the local county level, which means even Congressional races can be affected. And when Congress is in progressive hands at last, it can pass a law making Election Day a paid holiday, like most civilized countries. Then sit back and watch democracy spring alive. Thank you, San Francisco!

David,

Dennis Kucinich was in the last campaign and
failed to convince many people. I find it hard
to imagine he’s the voice the American people
are waiting for. Why would being in a 3rd party
make him more viable? I don’t even see why he
can’t run on the Green Party or Independent
ticket, but what does that change?

Now if someone really wants to go grassroots,
perhaps something could be changed, but part
of it is listening to what people want, not
jost trying to foist some pre-conceived idea of
nirvana on them. Apparently the Dems in Colorado
did very well last election by focusing on
issues people cared about, even if they
weren’t traditional (or national) Democrat
strong points. Perhaps less focus on Hillary or
Gore or Kucinich 2008, and more on the mayor and
people of Salina and Boise and Amarillo in 2006.

Elsewhere on TruthDig there is a reprint of Al Gore’s speech at Constitution Hall. In the comments section is the beginning of a dialogue on him, about how he was the better candidate and how people will support him if he decides to run. You should go there and take a look and leave your thoughts.

I too think Gore’s speech was phenomenal. It was just what needed to be said and when it needed to be said. It was unambiguous (unlike so much Democratic rhetoric) and it was forceful (ibid.).

It was not too little, but I think it is too late – at least for Al. But we’ll see. But the doubt is planted and will be exploited: Where was this Al Gore last time? Rove is salivating.

As I’ve been tracking this stream of comments since Molly Ivens’ article was first posted, I read so much frustration with the Democratic Party for its lack of fortitude and clarity and even more frustration with the field of possible candidates – Hillary in particular.

My own feeling was that if Hillary has a snowball’s chance we need to stop carping and support her. If she can’t win let’s find or create someone who can win. I thought Kerry was a dismal choice out of a dismal group of Primary Candidates, but when he got the nod, I supported him. I fought for him. Wrote letters and e-mails. Defended him. Because it was never about me or my particular choices. It was about the Constitution, the weak and unprotected, the troops in Iraq, the people there and here – the list, as I always like to say, goes on and on.

We Democrats and even our politicians are hung up on the fact that Bush and the neo-cons are deceptive, or at the very least, ignore the facts. Kerry and Kennedy are always trying to bring that to people’s attention. Liberal pundits like Al Franken are always asking, “What’s it going to take to make the American people realize what a sham Bush and his cronies are?”

What I’d like to ask is the opposite. What’s it going to take for Democrats to realize they are playing the wrong game, that the public knows exactly what the neo-con revolution is all about and that it is the Democrats who don’t offer a viable alternative?  I mean really folks, do you really think these elections are so close because 49% of us feel one way and 51% feel another? It’s because there appears to be no difference between their positions and then all it takes is a crooked voting machine here, a doctored voting list there and a biased Supreme Court to put the Republicans over the top. None of the Republicans’ corruptions could have worked if the elections hadn’t been so close to begin with. And they wouldn’t have been close if the Democrats were a true opposition party.

The truth?  Neither of Bush’s elections was about truth. They were about feelings that he and Rove then manipulated into perceptions. The first time it was the feelings in the American people that Clinton had dragged the morality of the nation to a new low. Because he acted like such an unrepentant fool after a minor dalliance - in the hubristic tradition of Gary Hart - Clinton got tagged with the uneasiness most Americans felt about porn, violent movies and video games, rap lyrics, capricious abortions, government corruption, failing schools and all the perceived moral weakness that these things validated. Especially if they had kids and / or weren’t well off (let that read lower to middle class).

That some of these perceptions – maybe most – were distortions or at best exaggerations mattered little. Average Americans were mad as hell and they weren’t going to take it anymore. Clinton and Hollywood and a society of moral corruption that hid behind the first Amendment and which too few Democrats (except Tipper Gore) railed against was about their limit. If Democrats weren’t going to oppose it all (in fact they ironically defended most of it) then average Americans would take their votes elsewhere.  And so Democrats alienated their traditional base. But that’s what they do.

We looked elitist. We looked out of touch.

Did it all repeat itself during Kerry’s run? You bet. In high definition surround sound. The attacks were relentless. The Swift Boating nauseating. The internal carnage was appalling. I’ll never forgive the current Democrats for the way they ousted Dean – the only one of the 9 lightweights standing for the primary that was put there by popular opinion (uh, citizens) and not “installed” by the tiresome, age old Democratic special interests, another thing that doesn’t play well in the American heartland.

Kerry, the decorated war hero wouldn’t fight back. Bush, the Chicken-**** draft dodger did. Go figure.

On these pages there are lots of calls to change and rebuild this and that. One thing I know the Democrats MUST do is tar and feather Bob Schrum and send him packing (if they haven’t already). He is the Karl Rove (Well he’s no Karl Rove) of the Democrats and ran the last two elections and many before. In fact I think the only candidate who didn’t use him was ... you guessed it, Bill Clinton. Bill didn’t use him twice!

He is the one who argued that Kerry shouldn’t have demanded a recount (over John Edwards justifiably incensed protests) because he didn’t want Kerry to look like a sore loser. (Oh just a regular nondescript loser is better? Or was he saving Kerry for 2008? Please say it isn’t so. Talk about a couple of bubble boys!)

The Democrats have been clueless and too much of what I see them do convinces me they’re still not getting it. I don’t think they know who they are anymore, or more importantly, what they mean. A lot of what I read here convinces me that few of us do either.

On one of these pages someone wrote that the Democrats lost their souls when they started taking political money. Until we have election reform – true election reform – politicians have no choice but to take money from influence peddlers. Who the hell else do you think is giving it out?

But I disagree. The Democrats lost their souls when they alienated the working class, the lower and middle classes, the people the Democratic Party exists to defend. It happened during Vietnam when the Democrats became the anti-war party and became populated by intellectuals who held the majority of the public in contempt, because they still believed in the goals of the war and hadn’t yet realized how much they’d been lied to. It would take them time to come around and realize the futility and then the immorality of our adventure in South East Asia, but by that time, the majority of the working and lower middle and middle class had turned to the Republicans.

Then Clinton gave us another chance and he – you should excuse the expression – blew it.

The Republicans have been playing that card ever since. And The Democrats fail to get it. To be the anti-war party in a time of war is tough enough. To do it in the shadow of 9/11 is pure political and PR Suicide. No matter how much integrity you have.

That’s why I don’t object to Hillary’s triangulation of the Iraq war – or Kerry’s for that matter. All you can do by insisting we leave now is offend the sensibilities of Americans who don’t see it as that simple, who see we’ve lost 2220 troops and maimed another 20,000 and by the way, are still freaked out, terrified, angry and morally outraged over 9/11. It will take a tough politician, who respects all the issues (including the flag) and can navigate complex moral waters to get us out of Iraq. Americans will never vote for anyone who appears to be over simplfying the issue ... or their feelings. Too many still remember the helicopters on the roof of the Saigon Embassy.

So what can we do? Get organized, but not around a cult figure we like, but a Democrat who can win. You don’t like Hillary? Fine. That’s’ what democracy is all about. Find and support someone. But don’t find someone with all kinds of facile integrity that makes you feel better about yourself and has no chance for a victory that will make America better again.

Find someone you can stand (even if you do have to hold your nose). Someone you can trust will respond to your demands. In other words, someone who can represent you. But that does mean you have to GET involved and STAY involved. Just like the Republicans do.

I said it earlier; we are a nation looking for politicians the way we shop for consumer goods. We want one that’s prepackaged. That believes what we believe. That does things the way we would. And most importantly, doesn’t generalize about issues that are important to us (we call it waffling), even if they do it because they are trying to represent the positions of all Americans.

That’s why the new politcal consultants are marketers. And why politicians are created as brands. But brands are all about one message fits all (Bush) and in a democarcy, you must have choices.

We have to create choices. We have to get accustomed to class and cultural pluralism. We have to stop focusing on ourselves and demanding what we want. We have to look out for the other guy. If you don’t want that, then stop complaining. We have no other reason to exist.

And we have to start generating new ideas.

In Bush’s inaugural address, he said the Democrats are the party of old ideas and the Republicans are the party of new ideas. The fact that the new Republican “ideas” were things like allowing women, gays and African Americans into the party was beside the point. The Democrats had nothing strong to counter him with, even though those constituencies were theirs to begin with.

That brings me to my last suggetsion: Blow everyone’s cover. Even our own. Tell truth and don’t just demand it.

The Republican dominance is on the surface about freedom and strong defense and small government and family values. But the hidden agenda is about race, class, greed, bias and mendacity in all its forms. You know it is. To win, we have to not only expose that reality on their side but in our own hearts as well. And to quote Hillary, “You know what I mean.”

I have to say admire you all. I admire anyone who is on here speaking to the topics that matter and not glued to the tube tracking the progress of American Idol or (god help us) Skating with the Stars (or is that one Celebrities?).
But what I read here worries me. Except for a few staunch souls (Thanx Mashrout. Thanx American Citizen) the opinions here seem to mirror the lack of focus and urgency that characterize the Democratic Party as a whole.

Guys we are getting our asses handed to us. And it’s not a game. People are dying. People are losing benefits. Wealth is being inequitably distributed. Our Constitution is getting trampled. Our rights and privacies abused. Decades of our social safety net is being shredded. And we don’t have a strategy or a game plan.

I have to say it. Carping about Hillary is not going to help one American without health care. Longing for the integrity of a Gene McCarthy or mourning the fact that no one “got” Dennis Kucinich is not going to keep one more American soldier from losing life or a limb.

I hate Donald Rumsfeld but I have to paraphrase him here: You fight with the party you’ve got and the candidate you’ve got.

So if it’s not Hillary then who is it? If it’s not Gore than who is it?

Act like it’s a matter of life and death.

Because it is.

Maybe not for you (and that may be my whole point here) but it is to someone.

And that’s the foundation of the Democratic Party we need to recapture.
 
Peace.

Where are the Democrats? As many here have observed, we have no meaningful opposition in this country.  Corporate ownership of the mass media has resulted in only corporatist voices being heard. I hear these self important bloviators like Chris Matthews, Scarborough et al talk about the “hard left” when bashing the positions of people like Cindy Sheehan. What hard left? If there were a hard left in this country, you’d be hearing gunshots. Instead, we have handwringing and frustration.

In response to Mashrout, #57, someone like Dennis Kucinich might be able to lead and articulate positions for a real opposition party. The platform for such a party would be foremost about defending worker rights, civil rights and human rights. It would protect the American workforce—and American industry—, would develop a sane, green energy policy focusing on alternatives, (and thus loosening the Saudi grip on our dollars and our nutcase),  and be the party of social justice. In the coming Bush and post-Bush America, how long before these attitudes will be defined as “terrorism” and “crimes against the state?”

With ownership of three branches of government and mass media, the Bush administration has prevailed in consolidating power to a degree never imagined in Richard Nixon’s hottest fever-dreams. Imagine the “unitary power” of the executive devolving to the next generation of fixers. Congress will be tolerated only when a plebescite is needed to safely enact legislation favorable to the planet’s owners. We will continue to be distracted with wedge issues, like abortion.

And even if enough of us are motivated to vote for change, will the votes be counted? Thanks to Diebold and the miracle of the hackable voting machine with no paper ballot or nuisance audit trail, and persistent stories of voting irregularities in Ohio, one has to wonder. (See Susan Pynchon’s article on diebold’s hackability here:http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=798&Itemid=51)

Should we concentrate on a third party—or enactment of a law that requires a verifiable paper/audit trail for our elections?

“Hillary Clinton would be a formidable Presidential candidate”, George Bush (1/27/06 - press conference).

Another diabolical message from Karl Rove to the REPUB “base”.  It is also one of the three great lies, this time to unsuspecting moderates and gullible DEM HC supporters.

Face it, you gotta trust in the opposite of anything this person says.

The republicrats like Lieberman and Clinton truly scare me.  These are spineless people who, like the republicans, will sell out our nation to remain in power.  Thank you, Molly

So you’re going to create a new party.
What are its ideals that will convince the voters?
Who are the people who can articulate?
Who’s going to pay for it?
How’s it going to deal with business, with labor,
with the healthcare industry, with education,
with defense, with global trade, with retirement?

It’s not like there aren’t already other parties.
Why haven’t they succeeded, aside from some great
trilateralist conspiracy?

I love Molly Ivans. I can’t help it. She’s my hero.

I’d vote for Barbara Boxer.

I agree with the posters who are calling for a new party. Either progressives assert themselves and take over the Democratic Party or a third party is the only option.

The likes of Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi, will most certainly lead the party into another devastating election.

Enough of these equivocating, rationalizing, posturing, and spineless bureaucratic politicians who only see their narcissitic careers as being important.

Time has passed them by and our democracy cannot afford to have them represent us against the neocon regime again. They have already proved their incompetence and continue to display it on a daily basis.

Today CNN reported Senators Landrieu and Byrd won’t support a filibuster.  Is it possible they are concerned about withheld Federal aid for flood and coal mine rehabilitation?

The Democrats sold their soul when they decided to go after the big money and forgot the little guy.  Until we have public financing of elections, nothing else progressive will get accomplished. 

I’m delighted that Molly Ivins is a part of Truthdig.  She is a breath of fresh air.

Noone else mentioned Russ Feingold for President?  There’s a person of integrity.

As Horace Greeley once said, “Go West, Young Man.”
An incumbent Senator/Representative cannot be elected; too much baggage.
A governor from the blue states in the Northeast cannot be elected.
Think Bill Richardson, or someone like him, from the West or the South, but definitely not from the Right Coast and especially not from the Beltway.

William,

Some of us just want a leader who won’t drag
us down the sewer.

“Real leader with a real vision”.
Last one I knew of was Reagan (hold down your
lunch folks). Perhaps an MLK. Doesn’t matter -
it’s 2006 - someone who doesn’t empty the till
and knows how to send in the Guard when there’s
a flood will do fine by me. Jesus Christ and all
the other saviors can stay in the grave, we just
need someone with a little common sense and who
isn’t on the leash of every lobbyist in town.
Even that’s asking a lot.

And not to be anti-elitist, but perhaps it’d be
good if they weren’t comfortable speaking French
and drinking wine. That rules me out, but that
was a given.

Nothing in my past 51 years could have prepared me for the disaster that we have let loose on our country with the election TWICE of GWB and his lying neocons.

IMHO most of the people that have posted here have more passion and vision than any of the “leaders” the Dems have at the moment…except for Dean. I still can’t believe his own party swift-boated him.

Molly…..right on and keep up the fight!

Democrat leaders: please stop being so afraid of who you are!

A new CNN/USA Today/Gallop poll reported today that, as of Jan. 2006, 51% of registered voters of all stripes, say that they ‘definitely will not’ vote for Hillary.

Early in an election cycle, candidates with name recognition, such as Hillary, usually come out better than those without. Her candidacy turned that usual behaviour pattern on its head: a majority knows about Hillary, and a majority ‘definitely will not’ support her.

It is time to focus our energies on a stronger candidate. Conyers, anyone?

I have serious doubts about the viability of a Hillary run for president. But one reason that I would like to see Hillary as president is that it would cause a significant number of those right wing flaggots (those would be those neo-con, right wing hyper zealous, jingoistic super-patriots that use accusations of treason as a club to beat down anyone who uses their right of free speech to challenge the the world view of the far right) to stroke out from apoplexy.

There is nobody the right hates more. Even the thought of Hillary sends these idiots into a paroxism of rant about her being a “rug muncher”

If she does run I’ll certainly vote for her in the hope that the relative peace, prosperity and stability of the Clinton years would return but I still wouldn’t hold my breath about either her winning or her winning making any real difference.

There is something that needs to be said first of all to voting Democrats…...THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A “LEFTIST DEFEATIST BASE”! If you want a real leader with real vision for this country, you need someone that is from the same vein as a Dennis Kucinich, or a Ron Paul. Someone who knows our history and who is not afraid to speak the truth about power….on either side of the aisle. How about it folks?

Republicans (the focused fundamentalist - haters of critical thinking) really want Hillary to get the nomination.  They would love to see DEMS nominate Hillary. 

I know because I have developed an amicable dialog with my arch-conservative co-workers.  When we speak, we jokingly and respectfully leave anger and emotions at the door.  Our conversations never get personal.  We each joke about the corrupt nature and hyporisy of DEMs and REPUBs. 

This is why a filibuster would win a lot of REPUB voters over to DEMs that stand tall for their principles.  It won’t matter if the filibuster works (Alito’s nomination is only a battle in the larger war.) 

The tide of the larger war can start to be reversed beginning with a principled stand by DEMs in filibuster.  Opposition without filibuster will be doubted as more equivocation and lack of principle. 

To restate, a filibuster would win the respect of many silent, troubled REPUB supporters. 

Why?  Religion and broad values are the cornerstone of REPUBs’ hard held beliefs.  Earth’s spiritual masters were not wishy-washy splitters of the truth.  Its my understanding Jesus was a radical that encouraged Jewish faithful to stop discrimination and hatred of difference. 

We can differ, but we must explain our differing values. Life is precious and abortion is a serious matter.  But poverty, unemployment, no health care, losing factories & jobs to overseas, and minimum wage jobs at Walmart are also not the answer.  Everything is interrelated and can’t be viewed in isolation. 

Is there a DEM still able speak simply, honestly and from the heart?  This is why I believe the country needs a third party.  I do not want to be talked back into the car showroom by the salesman anymore.

  Explain our values and listen to REPUB voters.  We’d win support from disenfranchised REPs & DEMs.  Neo-con liars will try to talk us down, but no one will listen.

DEMs should not wear their religion on their sleeve.  Don’t even mention religion.  Our words will tell our religion, the religion of truth.  That is all anyone wants.  This is why a third party is needed, since the DEM machine is highly discredited by its straddling of issues.

I’m tired of being led on by gutless DEMs anymore.  I want someone to speak their values to me, and convince me they love the country more than getting re-elected.  This is why Hillary should not run.  She’s discredited and will come off as disengenuous to REPUBs and skeptical DEMs.

Ironically, what may be needed is a person of substance to replace the Bush package.  This person must not pander.  Honesty at all times is essential.  Even in differences of opinion, all differences are acceptible if respectful and truthful.  In selflessness, not all differences need to be eliminated.  Just as each person’s spiritual path is personal.

To conclude (thank God!) , a filibuster offers DEMs a unique chance to lead through principle and example.  DEMs can show they care about deep held values. 

Unfortunately, Alito doesn’t represent our common values.  He is a party zealot that seeks his own gain by adopting the values of the wealthy and corrupt REPUB money machine.  I don’t think most Republican voters want that either.

I don’t care what Hilary says, does, or is; if she runs, I will vote for her; once in office, she can do the real thing; implement what she reallly believes; so, she’s trying to walk the line; Bill did it better, but we’re talking about the future, and it’s Hilary, or die.

#39, Walt, spot on…  We have one h*ll of a mess on our hands, thanks to our own foolish ways. One way to guard against higher waters is to vote against the Diebold voting machines ever being allowed into your state. ‘Cause whether we have the best or the less-than-best non-GOP candidate out there, any state that votes by Diebold is a state the GOP own. Don’t only grab a sandbag. Grab a bullhorn and a bullhorn… we’re gonna need them.

I don’t know ONE democrat who wants Hillary Clinton for president.  I think all this press about her being the front-runner is a republican fantasy.  Clinton has (grossly)disappointed the left and is hated by the right.  Great candidate, huh?  When will people wake up and realize that what’s reported has NOTHING to do with reality?

I think it’s clear where we all stand on the issue of Hillary. We’re a microcosm of what her campaign is likely to be, if it ever happens.

Mostly, as it was with Kerry, it will be Democrats and Liberals divided. And they will roll right over us.

Many are disdainful as Molly Ivens is, because Clinton doesn’t “take a clear stand on Iraq” … or doesn’t measure up to the “political courage” of a Gene McCarthy. There are many similar complaints in the comments on this page.

Others like me are more willing to compromise on my ideals and seek politicians that are far more likely to succeed in this extremely treacherous and all but level political playing field. Because perhaps, just perhaps they might be able to regain something of all we’ve lost.

I’m more willing to take a chance on Hillary than support someone with no chance at all.

As a young man I was inspired by McCarthy’s vision, but I knew full well even then that he didn’t have a hope of victory in the real world of 60’s politics.  There’s no question that McCarthy took a “clear stand” on Vietnam. But tens of thousands of my fellow Veterans still had to die before it ended, while he was cosseted somewhere writing poetry by then.

Politics is a really ugly game. It’s nice to have it dominated by inspiring figures. It would be great to get behind a politician I liked. But it just doesn’t work that way. I’m not sure it ever did.

I can hold my nose with one hand and vote with the other if I believe there is moral gain.

And I believe there is moral gain in finding anyway and anyone we can to reclaim the Democratic Party and the Spirit of American Liberalism. Because right now both are D.O.A.

I’ll support whoever it takes to get us there. But I can’t wait for a decade. It took the Republicans a full 30 years to get what they have. With today’s technology it could take us a year or two. In time for 2008. If we were unified by common purpose.

Is this a resounding endorsement of Hillary? No way. If someone more likely to kick the Republicans’ butts came along would I support them? Yes. But the question we have to ask is who is that person and who can do it fastest? There’s no time for new parties and grass roots candidates. Sure do it, but that can’t be our only tactic. We have to do something NOW. For those who are suffering NOW.

I think we have to go back to our roots on this one. We have to think about the “other guys” and what they need. This can’t be about us and our preferences. There are too many Americans at risk and their situation gets riskier every day we have a Republican dominated government ... for the corporations and by the corporations. 

We have to keep an image in our heads. Nothing did it better than the sight of those people hanging from trees in the days (!) after Katrina. We cannot let this be an image of America. We cannot allow this.

That’s what I do to inspire myself when I grow cynical or weary with the state of things.

I remember those faces … American faces. Strange Fruit indeed.

Oh no, not another Dogpatch President! Molly’s right on!

To W. White:

Unethical? Ineffectual? Craven? Are you kidding?

It sounds like you’re talking about Bush & Co.

Not for a minute do I believe Hillary will have a cakewalk. They will come at her with every near-truth they can find - and make stuff up if they can’t. But seriously? Unethical? In this current environment? Do you really think some 20 year old story like the one you offer will grab that much attention while lots of Republicans will be posing with raincoats over their heads? 

Ineffectual? On health care? I’d love to see her debate a neo-con Republican on that. And speaking of being ineffectual? Katrina? Iraq? Social Security? Homeland Security? Again I don’t think her opposition is going to “go there” if you know what I mean.

You’re hearing Rove these days aren’t you? They are going after the Democrats on being weak on securty. Which brings me to your next point.

Craven? For “Ducking the war issue”? How? By not demanding the troops be brought home right now? That’s the claymore mine every liberal seems to want “their” Democratic candidates to stomp on. Which from a strategic point of view will gain them how much public support?

This war is on, W. And it’s a real war. 2,231 US dead and 16,000 plus wounded as of the other day. We didn’t have to want it, like it or support it, but we’re there now and the lesson we should have all learned from Vietnam is that these ideological wars are really easy to start and incredibly difficult to stop.

Is it craven to acknowledge that the Chicken-in-Chief started a war that he and his fellow Hawks can’t figure a way out of? Is it craven to admit that it was Bush who destabilized that region and that leaving now is going to make things worse? We have to leave and leave soon. Most Americans are on that page. But most Americans mourn these losses in personal ways and any politician who doesn’t approach our withdrawl while balancing these political and emotional realities will self destruct during a campaign.

Americans were decieved into sending their youth into this conflict. Their patriotism and their rage over 9/11 were shamelessly exploited. It’s not going to be so easy to communicate that idea to a voting majority of the nation. The majority will support a politicain that can get us ourt of there without inducing the national truama Nixon did in “surrendering” Vietnam. Because we’re still living with that madness. And that’s the course Bush is leading us on.

Can Hillary do it? I hope so because no one else seems remotely sensitive to those political realities.

By the way, I really want to ask where everyone thinks these weak and corrupt Denmocrats came from? Were they planted here by some UFO? Or did we the American “progressives” put them there?  I think more than our politicians have been asleep at the switch for the past few decades.

We did this and we have to fix this with the systems and the politicians we’ve got.

America doesn’t have the time to wait for some lofty grass-roots MoveOn.org redefinition of Progressive/Liberalism. Least of all our weak and unprotected. The flood waters are rising on our national identity as surely as they did in New Orleans. The time for talk is over. Grab a sandbag!

Why not just put together a party that reflects the majority view on every issue?  Then not only would we get everything Molly mentions, we’ll also get reasonable restrictions on abortion while protecting RvW, and we’ll have nativity scenes on public property.  Every public building will have to display the ten commandments, and we’ll have prayers at every graduation.

Of course, the real problem is that opinion polls don’t translate directly to election polls.  The opinion polls say that the number one priority for the nation should be protection from terrorist attacks…as long as that’s true, voters will elect people they believe will accomplish that priority regardless of where they stand on other issues.  They’ll make the decision based, not on evidence, but on emotional factors.  Who “seems” as though they would do the best job of protecting us from the terrorists?  Who looks tough and decisive?  Who seems most comfortable in her or his own skin? 

I’m not as cynical as I sound…I’m just trying to make the point that even though the opinion polls make it seem as though the majority should vote for Democrats, it’s been a while since they’ve actually done it.  People keep trying to make this into a simple choice, and it isn’t ever going to be simple.

I’m not sure what you Americans are waiting for, but you do need to get a handle on your politics. If you don’t fix it, you may not survive.

Think about it, the supposedly wealthiest and most advanced nation in the world cannot take care of its sick, cannot offer proper education, cannot respect international law, cannot even be good capitalists…let me rephrase that, its not that you Cannot, its that you WILL not.

The right to profit has so ingrained your leaders that everything that is sacred is thrown out the door. There is no honor or ethics, no fairness, no decency, there is only a sense of taking care of one’s own skin and to hell with the rest.

That is absolutely disgusting for a nation that was built by immigrants. Have you all forgotten who you are and where you came from. Stand up before its too late. Already the transfer of intellectual property to China has helped establish China. You don’t really think China will play by the US’s rules do you. The oil strategy is a mess. The push to democraticize the world is a gross farce and only leads to more pain. If you found something good in this new land, great, move on, make it better, let the rest of the world figure it out for itself.

Lest you think everyone should drink Coke and have a washing machine included with their right to vote, stay out of their politics.

18 guys and 3 planes brought you to your knees. The world was on your side, ask yourself, how did you allow one Man and his cronies to fool you into going to war against a country that had done nothing to you , yet, let the one who did escape.

Like I said, you may not survive the future if you can get conned so easily.

As for Hillary, don’t get conned again, she reminds me of Imelda. Where do people get the notion she can lead the US. Lieberman, forget it, wishy washy as a jellyfish.

You need an isolationist who will take care of business at home first before trying to change the world. Isolate yourselves, let the world clamor to come to you. If they meet your requirements allow them in, if not, let them go invent the wheel on their own terms. YaYa I know, hush isolationism, bad…..well here’s a tip, globalization ain’t working. And don’t forget, this is the reason our ancestors came here to the NEW WORLD….to be on their own, free and secure.

W. White,

1) You can check out the Washington’s post evaluation of the cattle futures brouhaha here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm

First, the “$1000” was not the initial investment,
it was to open the account. The rest of the
money was on margin, i.e. she was committed to pay
it whether she made money or lost, and there was
no question she was trusted to pay. Secondly you
don’t say anything about the day Hillary lost
$26,000 as the article tells. Third, the article
describes how many others made much more money
at that time - perhaps why it was attractive
to get in the cattle futures business then.
Fourth, with the $70 million spent investigating Whitewater, you can bet if there were some dirt
there there would have been another special
prosecutor provided to investigate. Could there
have been fraud? Perhaps, but it wasn’t quite
like Rick’s in Casablanca where you put all
your money on red, win twice and walk away from
the table. If it were, I can’t imagine giving
away the secret to the governor’s wife - there
are a lot of simpler ways to bribe someone
without giving away your golden goose.

As for national health coverage, she at least
tried. We’re probably lucky she failed - the
wisdom at the time was that HMO’s are great.
You can read a summary of her 1993 effort here.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page1.html

This makes it pretty obvious there was no
honeymoon. Certainly part of the blame can be
put on White House strategy. It’s not obvious
what strategy should have replaced it (though
having the President’s wife head the panel does
not encourage open unfettered opinion, no
specific fault to her). Secrecy
is bad for the public’s right to know, but too
much publicity can make it impossible to examine
any contentious detail without ending up on the
front page. Now to portray her as “ineffectual”
because her first effort at public policy was
way too huge is pretty silly - she’s certainly
learned a lot from mistakes made in 1993, and
is much more effective 13 years later.

Regarding “craven”, she didn’t “duck” the war
issue, she supported it - she thought Hussein
was dangerous enough to deal with. She didn’t
“duck” the anti-abortion issue - she’s said
we’re making a mistake by not providing real
alternatives to abortion and coming across
as the “pro-abortion” party. Regarding Alito,
Hillary’s not on the Judicial Committee, and
it would be real showmanship for a junior
Senator to one-up her colleagues in a high
profile hearing. (Not that getting Biden to
shut up wouldn’t have been useful).

Of course if you and everyone else here want
to nit-pick your way into irrelevance, I’ll
give you the address of the Vince Foster and
Ralph Nader web pages, and you can all go off
and think about how grand it would have been
if a truly pure person had won in 2000.

Rgds.

To Walt and other Democrats who are tempted to support Hillary: She would be a disaster for the country because:

(1) She is unethical. During Bill’s governorship of Arkansas, she gave $1000 to someone who had business pending before her husband. Then that fella turned around and gave her a $90,000 ‘profit’. Warren Buffet would be envious of this rate of return. You don’t think this history of hers, and others like it, will dog her as a national candidate?

(2) She is ineffectual. She single handedly set back national health coverage for decades by her ham-handed management of that issue, and wasting her husband’s electoral mandate and ‘honey moon’ period to boot.

(3) She is craven - in her ducking of the war issue, the Alito / anti-abortion issue, the rendition issue. Perhaps she was too busy promoting the ‘flag burning’ issue among red state voters to be bothered by what is mortally wounding America day by day.

Come to think of it, go ahead, nominate Hillary. That would just hasten the demise of the two-in-one party system of pseudo democracy. All Hail Hillary!

Hey Walt,

Perhaps my “lesson plan” wasn’t clear -
Hillary’s as close to a candidate as I
see - she has real life constituents,
she knows how to raise money and win
elections, she hasn’t already lost a
presidential election, she’s willing
to work on hopeless liberal issues
(like noting that abortion really isn’t
something we should all be proud and
overjoyed about, and that we really do
still need a Defense Department & army despite
all the outrage). She even manages to
work with Republicans and go to church and
seem to believe it. And for the most
part she keeps from saying stupid things
a la Howard Dean that draw attention away
from nasty Republican scandals and incompetence
and instead make people focus on what a
fruit loop Howard can be.

So Molly can be the liberal-in-the-desert
You Go Girl, for all those needing a reason to
feel good about sitting in the desert.

Public opinion is not so much what Hillary Clinton types fear.  They fear getting crossways with the establishment:  the corporate media, big campaign contributors, the Israel lobby, etc.
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Talk about an “echo chamber”

I guess I agree with Molly and every comment listed. We don’t have the candidates we want and we don’t have the party we want. You are all absolutely right. Feel better now?

Because to the thousands already dead in Iraq and the many thousands more that will have to die until Bush finds an “honorable way out”, this discussion is ... as it usually is with Liberals, pretty academic.

Same goes for the millions without health care and the millions more that will lose it until this country finds the stench of neglect unbearable ...

Same goes for all the inadequately educated children and the dismal futures they can look forward to ...

The women who will be getting abortions in one state and not in another ...

The elderly ... the thousands of incarcerated ... the victims of the next Katrina ... oh what’s the point ... the list goes on.

Everyone has listed all the names they won’t support but none of the names you will or can. So to those whose lives will be effected by what happens in 2006 and 2008 - what do have for them?

OK you’re all right. You don’t have what you want. But so many Americans do not have what they need.

But let me ask you this: Do you really believe all Republicans and all Conservatives are stupid? It’s a serious question, because sometimes liberals - oh sorry - “progressives” speak as if they do.

Do you think Republicans didn’t and don’t hold their noses everytime they vote for or support Bush? You think they don’t know what this guy
is about? They had a higher aim than a politician they could abide by.

They had a mission to change America and to revoke decades of social welfare and liberal (pro-people) policies. Guess what? They did it and not with politicians they necessarily liked, but with politicians that could win. And they didn’t let election ethics stand in their way.
 
Whether we like it or not this is the game in play. Gore looked good last week but last time he ran he looked weak and he can’t recapture the momentum he had. Kerry is an non issue, he just doesn’t know it.

So who is there? Obama? He’s not ready. He says so himself. Besides, he’d need a life insurance policy like Hillary as VP to keep the loonies from acting out their rage on him.

Until someone better comes along (and I’m looking. I’m looking)I will support Hillary. Yes she showed a tin ear on MLK Day but she did get through to those she intended. Yes she plays the field ideologically but I (along with millions of Americans) am sick to death of ideologues from the Left or the Right. Besides, you may be tired of triangulation tactics like hers, but who else is trying to win like she is?

The pundits, the elitists and those who can afford to, detest her because she isn’t what they want. But a majority of Americans (real people by the way) know and would support her. So she - right now - looks like she could win. Until someone better comes along, I won’t be afraid to support her, nor will I shy from the task. And if someone better does come along I’ll drop her in a heartbeat. Because it is all about winning.

Is winning everything? It depends on who you are winning for. For me, it’s winning for those who don’t have health care, cushy jobs that prevent them from even considering the military as a career, the poor, the immigrants, the elderly, women who will suffer under the repeal of Roe v Wade - you know, the weak, the unprotected, what is fast approaching the majority.

Not I suspect, people like you, Molly. You can lambaste the front runner all you want. That’s’ what spoiled elitists did in the last two elections. Nader. Moore. Sarandon. No candidate was good enough for them. But in the end, it didn’t matter because their incomes insulated them from all the dire consequences that their narcissism engendered upon the rest of us.

Elitists never really lose. Common people do.

So DO hold back Molly. Vote for some third party pre-defeated candidate. Vote with what you call your conscience but is really just your ego. Because my conscience tells me I have to stop what’s happening to America and that might just mean voting for Hillary. 

But none of you have to. No one will miss your votes anyhow.

Me Too!  I too have said no more of my pittance until changes are made.  We need a new Democratic National Committee.  Hillary cannot win; Kerry cannot win; Leiberman is a disaster.  How about Murtha; Reid; Pelosi, or whoever?  We need a Franklin and Eleanor.  We need someone who won’t concentrate on a failed strategy.  We need someone who gets a new bunch of advisors who are not afraid.

I am tired of never getting to vote for a candidate in the primary election.

Excellent article; I agree that Hillary will not win if she runs. Her most useful function is providing a continuing spume target for the Rwandan-style hatemongers who call themselves commentators… Rush (did you catch him today? He was in a fine froth, calling the author Osama Blum Laden (which showed up immediately on a KKK forum board hosted in Denmark, by the way), Hannity, O’Riley, and about a dozen people who regularly show up on MurdFOX.

My sense of justice is in favor of drafting Gore - it was his electino anyway and better late than never - but many people still feel that he betrayed them by not fighting hard enough. He’d have to really deal with that before going on. And frankly, having these Rovian jackals ripping at you doesn’t seem like a nice way to spend a campaign - or two terms, as Bill discovered.

That was great; totally how I feel.

In high school I had a lot of yuppie friends that were hard core dems that would have wet dreams about the Clintons; for a while I bought on with the “Ohh, we’ve got to unite for that 1%!”

And when we did, boom, the bible belt blew us out of the water… And the Dems (I went DEM to vote in the primary) shot down anybody worth a damn and put in Kerry.

No more for me; I’ll vote for a Dem that follows Dean, somebody with a back bone, that can look at congress and push for campaign reform (Who in their right mind doesn’t see anything wrong with making senators reimburse company paid First Class plane tickets, while not having the same standard on Private Jets?! etc.)

Anymore right, any further up the the money chain, and I’m voting Green.

I don’t care about gay marriage at this point, just give me some health care, lower my tuition, get the lobby boys out of congress, and get out of Iraq.

Maybe we need to appeal to the blue collar male need for “Manliness” by supporting domestic regime change, and using language that demands respect; how many other countries would’ve let the same things Fly as in 2000’s election?

WANTED: A Loyal Opposition.

Comment #6 by Pat, and just about everyone else’s, cry out for an alternative to the Democrats, who collectively have shown themselves to the neither a real opposition to Bush, nor loyal to the country. But, some will object, what about the Nader Dilemma?

Before everyone rush out to vote Green (or magenta, or pink) and hand another victory to Carl Rove, please consider first adopting the San Francisco solution for his or her district. There in the City by the Bay, over the strenuous opposition of the two hegemonic majority parties, the electorate recently adopted the instant runoff voting method.

Instant runoff gives a third (or a fourth, or a fifth) party a fighting chance to actually win a Congressional seat or two, and not just cast an impotent protest vote. Those wonderful folks in lovely San Francisco have shown us that it is both constitutional and doable.

Instant runoff should be our Project for a New Democracy.

I agree, a third party would be a welcome alternative, but there is no third party on the horizon and not likely to be one, either.
I was saddened to see only one mention was made so far of Michigan Congressman John Conyers (thanks Sissy). This man was instrumental in the impeachment of Richard Nixon, and now he has called for the censure and impeachment of the current King and Prince: “H.Res.635 creating a select committee to investigate and make recommendations on grounds for impeachment, H.Res.636 to censure Bush, and H.Res.637 to censure Cheney.” You’re going to hear little to nothing about these initiatives on the corporate evening news, folks, but this guy is really walking the talk with amazingly little popular support. I guess the problem is he’s not a showoff or a loudmouth—I think he actually feels he’s a public servant! If John Conyers was running for president in the next election, I could feel reason to be optimistic about America’s future once again.

Right on, Molly!!  The lack of Democratic leadership is appalling and embarrassing - and to this country’s detriment.  I will no longer financially support a party of lame, weak-hearted wimps!!  We’re about to be ushered into Marshal law, if we don’t fight back now, then when?  Biden, Lieberman, and yes, Hillary should be ashamed of their watery Democratic policies - feel free to go onto the other side! Stand up for our party or get out of the way!!

Thank you, Molly!  All along my friends and I have discussed the current political climate and its lack of strong (or any kind of) leadership.  If the people of this country are poll believers, then they should read the polls!  If they are not, then perhaps watching what is going on in Washington, i.e., the scandals, the lies, the war, the payments, the do-nothing congress (and I made it a small “c” on purpose!), and all of the other disgraceful things that are going on, will make believers of them.  They would understand that unless we produce a leader who is not afraid to speak the truth and then own that truth, we are in BIG trouble! I have come to believe that the people with moral integrity no longer inhabit Washington (did they ever?).  But some of them do sit around my dining room table!  It’s time for the American public to show some outrage at being lead around by the ignorant, the liars, the thieves!

RLEC

Yesterday I had a call from the Democratic Party asking for money.  I told them that I wanted to wait to see if anybody opposed Lieberman in a primary here in Connecticut and would give my money to him/her.  The canvasser said that we couldn’t wait until then to know who the party would support.  I said that it was clear that they would support Lieberman.  She said she would call back.

Molly, you are my hero.

Sigrid

Hooray for Molly Ivens! Thank you for saying this where so many people can read it and feel their own disenchantment with the Democratic Party isn’t unique.
And so many of the comments are great too. Perhaps the leadership for a new third party, which I can see being made up of disappointed Dems and betrayed Republicans both, can come from the lower, local tiers of party leadership. Mayors, aldermen, councilmen and women, and the local activists and businesspeople who support them can spearhead this movement.
Leadership, and revolution, do not come from the top down. They have always risen from below. The people at the top are always followers first and foremost, not leaders.

The problem is that the Republicans and Democrats are twins separated at birth. We don’t need the best of the sad lot that are the Dems. The real problem seems to be that none of us care enough to seek out the people who can represent us who do not have a personal/party agenda or are owned by the special interest groups.

Uh, Molly, remember the lesson about
“polls don’t vote”?

Yes, Mr. Dean was the brave voice in 2004.
And while at first I didn’t agree,
“unelectable” seems a fair description in
retrospect.

Yes, the Molly Democrats seem intent on
showing how true to themselves they are.
Lesson #2 - it’s easy to steer clear of
political dirt when you’re out of power.
Power corrupts and absence of power deludes.

Lesson #3 - sometimes to get down with the
pigs, you have to send a pig.

Go Molly GO!

Great Article!

But, my God that photo!

Yikes.

Barak Obama? YES!

A third party would be fine in a parlimentary system, but that’s
not the game we’re playing here. Bush & Co. are a real threat to the nation and the world, they’ve got to go… pull out the roots. The best Hilary can do is distract Hannity and O’Reilly and Limbaugh and other foamin-at-the-mouth rightwingnuts while someone with ideas and skills grafts a pair of gonads onto/into the center-left body politic.
And attention Dr. Dean… stat to the emergency ward… howzabout some party leadership & discipline? Seems to have worked quite well for the Republicans.

only someone simp enough to have counted on the pandering fraud sen. clinton for anything other than her invariable pandering could now claim disappointment. ms ivins makes the salient point; get a grip.

I can’t help but wonder, how many of those sited in the majority figures listed by Ms. Ivans actually vote? Apparently, not enough. I also wonder, as I submit this comment, what interest the present administration will have in my contributing this comment, because I Googled truthdig to get here.

ERRATA: Post #8 line 8, ‘Georgia’ should read ‘Arkansas’.

Amen, Molly. For me, Hillary’s final chance is the Senate vote on Alito. Despite the passionate comments of people posting here, the war question is by no means cut-and-dried, whether we should have gotten into it in the first place, or whether we should immediately pull out of Iraq now.

Howevever, the Alito vote decision is remarkably clear. Alito’s judicial record unequivocally shows what he stands for—unlimited executive power, the unquestioned might of corporations, government of the few rather than the many—despite his repeated insistence that he’ll adjudiciate “with an open mind.” (He hasn’t judged with an open mind for the last fifteen years, so why should he start now?)

If Hillary cares at all about what’s good for everyday Americans—rather than just cowering in the muddled middle and safely getting re-elected—she’ll vote against Alito. Only by doing so can she emphatically confirm that she cares about America, instead of only caring about re-election. If she votes for Alito’s confirmation, on the other hand, she will confirm once and for all that she’s only concerned about herself, and not the good of the American people.

I’m with Pat on this one. It really is time to find an alternative to the Democrats. I’m speaking as someone who argued vehemently against Nader’s candidacies in both 2000 and 2004.
  I’m only now emerging from my state of denial about how deeply the Democrats, AS A PARTY, are committed to status quo politics.

  To be sure, there are plenty of individual Democrats who desperately want and need an alternative to Clinton-style political marketing, but that party isn’t going to emerge deux ex machina from the party itself.

Those who say a strong, liberal third party candidate would only guarantee GOP victory in 2008 may well be correct. But I have come to believe that a GOP victory in 2008 is virtually assured anyway, since the Democrats are unwilling to offer a discernible enough alternative.

    Liberal Americans need to acknowledge that the right virtually owns the mainstream media on national security issues and that “culture wars” have given the GOP a lock on rural America and wide swaths of suburbia.

  Our political comeback is a long-term proposition. The idea that liberals are one favorable opinion poll away from winning back the White House is part of what got the party into trouble in the first place.

    The answer is real politics that is capable of promoting liberal principles. To my way of thinking, that means a third party.

MOLLY, I will not support her, either.  She is a huge disappointment, as is most of the Democratic Party—now I read they will have Tim Kaine follow up the shrub’s “Disarray of the Union.”  COME ON, ALREADY!  What are they thinking?  The question should probably be “Are they thinking?”.

Al Gore’s speech this week was downright firey.  I would so much like for him to run for the Senate this year.  However, I do not know if I could ever support him for president—I think I’m still harboring resentment that he didn’t fight the 2000 election theft.  He is desperately needed in the Senate if he would keep that fire burning; I saw a potential statesman there. 

Rep. John Conyers is the brightest star in the Democratic galaxy—long may he shine!  Several other Democrats did join him at yesterday’s Domestic Surveillance hearing—why the hell weren’t they all there?  I called the offices of the only Democratic representatives from my state to see if they were in attendance and was told they had “important” matters to attend to back here; there was NOTHING going on anywhere in this country yesterday more important than that hearing.  Don’t they get it?

I respect John Edwards, but he is too squishy on Iraq.  Being against that despicable war does NOT equate to wishing harm to the soldiers.  I believe there is a quote that goes something like “Patriotism is the last refuge of despots.”  (Sorry if this is misquoted; I am writing as fast as I can and cannot verify just now.) 

I would welcome a viable third party.  Give us an alternative, please.  As down and out as I am, angry, cynical and frustrated, I would gladly cast my vote (even though it probably would not be counted—see, I said cynical, didn’t I?).

I am as serious as I can possibly be.  Our country is going down the tubes fast, along with America’s great experiment in Democracy.  Sad.

Yeah, I can forgive Hillary for a lot of things but if she doesn’t have enough courage to take a principled stand on the war she’s no better than Bush. It has become obvious that she would do anything to get elected. Hell, pandering to the right on a flag burning issue is as obvious as a Texas Ranger and is harmless but it has become clear she would seriously compromise issues such as health care or any other progressive issue to position herself more to where she thinks will win an election. Her and Bill and the rest of the beltway scallywags have become tone deaf and are cravan.

Hooray for Molly.  I’ll vote for you.  You have been so right on ever since you called the Shrub for what he is.  I too am disheartened by the lack of Democratic leadership.  Keep telling it like it is.
Barbara Talento

Right on, Molly! The DLC-centric Dems she nails are only half the problem.

I’d go further—Reid and Pelosi must go, too. They’ve been “in charge” for two years and haven’t done squat, except whine and finger-point. Is anyone REALLY inspired by these long-time political hacks who have tangled special interest histories of their own?

Reid, beholden to gaming and mining interests, whose interview comments are clueless? (See last week’s “The News Hour” with an increasingly-exasparated Jim Lehrer). Pelosi, premier fund-raiser for the Burton/Brown machine in San Francisco, who blathers about a Republican “culture of corruption” despite Democrats having received 36% of the Abramoff money? (Read the Wash Post’s analysis).

Bill Maher said it best—the real reason Republicans oppose stem cell research is that it may help Dems regenerate a spine. Nothing else has.

Anyone want to start a good, people-oriented 3rd party? Count me IN!

Molly points out that opinion polls unequivocally show that a majority of Americans support the positions reflected by the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party. Why then does the Party’s Cynical Wing not adopt those positions? The answer is that they made the cynical calculation that they do not need to listen to the people; it is more important that they cater to the wishes of the big donors. Hillary, as a charter member of the Cynical Wing, has catered to the money for a long time now.

Recall it was she who, as the wife of the Governor of Georgia, gave $1000 to a man who had business pending before the Governor, to invest for her. He returned to her a $99,000 profit. That is right, an unbelievable nine thousand, nine hundred percent return on her investment in a short time. Hillary is damaged goods. At this critical juncture in history, America would be foolish to entrust its stewardship to someone of her character.

It’s my fear that voters will support ANYONE they perceive as POWERFUL. That’s not the candidate who displays power WITH people but who has real or perceived power OVER people.

It matters not whether the individual is actually a powerful leader… it matters only that he or she is PERCEIVED to be a powerful leader.

In order to ascend to a position of power a candidate must first get ELECTED. The public is so jaded and disillusioned that only a massive and skillfully produced campaign designed almost entirely for OPTICS and PERCEPTION will entice them to vote for that candidate. Just being an intelligent, honest, dedicated, hard-working “nice guy” won’t get anyone elected anymore. That’s my view.

I haven’t a clue how we go about regaining our honor now we’ve experienced this massive loss in trust in our leadership. America used to be known as a place where lived a people you could trust to do the right thing. Not any more. Americans are now FEARED and MISTRUSTED around the globe. And we have our politicians to thank for this disaster. I fear things will get a lot worse before some cataclysmic event (major war, disease, economic collapse) brings on the revolution our society so sorely needs.

Pessimistic? You bet. Cynical? Yup! Fed up completely? You got it. Frustrated? I can’t tell you how much. The cheats and thieves, con men, liars and bullies have taken over and they ain’t about to give up the reins without a fight.

A third party is needed immediately.  The DEM machine must be immediately shown that that our votes are not a “slam dunk”.  Although I voted against Bush in the last two presidential elections, I probably won’t vote democratic anymore.  Why should I vote for a DEM candidate that is 100% prostituted?  From now on, I’ll spend my precious time trying to find out how to start and support a third party that has courage and believes in the power and wisdom of speaking heartfelt truths as we know them.  I will not support evil, but I also will no longer support two-faced enablers of evil.  Where do we start? My bet is Austin may be as good a place as anywhere to start a third party.  Austin was home to Bush’s machine, and Texans have regretably lived first-hand with prep-boy losers born into wealth that expect to use world (Texas) as a platform for their incompetence.  These “entitled elitists” have no problem using big money to prop them up.  And they don’t care about anyone but themselves.  Later for DEMs and REPUBs that have forgotten the role of leadership is to improve conditions, not just get money from campaign donors.  Much later.  DEMs can come on over, or lose to the REPUBs.

Amen, Molly Ivins!  I’m sick of the group running the Democratic Party.  I have Republican friends who are saying “Give us someone to vote for, for God’s sake and we’ll vote for them!” 

I’ve tried emailing and writing to the Democratic group in Washington, but I don’t even get an answer! They’re acting like the other Republican friends, who when asked why they are still for Bush, pat me on the hand and say, “Now, now, this is a friendly dinner party.  We don’t want to upset anyone by talking politics!”

That’s even when I promise not to ask any more questions, but that basic one and won’t argue!  I just want to know.

That’s how I feel about the Dems in charge!  We have to start a grass roots revolution, but where do we start?

I’m sending this to everyone I can think of - especially for comment!

Yours in the faith (as my fallen away Catholic father used to say).

Nora Lehman
734 Via Lido Soud
Newport Beach CA 92663
949 675-0707

This is exactly how I feel!

Other than John Edwards, there are no Democrats.

You go girl! Hillary Clinton for president, NO! Lieberman, Biden, NO! Give us a leader. Someone who is willing to really lead the country. Give me Howard Dean or Harry Reid.

Excellent! But I fear Molly is preaching to the choir. Most of the folks reading her are already pre-disposed to her POV. I think we need to go to the next level… getting the message out to the red-state folks who don’t read Molly. I’m not sure what they read, probably the Bible, not much else. I mean, why read, when there are so many Cliff’s Notes to skim through?