Thanks for the post, Billmon. This is the important message for today. Even the most disappointed Deanie can try to replicate the movement at the local level to good effect. And that is more of a realistic start than the whole shebang.

I think your analysis is wrong on a couple of counts. First, it overstates how strong the Dean base ever was. It is one thing to have supporter, but just because they are supporter gleaned from the internet does not make them more potent or more special then regular, old fashion supporters. And the reports from the Iowa caucuses paint a very dismal picture of the technical ability of the Dean supporter to actually do politics. They seemed lost and way in over their heads when it came to persuading those who were not already supporters. One of the dangers of internet organzing is that you tend to reach, and preach to, the already converted.

The second point you get wrong is the likely damage of a vigorous and protracted nominating process. I think it is actually good that the Dems are having this battle: it gets their issues squarely before all voters where they look quite attractive and reasonable, they steal the oxygen from Bush by focusing on the Dems and they do not allow the Rove team to focus on a nominee with their all too predictable attacks. All in all, it is shaping up quite well from whomever emerges as the nominee and that nominee will be infinitely stronger for having gone through this process.

Come on, love your site, but it sounds like the good voters of Iowa just decided that Dean wasn't the best candidate to beat Bush. It is just as likely that a lengthy contest between these four knowlegdeable and good candidates will show the American people what a president should look like. I'd be happy with Dean, but I want to see how he comes back from this. If he can manage to rally like Clinton he is a worthy candidate, if he doesn't then he is incapable of beating Bush in any case. You should be happy he is getting a trial by fire.

Sigh. It's starting already, huh? Look, Democratic primaries are not about your feelings, and the GOP runs the Universe right now because of exactly this level of garbage. I'm sorry, Billmon, I have always respected your work and insight, but this is too much.

If it wasn't for the current President, all this hand wringing from my fellow liberals would be mildly amusing, but as it is, this just scares the crap out of me. Look, I'm sorry Dean didn't win, but in the grand scheme of things, he is just one candidate out of many; ANY of whom is a distinct improvement. And let me stress this: ANY of the 4 remaining viable candidates (Clark, Dean, Edwards, Kerry) is an improvement -- and to watch so many progressive weblogs instantly turn on the liberal-absolutist-suicide machine is ridiculous. Fall in love with a candidate, fall in line with the nominee.

You know what the truth of the matter is? Dean was not going to fix all of our problems and bring forth a paradise of Heaven on Earth repleat with a choir of angels and dewy sunlight pouring over the endless fields of ambrosia and groves of whatever would look most picturesque. Wasn't going to happen. If elected, his job is to reverse specific policy decisions implemented by the current administration and their supporters in Congress... that's it. That's all any of us want him for. Clark, Edwards or Kerry can do exactly the same if they win.

And as for Dean's much-hyped list of first time or disenfranchised voters brought back into the fold by the power of Dean's blah blah blah: if that's for real, then he'll still win the nomination; if he doesn't get nominated, then the ace in the hole which he supposedly brought to the table was manifestly not all that big a deal anyway, and I guess we just have to plough ahead anyway minus the fairy magic, like we always do.

Did you think this was going to be easy? Corporate multi-millionaires and possibly-rigged voting machines; a lazy (or worse) corporate media machine; $300 million in ready hard-cash; right-wing sociopaths who have by this point cocooned themselves entirely in the flag even while using the rolled-up constitution to light their cigarettes; a puppet punditocracy that not only lies with impunity but frequently succeeds in blaming their opponents for the very things their allies are signing into law; and a nakedly political Administration willing to do literally anything to win a second term vs. the incoherent and often self-immolating mass that loosely refers itself the Democratic Party?

This is what you are looking at for the next 10 months, and you're talking about Canada after a MINOR SETBACK FOR ONE CANDIDATE?! WHAT THE HELL?

Everyone needs to pull their weight here if we're going to stop George W. Bush. This *can* be done, billmon (and anyone else who is crying into their Gerber's over Iowa right now and putting on their joggng panties for a run to the northern border), but it WILL NOT HAPPEN if we start playing chicken-little over everything that doesnt conform to whatever fantasy nomination we've individually constructed -- and as an aside, my personal fantasy has Darth Vader choking Karl Rove with his groovy darkside choke power on January 20th while the ghost of Freddie Mercury sings "We are the Champions" and some Democratic outsider candidate (e.g. myself) is sworn into office.

Okay, I totally lost my train of thought there. My point is: no whining... ever. The goal of this ENTIRE EXERCISE is summarized below:

HISTORY OF THE U.S. PRESIDENCY

George Walker Bush (January 20th, 2000 - January 20th 2005): Often calld "Shrub" by his opponents, this best-forgotten presidency was...

I think you give way too much weight to the media Billmon. All politics is local and Iowans who caucus take it very seriously. The Des Moines Register endorsement of Edwards gave him a second chance but that's about it. Dean's people are spinning the loss as murder suicide by Gephardt. But Gephardt lost more by importing Jimmy Hoffa to bellow at his supporters "we're gonna kick their asses" during the caucuses. Dean went back to the attack against his opponents when most of them (except for Gephardt) went back over the weekend to attacking Bush. I think Dean seriously hurt himself with the rant last night. Kerry is as tonedeaf and stilted a campaigner as Gore. He's got the Massachusetts mafia of campaign workers behind him especially this guy Whouley which is huge. Edwards is rumored to be picking up Gephardt's whole staff. I think he's the best bet. Went from 5% to 32% in two weeks with little organization. He's a better campaigner than Clinton (which says a lot). He has well nuanced positions that even most Repubs can't argue with. They are politically doable even with a Repub congress and solve problems without selling the farm. If Bush tries to paint him as a ambulance chaser Edwards will eat him up on medical liability insurance. Hell get endorsements from Erin Brockovich, Julia Roberts and John Grisham. All he needs to do is show he has foreign policy chops and he can win this thing easy.

We all need to remember that Iowa is about as representative of the country's thinking -- and the Democratic electorate's leanings -- as Fox News Channel is to mainstream thought.

That's not intended to be a left-handed swipe but the truth is, this is just one battle. Clark and Lieberman didn't even participate in Iowa, and they are arguably still vital candidates who will show up large in NH.

The main issue is getting rid of Bush, given the belief that electronic voting machines will actually accurately record the count despite a complete lack of paper trail in this election.

I'm no huge fan of any of the candidates -- frankly, i think there are problems with all of them -- but Kerry is just a wooden-puppet moron who might be "smart" but is actually just an old-fashioned sellout.

I'm neither huge on Dean, but when they guy began his campaign by saying "i'm sick of hearing from fundamentalist preachers -- i want my country back," he got my attention.

I agree with Ted Rall that whoever wins has to be a serious ass-kicker. Kerry isn't. Edwards isn't. Lieberman would throw the fight. Clark is clearly a fighter but it's unclear if he can get his shit together in time to disassemble the Unelected Fraud.

Dean has proven he's a fighter, but i'm not sure he can continue given the media's overarching goal of destroying him sooner rather than later.

For all your usual perspicacity, you talk of Dean as if he's Kucinich. Gads, the man is significantly to the right of Kerry on every issue except the war (and even there, his triangulating hawkishness gives anti-war people no reason to vote for him). Yes, tis lonely being a progressive, but Dean's defeat in Iowa has much more to do with his personal style than his policies. I personally think a lot of Iowans were pissed that Harkin endorsed him, because it spoke of currying favor rather than standing on principle, as ever the achilles heel of the Democrats.

I agree with (and posited a few days ago) dmh's second point.

A long primary is GOOD for the Democrats. One of the big problems tyhe Democrats havehad over the past three years is that they couldn't get anyone to pay attention to their message. No matter how loudly they shouted, they were drowned out by Bush and events.

Now, with a hotly contested primary, with essentially no frontrunner, the press and the country will have something that hasn't existed for a long time: An exciting and contested presidential priimary.

The last one we truly had on the Democratic side wa in 1992, when the same whining and complaining about fratricide was exclaimed. Turned out that Bill Clinton did fairly well, if I recall.

I think that this will give the Democrats a way to compete with George W. Bush, and dominate the news for sevveral more weeks. You can exepvct to see relentless Bush bashing among the top contenders, and less blood-letting because Democratic voters are not rewarding negative campaigning in house.

Why do you think Rove and Co. scheduled the SOTU speech fpr the day after the Iowa Caucuses?

This is GOOd for the party. Our nominee will emerged battle-tested, and with a shrply honed message.

My only concern is money. We need to find a way to give our nominee as much funds as possible to fend off the attacks from the Bush campaign.

I agree with (and posited a few days ago) dmh's second point.

A long primary is GOOD for the Democrats. One of the big problems tyhe Democrats havehad over the past three years is that they couldn't get anyone to pay attention to their message. No matter how loudly they shouted, they were drowned out by Bush and events.

Now, with a hotly contested primary, with essentially no frontrunner, the press and the country will have something that hasn't existed for a long time: An exciting and contested presidential priimary.

The last one we truly had on the Democratic side wa in 1992, when the same whining and complaining about fratricide was exclaimed. Turned out that Bill Clinton did fairly well, if I recall.

I think that this will give the Democrats a way to compete with George W. Bush, and dominate the news for sevveral more weeks. You can exepvct to see relentless Bush bashing among the top contenders, and less blood-letting because Democratic voters are not rewarding negative campaigning in house.

Why do you think Rove and Co. scheduled the SOTU speech fpr the day after the Iowa Caucuses?

This is GOOd for the party. Our nominee will emerged battle-tested, and with a shrply honed message.

My only concern is money. We need to find a way to give our nominee as much funds as possible to fend off the attacks from the Bush campaign.

great comments all...
and besides, Canada is just to damn cold.

"By keeping the primary race alive, and potentially extending it into March, the good Democratic citizens of Iowa have handed the Bush campaign a prize of great worth, in the form of further weeks of fratricidal campaigning. All Karl Rove has to do is sit back and take notes."

I actually like this situation. The psychodrama with four solid candidates is hogging all the media oxygen, and the multiple targets make life difficult for Rove and media assassins. The longer the show goes on, the prolonged raw exposure is going to lead independents to look at one of these quality candidates.

I agree with most of the commentors here that you are overreacting.

Let's keep in mind something: these were caucases, not elections. Culturally the participants are encouraged to keep an open mind prior to entering the caucas. They attend, and listen. They consider issues and policies, not just who looks good on TV or what the latest media spin is. In the end, they vote, often for someone different than they favored before coming in.

Dean became the frontrunner in past weeks because he was the only viable candidate who firmly opposed Bush, using language that appealed to Democrats frustrated at their own party leaders acquiesence. But, as the caucus time approached and Iowans began to study the issues they realized that Dean's appeal began and ended there. His policies and Vermont track record are not as attractive as others in the Democratic field, especially Kerry and Edwards.

I agree that a hotly contested primary is good for the party. People will tune in for once and listen to what Democrats are saying. There will be real drama. There will be pathos. There will be Democrats standing on a stage shaking their fist in triumph. People will get used to the notion that this country could be run by a Democrat again. Ordinary people watching the local news will actually see our candidates and hear what they have to say.

The longer this goes on, the more free publicity we will get. Rove will also have to sit on the sidelines longer, because as soon as we pick a candidate, the long knives will come out. Best to put that off for as long as possible.

Edwards is expected to win South Carolina -- it's what comes after that that's relevant to his campaign. South Carolina is a gimme for him.

The media just don’t want any outsider in the WH but it ain’t over til the fat one sings.

There are more and more articles appearing questioning the wisdom of Iraq:

Straight talk on Iraq

The American prospect has an interesting story on the likelihood of a trial for Saddam:

Rumsfeld's worst nightmare

Interesting story about occupied Amara

A wee bit of corruption

Also Rueters has some live footage today on Iraq and of a tank being hit by a missile somewhere near the Lebanon border and also an Israeli bulldozer operating in Gaza. A little different coverage of what’s going on than CNN.

A different look

Maybe Iowans just wanted a war hero image to go up against Bush because they thought that would be the only possible way to beat him. If true it underscores the true apathy towards Bush.

Excellent post, BillMon.

As an active supporter of Howard Dean, I'm undeterred. Disappointed yes. The message Dean brings of defining what it is to be Americans, to act in community, and to stand for something in the Democratic Party are things that do not need retooling.

A new strategy for dealing with the SCLM is needed though. The old adage, "it's not what you say but how you say it" seems right.

I do wonder though, are the American people ready for this message yet, no matter how it's rendered?

Howard Dean was on the correct side regarding the war (the other candidates can parse that all they want but they showed poor judgement and finger-to-the-wind thinking). He was on the correct side regarding the tax cuts and wanting them all repealed (the others showed the kind of compromising that turns off the liberal base of the Democratic Party).

Let's see what happens in New Hampshire. I may be through with the Democratic Party if Dean doesn't get the nomination. It may be that a 3rd Party built slowly is a better place for my wife and I to put our efforts in the end.

Thanks for your thoughts. We will fight on.

Regards,

Patrick Briggs,
Pasadena, CA

Kerry, in particular, can expect the full Al Gore treatment.

Whether an extended primary contest turns out to be good or bad for the Democrats, I think Billmon's dead on about the media psychology in play here. An analysis article (so-called) in today's Times is especially interesting: for now, Kerry (as the reigning anti-Dean) gets to be "presidential," but turnabout is just waiting in the wings:

In [Kerry's] final weeks of frantic campaigning ... he managed to change the subject from perceived doubts about his own personality—often caricatured as cold and uncomfortable—and his will to win into questions about whether Dr. Dean's temperament was too hot to make him electable. At his post-caucus rally Monday night, Dr. Dean looked more like Howard Beale, the angry anchor in "Network," than "Marcus Welby, M.D.," while Mr. Kerry was every inch the veteran senator he is.

Great comments! I also think this is good, generating more interest and media attention, and enabling the candidates to hone their message. Hopefully, they've learned a lesson not to go too negative, which seems to have hurt both Dean and Gephardt. Although I have been a supporter of and volunteer for Dean, because at first he was the only one who opposed the Iraq war and as Jim in LA said, when Dean said "i'm sick of hearing from fundamentalist preachers -- i want my country back," I said to myself "finally, somebody is speaking for me," and his method of organizing and fundraising provides a way to fight the right wing and corporate interests, gradually, I came to the conclusion he's not the best candidate to beat Bush and was grateful for yesterday's results. Clark or Edwards are our best chance. Kerry is Gore redux.

"Most days, moving to Canada seems like the more realistic alternative."

Sorry to burst any bubbles, but let me put it like that: If you guys don't stand and fight for Gondor (FDR's USA) where you are, you will not find lasting freedom in the Shire (Canada)
Don't anyone kid themselves, I see not much hope for Canada's traditional warm and humane culture surviving 16 years of corporate and media US right wing onslaught.

Canada is not the country of the supernatural Super-Hobbits, that miraculously can defend the world against the Trolls, Orks and Mordor itself along it's border!

Other than adding this sense of even greater urgency (If that was possible!) to your fine essay, Billmon, you wrote just the finest assessment of reality. Amen and hallelujah that! Eyes on the price for the long haul!

JohnB: and besides, Canada is just to damn cold.

Montreal, QC is not much colder than Burlington, VT, 100 miles south ;-)

"Let's see what happens in New Hampshire. I may be through with the Democratic Party if Dean doesn't get the nomination. It may be that a 3rd Party built slowly is a better place for my wife and I to put our efforts in the end.

"

*golf clap*

You know, there are people who are really suffering in this country. Even if they don't realize it, getting Dubya out of the WH is important for their future... and here come the liberals earning their reputation in the face of all of this. It is exactly this kind of nonsense that lead to the current sad-ass state of American leftism... "I will pick up my toys and go home unless I get exactly what I want." Ivory tower "I'm just playing with politics because it's the only forum where I get to be holier than thou" bullshit unconcerned elitism.

This is for real here, sir. Dubya is a bad, bad man. You can either swallow your pride and pony up for the nominee, or shut up about the sorry state of our country and the American left. There will NOT BE a viable left-wing party until *AFTER* there is a viable, non-GOP, conservative party. THAT is the requirement for getting enough wide-open space to form a truly left-wing party.

You want that day to come? Vote Democrat. Vote it all the time and make your friends and family vote it. FRUSTRATE the GOP until they are forced to move to the center to garner votes. This will cause the Far Right to contemplate splitting off if they want their agenda met. Should THAT ever happen, then there will be enough headroom for liberals to form a new party without wirrying about America turning into.... exactly what it is turning into right now thanks to Nader and his Idiot Patrol.

What Chad just said.

Taking your ball and going home because your guy didn't win is the worst attitude possible. Politics is never about being happy 100% of the time. Face it-- even Dean wasn't going to change the culture that much, for all his talk. He's a moderate who's trying to excite the base. That's his strategy. He's no wild-eyed lefty.

Bottom line:
"Don't be an asshole. Vote Democratic".

An extended primary could be good for Democrats (and the country, and the world) if it gets a few % of the electorate to keep thinking about Bush's policies instead of accepting them uncritically.
The prevailing Republican election strategy seems to be "you can fool some of the people all of the time." (They squandered the "all of the people" part with their post-9-11 foreign policy). How many is "some"? A lot of Bush's support is soft and based on fictional constructions of Bush administration policies. A few % of those voters could make the difference.

Let's see what happens in New Hampshire. I may be through with the Democratic Party if Dean doesn't get the nomination. It may be that a 3rd Party built slowly is a better place for my wife and I to put our efforts in the end.

You're not going to be successful with a 3rd party until we have instant run-off voting or a similar system. Until then, you're just splitting the progressive vote and allowing the regressives to control everything. Is that really what you want?

As an avid reader of your blog, I'm somewhat surprised by your post-Iowa analysis. For months, you've been insinuating (oftentimes more explicitly than not) that Dean is unelectable and we would face a McGovern/Mondale debacle if he were the nominee. Now, you're insinuating that Dean is the savior for the Democrats and the left, and that his failure to win Iowa is a potentially fatal injury to the progressive cause (never mind that, in the grand scheme of things, Iowa just ain't that important). What gives?

I’m going to have to give it up. First the Terminator and now Kerry, death warmed over. Paul Tsongas looked healthier than Kerry. And, I can’t blame Diebold for Iowa. Just rationale normal Mid-Westerners getting out in the middle of winter.

My problem, I was radicalized by getting to relive Vietnam all over again. The Pundits and the Media have yet to admit the Bush II Administration is composed of incompetent evangelistic ideologues. Rather, they attack the Democratic front runner which is great for their owners and ratings.

The Media Attack Dogs will be after Kerry next. What disease of the week does Kerry really have?

You know what? While I still have a head of righteous fury at the ridiculous indignation I'm seeing from the Dean camp, I want to say one more pissy thing:

The day of the general election, I will be in some swing state with a van rented at my own expense ferrying poor and elderly democrats to polls (assuming that's legal, wich I think it is). I will be doing this if my man (Edwards) wins. And I will be doing that if Dean wins. Or Clark. Or Kerry... or even that lunatic Kucinich. Why? Because I kick ass, that's why. If any of you out there kick ass, then ferrying people to the polls is what YOU will be doing, too. Or holding signs, or making calls, or licking stamps, or wiping the ASSES OF PEOPLE WHO REQUIRE THAT THEIR ASSES BE WIPED BEFORE THEY VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

If one of the abovementioned tasks is not SECOND ON YOUR TODO LIST FOR THAT DAY (right after VOTING (D) YOURSELF) then you have no right to claim liberalism or leftism or whatever else, and you should pipe down and let your betters discuss big-kid matters of true import.

The reason we ar ein this mess today is because "liberals," and finger quotes are required when saying that word aloud, couldn't get off their stupid Noam Chomsky Edition gold plated pussy shaped soap boxes long enough to pulltheir heads from their asses so they could remove their fingers from their ears so they could see what a total nightmare a Bush presidency would be.

AND LOOK HOW WELL THAT TURNED OUT.

I've been thinking a lot about Goldwater and 1964 lately too. I don't feel that I have ever participated in a presidential election where a liberal was running. The most we got was Carter and Clinton trying to play rear guard. I don't blame them for this - that was what was possible at the time. The congress, whatever the nominal parties of the members, has been conservative as long as I've been voting. Will there come a time when I am proud of my party and happy to vote for the nominee? I'd like to think so.

I have some yearnings to move to Canada also. I feel like I have innocent blood on my hands because of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Yeah, I marched and wrote letters, but it was still done by my country and hence in my name. If this country can't be brought back to something like sanity, I'm not sure I can feel good about living here.

ummm "fingers from their ears" should be "blinders from their eyes." I cannot be expected to be both smart and indignant at one and the same time.

Um, billmon, the corporate media IS one of the major enemies democracy today.

God, I cannot imagine a phony like Kerry beating Bush. He'll be eaten alive. Clark is not a good campaigner, so that leaves Edwards or Dean.

Hi,
I wam always very impressed by your commentary - you are obviously a most intelligent person.
However, that being said I am a bit dissapointed with your analysis of the Democratic party and the results out of Iowa.
The world does not begin and stop with Dean. How about Clark. Global terrorism is the threat of our generation now. This is the man who has the creditials to fight it with international backing. Further his domestic policies are good and sound. The White House needs INTEGRITY at this moment and I truly believe that certain leaders come to power at important times in history. Clark can overcome.
Thanks for listening.
Kylie

One reason to be optimistic: Kerry did as well as he did in part because older, more conservative, voters showed up at the Iowa caucus (see MSNBC's exit poll). This has to be bad news for Bush and good news for us, because it indicates that dissatisfaction with him is reaching into moderates and non-ideological conservatives.

"...thanks to Nader and his Idiot Patrol...stupid Noam Chomsky..." Why, I'm won over!

I think that the way the Iowa caucus results are reported somewhat distorts the candidates relative support. In the caucus I attended there were 51 people. The initial vote was Edwards 18, Kerry 15, Dean 10, Gephardt 6, and Kucinich 2. Gephardt and Kucinich were out because thay didn't make the 15% cut. The Gephardt people went to Edwards and the Kucinich people split between Dean and Edwards. At that point, Dean didn't have enough people to get one of the three delegates, so the horse-trading started. The Edwards people promised the Dean people one delegate if enough of them came over to Edwards to give him two delegates and that's what happened. The final result reported to Des Moines was Kerry 1 delegate and Edwards 2 delegates, so Dean would seem to have received no support. In fact, he had 20% of the initial vote and ended up with one of his supporters going to the county convention in March.

I must have missed the link to the unbalanced, quitter piece. The one I read showed typical billmon balance - and the wisdom of the "eye on the prize" approach.

I do think jumping to the conclusion that a third party run by either Kuchinich or Dean is more than a little bit extreme. Its also so unlikely as to be impossible; the whole reason for Kuchinich's campaign in the first place is to KEEP progressives and lefties in the D tent. Dean's not to the left of anyone who might be running save Lieberman to put up a third-party end around for progressives.

Nader is a different subject. And he's not a Dem (or a Green). I actually don't think he'll run either, but he can gain a lot by talking about running, something the other two can't; which is why he should keep doing that.

Agree with consensus here that long Dem primary is great news for Dems: months of free exposure showing how even the least of our candidates is head and shoulders above Bush, both in character and real world experience.

I believe we will continue to see falling Bush poll numbers as Dem primary heats up.

I think that the way the Iowa caucus results are reported somewhat distorts the candidates relative support.

It doesn't matter. Expectations and perceptions are what matters. You can talk yourself blue trying to explain to the average voter why Dean's loss wasn't really as bad as it appeared, and after everything you say, the response will be, "so then who won?" or "so then what percent did Dean really get?"

For most people, caucuses are hopelessly arcane and mysterious. They prefer to read election stories that read like sports stories - X won the pennant, Y finished in second, and Z came in third.

HangingChad wrote:

"...thanks to Nader and his Idiot Patrol...stupid Noam Chomsky..." Why, I'm won over!

I don't actually want anyone "won over," or I would have refrained from using terms like "stupid" and "idiot." Supposedly we're all anti-Bush here on billmon.org so it seems like a waste of time to attempt to drag people into the anti-Bush camp. My work in that regard is already done, and by people much smarter than me.

No, I am actually "calling people names," so a more appropriate retort would have been "... Why, you're calling people names!"

The reason I am not bothering to pursuade people of the superior alternative to evacuating the Democratic Party when their stated ideals compel them otherwise is because their stated ideals compel them otherwise. Pretty intense logic there, huh. Since they are, after exactly one unbelievably minor speed bump now contemplating moving to Canada or forming Yet Another Third Party or just whining, I used my deductive powers to deduce that crapping on them was, at this point, wholly justified.

When someone honestly disagrees with you about an important and urgent subject, it behooves you to use persuasion, charm, candor, intellect, wit, empathy and reason in an attempt to bring them around to your opinion.

When, however, someone stamps their foot whines because they dont get to win the game for being special, they deserve only to be castigated wildly.

And seriously, the "wiping the asses of people who require that their asses be wiped before they vote [democrat]" thing was at least a little funny, wasn't it?

Thank you! I really needed your wise words today.
Sandra

It might be that joining in the long slow work to create a viable 3rd party might be more legitimate than voting for people who couldn't show proper judgement with their votes on the War, Taxes and the Patriot Act.

Edwards, Kerry and Gephardt failed on very important battles. Dean alone of the viable candidates stood up for Democratic Party values.

If we're extremely disappointed, cut us a little slack. We are doing the great work of shuttling people to polls and knocking on doors and flyering in farmers markets and donating our money for what we believe. Nearly 600,000 of us.

We can settle for a typical finger-to-the-wind poll testing candidate that compromises their principles or we can consider other choices.

The best a non-Dean nominee will hope to have from people like me is my vote...but I'll hold my nose and I won't work for him. Exactly the opposite kind of voting our Democratic nominee should hope for....and why Dean is still the right guy.

It's insulting and wrong to call us Ivory Tower, gold plated types. My wife and I are middle class, active in our spiritual community, believe and act on our social justice principles and have worked very hard for Howard Dean. "Don't judge what you have not lived yourself" I say to those who would label us thusly.

I still say BillMon has it right. 100%. I'm still working for Howard Dean and will be in Arizona end of this month to back it up.

Regards,

Patrick Briggs

Great discussion - thanks. I don't trust Clark - a slimy Repub in convenient Dem clothing. Have you seen the footage of his fawning speeches to the RNC and at a Repub fundraiser from a couple of years ago? And the guy is a total stiff. Kerry has only slightly more charisma, but at least he has a history as a Dem, albeit a conservative. Can Dean do it? I truly hope so, but his speech last night makes me wonder. No matter what, I'll wipe ass if that's what it takes - no matter who's left standing in a month or two. BTW, was anyone else more than a little disgusted by the media harping on Mrs. Dean's absence as a proximate cause of his defeat in Iowa....or was that just Chris Matthews? That's what you get for watching TV....

I... don't know what to say...

I'm very disappointed about the Dean results, VERY, but I like Kerry and Edwards too... I loathe the media (Private Eye used to call them the reptiles) but I can't say I'm surprised... I'm happy about the ABB feelings in the air, but I also fear the Dark Empire (to quote John Stewart) will ultimately prevail...

Hell, I've got no children and a place in the South of France... If the fascists win I know where to go and as an added bonus maybe I can find where Richard Perle lives and, well, er...

I gave money to Dean this summer because he was doing something no one else was: talking about charging the Bush machine head-on. He was angry--I was angry. He acted as if he was not goingto be intimidated, and that gave me hope. The others, hell, they sounded like they were running to replace Cheney on the Republican ticket. (To my ears, Lieberman still does.) More precisely, they sounded as if they are running to take back the presidency, rather than vying for a gold watch and other fabulous consolation gifts. Nomination as capstone, something to mention in the obituary.

Now, the four remaining viable candidates--Dean, Kerry, Edwards and Clark--are running to take back the presidency. To me, my money has been well spent. I can live with any one of these four (though I worry about the staying power of Kerry on the campaign trail--God, his victory speech last night was like two Valiums with a vodka chaser). Any one of them would leave the country in better shape than when they found it.

Not that I am immune to the call of the third party. I voted for #@)*& last time (though in an non-competitive state) and would love to see a day when I could actually elect people who thought and talked and acted like I do, rather than having to choose between the least slimy of two slugs.

But that year ain't 2004. And my people have been here too long and risked too much to give up without a fight.

I think many Dems actually like Dean, but consider him weak in a general election against Bush. That is the camp I fall into.

Don't write Dean off just yet. NH may be interesting because Clark and Kerry are going after the same slice of pie (Dems who like the idea of a vet taking W's foreign policy thunder). The cat fighting between those two could give NH to Dean or Edwards.

I like Edwards, but he is (or was) aiming for VP. He reminds me more of Clinton then anyone else, even if Clark is Billy C's guy. Dean was third, but as front runner he did receive the most negative press.

I find the Internet crossover of Dean and McCain interesting. I think there is room in the middle there for a third party. They could call themselves the Radical Moderates.

Don't stick a fork in the progressives just yet Billmon, this can still be our year.

Geez people are making too much of the overhyped Iowa expectations. Landslide, schmandslide. If you had told me last year at this time that Dean would have taken third in Iowa, was leading in NH, was 1st or 2nd in most other states, that Dick Gephardt had called it quits, and that Dean has almost as much money in the bank than the rest of the field combined, I would have said that Dean is doing GREAT.

To lose the season opener does not mean you can't win the pennant. If Dean HAD won, well, the season might have come to a close prematurely, but since he didn't we are now looking at the long haul of a true primary season.

This is a different year folks. For the first time I can remember, the large state in which I vote MAY ACTUALLY HAVE A SAY in selecting the nominee. I'm really excited!

So what if Iowans decide they're not ready to annoint the progressive. This year, there will be plenty of other states that might. The longer this goes the better, because the opportunity to finally have a say will really help energize the progressive grass roots strength ALL over the country.

Indeed the Iowans, in their wisdom, may have done progressives a favor by lengthening the process. Dean will stay in to the bitter end. If he wins what is going to be a real slugfest, he will have that many more energized volunteers. If he loses, he will have that many more energized volunteers. It's that simple.

It's a five horse race after the first turn. Gephardt broke and Dean, after jumping out on the rail, has shuffled back. But this race is going to be a long one, and Dean will certainly show endurance over distance. We'll just have to see who has the best kick down the stretch.

And my money's still on the dark horse.

well, if we are going to make a progressive coalition for the long haul a la the conservatives 1964 there are a few things to consider:

1. ultra lefties like myself will have to sometimes settle.
2 moderates (and this is never discussed) will have to reach out to progressives and do a little compromising of thier own. the right wouldnt be anywhere today without the christian coalition.
3. dont sell out key principles. compromise is one thing, but selling out has taken the republicans from the small government party of racists and libertarians to the monolith of facism and total controll it is today. as we grow, we should be wary.

Geez....one little setback and you Deaniacs are screaming like scalded cats.

I've been a Democrat since long before I could vote. I remember wearing the peanut buttons for Carter back when I was in 7th grade. I have to agree completely with Chad. I'll be out working hard for whoever gets the nomination come election day despite the apparent futility of it here in Bush's home district in Texas. There are local races too.

I would think that most of you are smarter than to be jacking off about X-position on the war or Y-position on taxes. Or even Z-position on health care. Fact of the matter is that no matter which Democrat wins, he will face a hostile Republican Congress. Maybe the Democrats get lucky and take the Senate but there's still the House. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that any Democratic president will get any tax plan through the next Congress, much less a complete repeal of all Bush's tax cuts. The best that we can hope for is that someone is there with a veto pen the next time they try to make any of that nonsense permanent.

As for the war. Does anyone seriously believe that ANY of the Democratic candidates, even Lieberman would have gone to war in Iraq had they been president? I don't for a moment think that to be true. The Democrats played a strategic game and lost in 2002. Dean and Clark got off easy because they didn't face a vote.

Oh, and this crap about a long Democratic primary process giving amunition to the Republicans? Sheesh. You guys really don't think the Republicans are capable of coming up with this stuff on their own? They are the pros at it. I'm willing to bet that not one negative smear came out of Iowa that Rove et al., were not already aware of.

I for one am happy that the Iowans mixed things up a bit. Now we all get to take a 2nd look at all the candidates instead of annointing Dean the candidate before a single vote is cast. Perhaps some of the other primaries might actually mean something.

I'll give Billmon this -- he's entirely right about Kerry and the media. If you haven't already, everyone needs to read Franken's book, and give it to an undecided friend.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I truly respect everyone's opinion viz their pet candidate. But as I have said before: this isn't about your feelings. The list of Dubya's "accomplishments" reads like the prologue to apocalypse, however, and that is vastly more important. So important, that no liberal should stomach any other liberal threatening to do anything less than 100% NO MATTER WHO WINS.

I don't object to the Dean fetishism that is so pervasive on the left right now, I'm glad for it. It's good to see more liberals getting into the fight. But if you're here, you either stay until the fight is over in November, or back out now so we know what our numbers are. IF you choose to stay, you fight with your voice, wallet, and time for whoever the Democrats, in their wisdom, choose. You do it expecting THEM to do it if Dean wins. That is the only honorable choice, and ANYONE who fails to do this will share in the responsibility if Dubya is still in the White House come January 20th next year.

This President has been a catastrophe for the Left. An unmitigated abomination. Do you REALLY think taking what you consider to be a principled Dean or Nothing stand is more important than 2-3 seats on the Supreme Court, a possible Ammendment banning gay marriage, the continued castration of the middle class, the dearth of funding to public schools (threatening to create a permanent under-educated class out of the nations poor), a unilateral policy of PRE-EMPTION for God's sake, mandatory minimum's, Total Information Awareness, Patriot and Patriot II (and, god forbid, Patriot's III through VII), "Faith based initiatives" replacing state funded programs for the homeless, abused women, at-risk children... I mean, I could go on from here for dozens of more lines without opening another web browser! WHO CARES IF IT ISN'T DEAN? LIEBERMAN is a better choice. For whatever it's worth, I could name 2 dozen REPUBLICANS who would be better for the cause of American liberalism than this President.

This is not a Dem v GOP issue, this is a trench war between a well-established, well-connected corporate and media power base against a handful of people sick enough to wade through the pile of lies, and any American that can be convinced how truly important this next election is. It's that simple.

Great discussion - thanks. I don't trust Clark - a slimy Repub in convenient Dem clothing.

Yes, it's obviously a brilliant ploy to pretend to be a Democrat in today's political culture. I'm sure he's faking it completely so he can seize power and install a military junta, cackling manaically the whole time.

Have you seen the footage of his fawning speeches to the RNC and at a Repub fundraiser from a couple of years ago?

I guess he fits right in with all the Democrats who apparently wouldn't say shit if they had a mouthful over the last few years, huh? Maybe he's changed his mind since then? It does happen, ya know...

Damn, some of these people are so obsessed with how pure a candidate is, it makes me think that it's only been a few years since they were writing scathing letters to Guitar World, passionately arguing about which band rules and which band is a corporate sellout.

Kent,

I see your points, particularly about it being unlikely that one of the other candidates would have ever been as beligerantly stupid as George Bush re the war.

For those of us that felt empowered by a candidate who looked to us for money and support and put the responsibility back on us to do more to make this country greater, the others are pale imitations though.

That does matter. Their votes on the important issues of War, Taxes and the Patriot Act are clear indicators of the types of politicians they are.

This kind of leader (circa 2002 where playing a "winning" strategy to get Iraq off the table so that the economy could be played up) is not worth fighting for. They do shade the difference between Democrat and Republican too much.

Character of this kind matters a lot to those of us in the Dean camp. Read Michael Tomasky's essay in the American Prospect about what we are attempting to do to rebuild the Democratic Party. Read Paul Krugman's essay two essays ago about "Who Gets It" on 1/16.

We're tired of the "strategic game" here in the Democratic base. It's no longer enough just to have a Democratic President. We need one that stand for our higher ideals boldly and firmly. This is the only way this campaign for President will turn into a movement which will sweep out the Republican majorities in the Senate and House.

I don't want to be responsible for voting in an ineffective Democrat who can't even inspire his base for support.

Regards,

Patrick Briggs

Thanks barkeep. I needed that! I woke up this morning feeling like I really needed a stiff drink after the Iowa results last night. Watching the Kerry "victory" speech on CSpan this morning was extra-depressing, especially after catching the oh-so-painful Dean interview on Larry King last night. Ouch! (Note to self -- "Must not watch TV... Must not watch TV...Must not watch TV...")

And thanks to all of your patrons for their kind and not-so-kind words on this subject today -- I feel inspired to keep going.

I'll vote for Kerry if I have to, but I can't get it out of my mind that he sold me out when it really mattered, war hero or no war hero. I guess that was then and this is now.

Cheers all - catch you later....

What happen to Dean were all those attack ads, because Dean was ahead just one week ago but because Gephardt attacked Dean, Dean HAD to respond but that caused the poll numbers for these two men to drop rapidly.

However I just can't see Kerry pulling this off that well, and I'm hoping that a-hole, Lieberman stays off Dean, so perhaps Lieberman can get nasty with Kerry now?

And Clark is being bill as an outsider but Clark really isn't an "outsider" what with his lobbying right up to his joining the presidential race, (according to the Bill Moyers's NOW program on PBS.)

Clark has now attacked Kerry's campaign saying Kerry was linked to special interest while all along Clark was peddling special interest too, thus I hope both candidates will deal with each other in this special interest fray contest, maybe to Dean's advantage.

Mean while Dean should try to appeal to ALL votes and watch that stupid Republican/conservative labeling tactics (that has been a really big no-no). It also seems to me that Howard Dean was marketed to the "I'm the left wing of the Democratic Party" groups that left poor Dean with ONLY those sort of left wing groupies of the Democrat party despite his being (or at least rumored to be) a moderate politician.

AND I think it's okay that Dean wants to do away with Bush tax cuts but Dean doesn't do follow up his reasons to do so all that well. Like when middle class folks say that they want to keep their tax cuts Dean should respond that the nation is at WAR (Bush is hiding the war, really) -this very expensive by every standard in war waging book but with UN's help that will enable the US to cut spending if Dean is elected and shores up our need for UN military help in Iraq.

AND the only thing keeping the UN from helping the US is those damn oil contracts that Bush doesn't want to split-up. France has already offered to send troops once Iraq has it's own government but of course not Bush's self-appointed one. And it looks like the Iraqi Shiite leader Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is putting a real kink in Bush's plans for a puppet government in Iraq, (Thank God!)

One of Americans best chances to dispose of the Bush's corporate regime lies with the power of the UN and UN telling Bush when and were to stick his bullying, American corporation first tactics. Bush is trying to go back to the UN to get the UN to strike down Sistani's demands - The UN is not so irrelevant after all, ha-ha. But of course Anna Kofi is mostly on the US payroll, he’ll say whatever Bush wants to hear but the other nations won’t back up Anna’s pleas for to help Bush his puppet regime request. Bush will pissed but life goes on.

Bush is losing Iraq, plain and simply. Saddam is caught, no WMD – Iraq and rest of world is starting to question why Bush’s army is still hanging around while the Iraqi civilian death toll increase daily (which is why the Bushies decided to hide those mounting death toll rates). All that hyped war propaganda and no viable, stable oilfields to show for it, what a waste of oil industry corporate funding. Bush will go down because other nations are finding it easier to refuse dealing with the US’s selfish business interest and that isn't the our best interest either, really. So it is NOT other nations best interest to help Bush plant a puppet regime in iraq adn the US has done that far to often in past. It obvious Bush had Colin Powell get up in front of the UN and lie, with the result of hundreds of stolen oil contracts under a pretense of WMD. This has caused the US to lose international marketing shares-and these market shares cannot be won back easily.

It’ll be hard on the US, but US citizens didn’t care that we were all being lied too about Iraq, other nations did care however. Americans don’t understand this but we will, we will soon enough.

This Thusday on PBS, Frontline is again revisiting the Iraq war...Be interesting to see what they say.

Patrick,

If character mattered so much to you, you wouldn't be voting for ANY of the people running for presidency, or most any high-political position in the government of any nation on Earth.

Yes, we are at a kind of ridiculous staltemate. I also hate the democrats for their constant lack of spine and ridiculous antics (as typified by the Iraq war vote, which left me in a blin d rage for days). Unfortunately, that is the world we live in. The democratic party also has their heroes, though, and not all of them died when Wellstone's plane went down. In fact, many of the people who safeguard our liberties on a daily basis are "the less slimy ... slugs" in most other respects. Look at Teddy Kennedy... the guy is an alcoholic and a bufoon, and possibly worse. But when the hammer comes down and some GOP jackal is about to stick it to the working class, Kennedy is right there stopping them, every time, and that is important too. This is the game we play, and the ideological purity you keep talking about is not only naive, but also actively dangerous because it bears no relationship to the world we actually live in.

Dean is not a saint. He's not a shining white knight and, as was pointed out by someone earlier in this thread, he's not even particularly liberal. If he's got you feeling righteous, GOOD! Go spread the message of Bush's shiity agenda. But it sounds like he's got most of his followers feeling SELF-righteous, and badly, badly misinformed about just how revolutionary his movement really is... and that's bad for all of us.

Thanks for setting me straight, Spanky. You're right, it would have been much more brilliant for the anti-war Supreme Commander to be true to his partisan Repub leanings and run against an incumbent President in the primary. Why don't you send him your resume? You sound like the kind of savvy fellow he needs on his team. Clark wants to be President. He thinks he has the issue (Iraq) and the credibility (stars on his lapel) to oust Bush. So he runs as a Dem against the man he was praising for courageous leadership after we invaded Afghanistan. Thus, the Dem label is merely convenient for him. Get it? I'm not looking for purity, just someone who isn't such a blatant hypocrite. Changed his mind? Grow up.

I don't want to be responsible for voting in an ineffective Democrat who can't even inspire his base for support.

Frankly, I can't imagine how an ineffective Democrat who can't inspire his base for support is going to make it through this primary season on top. Assuming that does happen, though, it doesn't matter what you want - you're either responsible for voting him in (or fail trying), or you're responsible for four more years of Bush. It's either-or, until we effect a change in our voting system.

I don't think it's hypocritical to support the initial US action in Afghanistan as a legitimate strike against terrorism, and then to turn around and criticize Bush for dropping the anti-terrorism ball and indulging a neocon wetdream of invading Iraq. It's what I think, and if we're lucky we'll convince more than 50% of voters in a couple dozen states that it's what they think too (some of them just haven't figured that out yet because they like the fictional version of the Bush administration that they get in most of their media).
If you think that the people who were against invading Afghanistan can (unilaterally) put Dean in the White House, I recommend that you get ready to move to The Shire, I mean, Canada.

Mr. Robinson,
By your reasoning people are just gonna vote, "the devil you know is better then the devil you don't". Most people are tired, worn down by the times we live in. If the economy (read: they still have a job) is even about the same come Nov. its Bushco. The word I get from people (not "political" people) is, where's the Dems. They almost don't exist. I don't like it, but that's what I see.

I do think it's hypocritical to praise Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, etal, in the manner that he did and then claim to be a Dem. I challenge you to watch the video clip of Clark's speech at http://www.factcheck.org without becoming nauseous and envisioning it in a Bush commercial come November. Afghanistan is not my big issue - I was just trying to put Clark's comments into a fair context. Certainly I wouldn't recommend that Dems run on condemning the initial effort in Afghanistan, but rather on the "dropping the ball" issue as you suggest. I'm not ready to move up North just yet...

I got up this morning surprised at just how much attention gets focussed on Iowa every four years -- I mean, I'm originally from a bordering state, and even we don't pay that much attention to Iowa most years -- and then I got it. A moment of zenlike clarity.

It's not Iowa. It's not the caucuses. It's the tradition: the candidates who do well in Iowa, New Hampshire, and the other early states receive media attention, either because of their surprising finish or their true-to-expectations finish. Media attention can be used to supplement sagging cash reserves and stale ideologies, as well as changing the "Gosh, look how poorly this candidate is doing meme" into "Gosh, this spunky underdog is doing better than we'd thought!" (Americans love spunky underdogs.) Media attention also begets more media attention; it's an ouroborus in the making.

I wonder, though, whether we'd see this same frenzy if national media outlets gave significant airtime to the candidates leading up to both the primaries and general elections -- something slightly more substantive than soundbites and brief camera-pans across rallies. If, instead of needing to buy airtime to run ads, each candidate was given ... what, 10-15 minutes a week, for, let's say, the month leading up to the election. Enough time so that they could get their views and opinions out there, during primetime.

I'd also like a pony, of course, and I'd like Chad to be elected Mayor of Town.

Repost

>WHAT'S LEFT - Dean has probably done himself in, Clark hopefully will follow suit, aided by HIS constant bragaddocio such as the claim, "I won a war," which not only ignores the others involved, but overlooks the minuscule strength of the oppnent. . . This pretty much leaves us with an arrogant preppie who thinks he knows everything or a affable southern trial lawyer who doesn't know what he doesn't know.
That Kerry presents a political danger to the Democrats is suggested by the uncomfortably telling phrase that conservative columnist James Tarranto always uses in mentioning the senator: "the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam."
Besides, if Kerry runs, that means our choice will be limited to two members of Skull & Bones and if either one were to actually tell us the true meaning of that, they would have to immediately kill us. - SAM SMITH

You can leave Noam out of your insults, Chad--he's on your side, though not as strongly. He's always said voting for the lesser of two evils can make a big difference to people living on the margins--I remember him writing that back in the Reagan era.

And very recently, in response to a question about voting for a progressive candidate or someone less progressive, but more likely to beat Bush, he said this-- Well, first he said it was a tactical judgment and his opinion was no better than anyone else's--

"For what it's worth, probably not much, I think it is a very high priority to prevent the group of radical statist reactionaries now in office--by a hair--from consolidating their hold on power. They are causing enormous damage to the domestic society and to the world and with more time to institutionalize their extremist campaign it could be quite hard to unravel what they have done and restore some semblance of decency."

Yep, that's old Noam, the fire-breathing fanatic everyone "knows" would plunge society into chaos sooner than advise his cult-like followers to behave rationally.

Chomsky isn't a fount of all wisdom, but I sometimes wish people who drag his name through the mud knew WTF they were talking about.

Other than that, Chad, I agree with you, and find your dedication pretty darn impressive.

Ed,

That's why we have to get the word out. Minds can change, and they do, if people are honest, forthright, and willing to go out into the world and talk to people. Look at the polls and you'll see, if you look past the Dubya media monster, that even WITH the relentless pro-Bush spin that gets applied to everything, his numbers are in the 50's, and even those are soft. His actual base seemsto command no more than 38-42% of the actual electorate, and the slog in Iraq, while it wont change his supporters minds per se, might well convince them to stay home on election day.

And that's the way in, right there. We don't have to change the world, we just have to get people who aren't happy to see an alternative, even if it IS the less slimey of two slugs, and to go to the polls on election day.

Does that make everything right? No. It doesnt even make things vastly better in America. But it WILL make things somewhat better here, and it will make life ALOT happier for our allies.

So he runs as a Dem against the man he was praising for courageous leadership after we invaded Afghanistan.

As Duncan Idaho just said, there's nothing hypocritical about that. Many people, including Clark, thought the real problem was when Bush decided to stop seriously pursuing terrorists in favor of using it as a cover for other agendas.

I'm not looking for purity, just someone who isn't such a blatant hypocrite.

And as I said - many of your "true" Democrats were in lockstep with Bush right up to and through the war in Iraq. Are Edwards, Kerry, Lieberman non-blatant enough for you?

And if you could share your methods for ascertaining how it is that Clark is after the presidency for less-than-honorable means while the rest are selfless public servants, we could all make use of that, I think.

Mr. Robinson,
I admire your spunk! Keep it up! I try to tell people every day about Bushco, the main responses are; (a) So what. All politicians lie. (b) Where's the Dems/alternative?

peace

Wow, spirited discussion. Lots of heat, and light as well.

First, the Democratic primry is a real horse race now, generating all kinds of interest and providing the moderates, liberals, and progressives extensive tv coverage and the opportunity to get their message out to a much larger slice of the voting public.

Second, the candidates are going through a trial by fire so to speak. To win they will have to hone their talking points, develop a lean machine of campaign organization, demonstrate toughness and resiliency and find their way to the voters' hearts. No small tasks but, nevertheless, essential preparation to take on the Republican attack squads come this summer and fall.

Third, the situation in the middle east is so unstable with the distinct possibility of multiple conflicts in both Iraq and the countries where there is a significant number of Kurds (Iran, Syria, Turkey, and, of course northern Iraq) that no one, I repeat, no one, can foresee how current events will play out.

We know the Bushy one is worried; why all this crazy talk of Moon colonies and expeditions to Mars? Where is the money coming from for these costly ventures? (Yes, I know the federal gov-ernment controls the printing presses but even US debt can only go so high.) GWB reminds me of deer dazed by the glare of oncoming headlights. I don't think he can cope with all the events that are rushing at him with an ever increasing velocity.

Don't despair, folks, were still in the first month of what is going to be a most memorable year in the history of our beloved republic. Perhaps, the fates are intervening at last.

Maybe you didn't read my response to Duncan Idaho:
I do think it's hypocritical to praise Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, etal, in the manner that he did and then claim to be a Dem...Afghanistan is not my big issue - I was just trying to put Clark's comments into a fair context. Certainly I wouldn't recommend that Dems run on condemning the initial effort in Afghanistan, but rather on the "dropping the ball" issue as you suggest.
Do you hear me defending the rest of them? I don't think any of us are under the illusion that politicians are selfless public servants or absolutely consistent in their positions. I'm just sick of those who portray Wes Clark as the frigging savior of the Dem party. I think we can do better and still kick W back to Crawford.

Donald,

Touche =)

I wasn't actually intending to crap on Chomsky so much as the hilariously naive sect of liberals who so often rely on him (or at least rely on dropping his name) for their considered opinions. Saying "Chomsky" is just a convenient shorthand, in much the same way the "Ayn Rand" is an acronym for "College Kid Who Will Be Sorely Humbled Within Three Years of Graduation" or Dittohead being a short form of "mouth breather in a bad power tie and dippy slacks."

Additionally I have never thought of Chomsky as being fire-breathing, nor particularly fanatical. And I'm glad that, like all reasonable adults, he agrees with me.

I'm SO with Chad here, despite his snark at my man, the Chomster.

This election isn't about what we'd like. It's about what we desperately need to stop.

I currently support Clark because I believe he's best positioned to squash Bush like a bug in the "debates."

But if the Democrats nominate a tuna sandwich, I'm busting my ass for the sandwich. At least we'll be able to count on it not to mispronounce "nuclear" (albeit not pronounce it, either).

>And seriously, the "wiping the asses of people who require that their asses be wiped before they vote [democrat]" thing was at least a little funny, wasn't it?

That *was* funny, but the "pussy shaped boxes" was an absolutely priceless (virtual) visual.

I didn't read Billmon as a total quitter, I read him as a realist, as in "I no longer have hope that we can turn this ship fast enough." Of course I read him like that because that's the way I feel. Doesn't mean either of us are going to jump ship if we can slow it down a bit before it hits the iceberg. If I can give our friends up north and in Europe enough breathing room to hold on to those social democracies that will be motivation enough.

But EmmaAnne really resonated with me, not in a good way when she posted: "I don't feel that I have ever participated in a presidential election where a liberal was running. The most we got was Carter and Clinton trying to play rear guard."

It has gotten so fucking old. And Dean, although the least liberal except for Lieberman, was the first ray of hope that there was another way to get candidates elected.

I'm NOT a Deaniac. But I was hoping that he wouldn't get so blown away here in all places. I know Iowa is a bad predictor of nominees. But what I thought was the strength of the Dean campaign- asymmetric ground warfare - should have worked best in this very personal caucus atmosphere. If Kerry and Edwards could defeat him-badly- with an "air" campaign, then Bush can defeat ANYONE. Because Bush is going to have air superiority over the Dem.

Meanwhile, billmon, after reading hundreds of your posts, I FINALLY encounter one that contains a couple of slightly ludicrous assertions. That's a spectacular track record, and I'm not being facetious. (And it was so worth it, just for luring this Chad guy out of the woodwork.)

the fascists have taken over and all you get is the internet.
and besides i own a villa in tuscany. big deal.
john lennon was right - your all a bunch of peasants.
keep hoping for a better world and thinking that diebold doesnt own your future. your lttle boots will dance a rather tarentella tonight but nobody is clapping.

I am one undecided Democrat, but I don't think I am unrepresentative of the large number of undecideds out there.

What it comes down to, for me, is which one of these guys can beat Bush? On any day, with any soundbite or debate, I change my mind. Each one has potentially fatal flaws. I wish I could make the perfect candidate: Dean's passion and straight talk, Clark's brilliance and credentials, Edward's poise and likeability, Kerry's infighting ability.

Republicans have been successful since Goldwater not so much for their policies. They've had to lie about their policies to make them palatable. No, they've won elections because they resolved to mute their differences and support their candidates. They accepted incremental gains and eventually wound up with control of all three branches of government, and whole swaths of state legislatures. They learned that revolutionary candidates don't fare well (Goldwater, Gingrich) and they sugar-coated their agenda for the general population.

Progressives must put in the effort that the right wing did in building intellectual and media institutions that support ideas, legislation and candidates, particularly in local and congressional elections.

And we've got to stop the damned circular firing squad. I don't think a prolonged fight for the nomination is helpful or bracing for the eventual winner. It wastes precious funds, gives the enemy ammunition in the general election, and keeps the eventual winner from concentrating on the real opponent, Bush. If the candidates disagree, fine. But stop wounding each other before the main bout against Bush.

Screw the press. Don't rise to their bait. I want to see the candidates face the press united in one desire: to remove Bush from his illegitimate perch in the White House and resolved to help whoever emerges as the strongest challenger.

Given that, even if one of them wins the election, it might be a prize not worth having. The bill for the Bush administration excesses will come due and the pain of dealing with both foreign and economic policies run amok will be horrible. A Democrat in the White House will be in Clinton's position--hamstrung by obstructive opposition in Congress. But the consequences of another Bush term are too terrible to contemplate.

First, I suppose the Dean supporters need to blow off some steam after investing so heavily in every way in one candidate and to be so disappointed. That's why I'm not incredibly angry at some of you talking 3rd party defeatism. Keep whining like this a few days from now and I will be upset.

I hear a lot of mischaracterization of Clark, and inherent within it I hear the ignorance of someone who has never served in uniform. Clark was not a Republican, ever. He wasn't a Democrat either. He was a patriot; one who worked for Presidents of both parties to keep America safe and to answer his country's call. For 34 years he served, and as he so succinctly put it early on, he served the flag, not one Party or another. I remember that feeling when I served. Those who have not perhaps never will.

Part of that real, actual non-partisanship Clark showed allowed him to praise someone and be able to disagree on other issues at the same time. Nowadays there is no such thing as this in politics, I know, but Clark isn't part of that political system. It's as if the Republicans believe something we absolutely must believe the exact opposite or we've given up our purity or our precious bodily fluids or something. Let's be glad that he chose our party because it best met with his values and he saw as a commander how poorly this President has led our troops and our nation. He was free to do this because he was no longer in uniform.

I guess some of the people here are farther left than I am, even though I'm no moderate. Anyone thinking of going 3rd party and thereby handing yet another election to Bush perhaps never was part of us Democrats anyway. Fair weather friends will leave when storms come. We'll know who the real Democrats are before it's all over.

I'm with Ralphbon. If the tuna sandwich is the Dem nominee, we ALL have to order the tuna sandwich. Even if you hate tuna! Just hold your nose and BITE it. Let's face it, half the people who voted for George W. in 2000 thought they were voting for George H. The Repubs don't bother looking at what's on the menu, they just order the chimp du jour. As difficult as it is for concerned voters (such as those above) to check their opinions at the voting booth, it may be the only way to win in 2004.

HEY BILLMON

STOP WHINING - START SUPPORTING

KERRY / KUCINICH IN '04

I have my preferences, and the stenorous ghost of Edmund Muskie who calls himself Kerry isn't one of them. But if he wins the nomination he WILL have my vote. I suggest you carve this on your forehead, ala Manson:

ABB - anybody but bush

Wow! 78 posts in like a couple of hours! Your site is getting very popular, Billmon, with good reason. I haven't seen more intelligent stuff out there. I hesitate to add mine, but here goes.

You are way to pessimistic Billmon. Day after day of those good looking, articulate guys making short pithy Bush bashing statements for the nightly news is great for the Democrats. The primaries should continue for ever.

I?m sure you remember how Bush?s 80% approval rating cowed the Democrats after 9-11. Politicians and pundits never remember Newton?s first law of gravitational attraction: what goes up must come down. While Democrats were knuckling under to those terrible Bush initiatives, the only one of some national standing who didn?t let desperation to hold onto his job trump his principles was Howard Dean. Dean discovered the anger us Democrats in the field felt for our wimpy leaders and rode to national prominence on it. When the Dem hopefuls who were playing footsie with Bush saw how well Dean was doing they hit the brakes and made a 180 degree turn. As the messages of the candidates evolved, they coapted Dean -- they became Dean -- but their more winning personalities may allow them to surpass him.

That's life, folks. Often the first guy with a new idea gets it stolen by someone else who gets all the credit, but the world progresses nonetheless.

I think we should be happy no one is calling the Dem field the seven dwarfs this time. Even David Brooks is sore impressed, and he should be. This is a pretty good bunch of men -- the beginning of the great reversal of fortune for progressives. If Dean doesn't get the nomination, the Democrats should name an airport for him at least. He is the man who saved the Democratic party. That's not such a bad piece of work.

good blog billmon....you are welcome here in Canada anytime. you may not want to because we have an election coming this year with the two main candidates falling over each other to kiss shrubs's ass. Mexico mat be our only hope!!!!hehehe

No one has mentioned Kucinich's (mostly one-directional) vote 'trading' deal with Edwards, which was meant to "screw Dean" in the words of one Kucinich campaign manager, and force the race wide open. Whatever the reasoning, a remarkable betrayal of those who gave him support and money because he was a real leftist, and because he was strongly anti-war and anti-militarist. Neither of which is Edwards.

Late, but my two cents' worth:

Like the doctor says at the end of Portnoy's Complaint: Ah, now we may start to begin, yes?

Iowa's overanalyzed already. Before this it was all "lookit those pathetic Democrats." Now the field is narrowed, Bush just fucked up his SOTU, the polls are approaching parity, and people are interested.

It's a great time to be a Dean supporter because whatever else happens, you have a fair chance of seeing Bush outta there.

Like you needed this, I really wrote to congratulate you on 80+ comments, cgi-wise, I can't raise a piss-on in a windstorm.

this was one election where even Fox News seemed to understand what happened: the war as an issue is tired -- even among "first-time" 18-25 yr old voters. And anger isnt cool either. Edwards and Kerry figured this out. Dean, after absorbing blow after blow from the others, finally hit back -- just at the wrong time, when Iowans got tired of squabbling.
If our priority is regime change at home, then Iowa should be seen as a useful beta test -- exposing the weakness (possibly correctible) of one of the candidates, and allowing two others to shine. One strong and savvy candidate should emerge before long, and unless he or the party is broke by then, should have good tools for taking on Bush.
I agree with Billmon that none of the democrats is likely to accomplish 5% of what they are promising now. Not one, even Kucinich, begins to understand what really needs to be done. For a sobering perspective on the real challenges that face us, I recommend Richard Heinberg's The Party's Over , a lucid account of the end of the fossil fuel era.

I think the news cycles are spinning furiously. No one will remember Iowa in 2 weeks time. Dean can still come back with even a 2nd in NH. I still think he will win there because the anti-dean vote is split 3-4 ways. He has a 50 state plan in place, the others do not.

I have a good feeling that either Dean or Clark will be the nominee. This is a must for the Dems since being anti-war will be a must to win. I am fairly sure that the Iraq situation will deteriorate fairly quickly.

Why? Sistani knows that Bush will do ANYTHING to win re-election. He is between a rock and a hard place with no room to negotiate. He cannot afford a major civil rebellion there (This will probably happen anyway in my opinion). Bush will concede just about anything (Islamic Theocracy anyone?) to avoid this impending disaster. Even then there will be trouble. Unfortunately, this is a must to have a realignment of power in a country such as Iraq which is so sectarian in nature.

All this will be happening in the run up to the conventions! What will Bush say, I invaded Iraq so I could free the people but they are rebelling against me because I freed them?

Dean and maybe Clark can make this argument forcefully at this point. Iraq is not a big issue now, but it will be when it matters, in the Summer/Fall. This is why Rove is trying to put a stake thru the heart of Dean and beginning to smear Clark now. All the others voted for the war.

You can smell their fear. What a weak SOTU!

Do you hear me defending the rest of them?

No, which is why I asked if Edwards, Kerry, Lieberman were non-hypocritical enough for you - if Clark is such a scheming charlatan, who's a better option?

I'm just sick of those who portray Wes Clark as the frigging savior of the Dem party.

Can't say I've heard anyone get that carried away over him, but I imagine the excitement is due to the fact that they know that Clark is a candidate who can't be pushed around when it comes to national security, which unfortunately seems to be where many people still give Bush a lot of credit. I'm afraid that in our superficial image-obsessed society, it will take someone like a general to be able to condemn Bush's aggressive bullying without being painted as a utopian peacenik. I hear that kind of knee-jerk bullshit from average joes all the time; that Democrats are wimps who would rather sit down with Osama and get him to talk about his feelings, then apologize for whatever we did to upset him.

I think we can do better and still kick W back to Crawford.

I read an opinion article yesterday stating that even liberal business men are afraid to donate to Democratic candidates for fear of retribution from the Bush Administration. This combined with 5 or 6 southern democratic senators retiring, the chance of even holding on to some power with filibusters is going away.
Now we know that the traditional base of the Republican party is cringing at the government expansion and deficit spending of this administration right? So how long are they going along for the ride, just long enough to see the demise of the democratic party and the formation of a new Republican Party?

"The [next] priority for change-the first element of a new politics for the United States-is in our policy toward the world. Too much and for too long, we have acted as if our great military might and wealth could bring about an American solution to every world problem..." -Robert F. Kennedy, 1968

Just a thought from the ghost of primaries past, dedicated to everyone who really, really, supports their candidate . . . Hold on.

It infuriates me to hear Americans talk about going to Canada if things don't go their way. Real fuckin' patriots.

I, for one will stay and fight.

So let me see if I get this; the "progressives", who despise Bush above all else, are seriously thinking of backing a third party and thus giving Bush the presidency, just as they did in 2000.

It's YOUR damn fault this moron is our president, and now you're going to do it again!

Unbelievable.

It infuriates me to hear Americans talk about going to Canada if things don't go their way. Real fuckin' patriots.
I, for one will stay and fight.Posted by: Heretic

I alluded to this yesterday, but this is the way I feel.

If you watch the trends, you can tell where things are heading, and it ain't good. And when the shit hits the fan, the 60 percent of the nation that hates people like me--smarty-pants, city-livin' liberals--are going to have the upper hand. It's going to be difficult to live here, probably dangerous, and I've often thought of bugging out to Canada or New Zealand to ride out the storm. (There's a young Israeli family that lives two doors down who are doing the same thing.)

But then I think of my ancestors who fought in the Revolution, and on the side ofthe angels in the Civil War, and I think, They had the courage to risk their lives for this country in its hour of crisis. Could I live with running and hiding?

My family helped build this country--as laborers, farmers, bricklayers, mechanics. They toiled and struggled so that, one day, my generation could prosper. Am I going to run away and let a bunch of fascists seize control of this nation?

No. I am going to stay and fight. That begins with working to see that Bush&Co.; are removed from office this November.

But it doesn't end there.

Go Jimmon! That's whats got me so pissed... as someone else called it, the circular firing squad. This is why there is no American Left anymore, the people who supposedly caretake it have become moral absolutists. Much like their opponents on the right ("ah, but our side REALLY IS morally pure"). So some moderate forgot to dot an "i" or cross a "t" and now they're going to form another useless wingnut party that garners 1/100,000th the vote (and that's BEFORE the obscure argument over process forces the party to split into two smaller parties) and hand the election to Bush as a side-effect... all because it's somehow better to be completely rigid than it is to kick a tyrant out of his job.

And all of this wouldn't be so bad if liberals ,or progressives, or whatever the vanity-politics arm of the modern left is calling itself nowadays, were actually capable of forming their own party. But since they are all morally pure within their particular psychopathology, and all their psychopathologies are different, all of their political parties eventually consist of one person.

Is that the Zang Chadster?

iceblink42@yahoo.com

Oh, and in regards to the guy who says the left should form a coalition like the Religious Right has, and demand our fair say within the Democratic Party in exchange for our votes... there are two problems with that:

Problem 1: We actually have a HUGE say within the Democratic Party. Civil Rights, Gay Rights, universal enfranchisement, universal and secular education, social security, abortion rights, rural electrification, welfare, medicare, unions, paid family leave, affirmative action... and these are just the big, domestic policies and don't count the things we've stopped the Right from doing (like taking away all of those things) or the kickass work we've done internationally (stopping fricking SMALLPOX and taking a big stab at malaria, the anti-apartheid movement, feeding large swaths of Africa, the UNITED motherfucking NATIONS). We have rocked some serious ass within the Democratic Party over the years.

Problem 2: described above, the Left has no set policy initiatives anymore. I mean, I'm on the left and I could give two shits about gun control, but fly into a blind rage whenever the phrase "mandatory minimums" comes up in conversation and I wind up yapping for like 7 or 8 hours about the injustice of it all before I finally realize that my audience has either left, fallen asleep, or killed themselves to convince me to shut up. In as much as we've been able to get off our self-righteous asses to demand anything useful (as opposed to all the un-useful crap we manage to dream up at, apparently, our east- or west-coast liberal sushi parties) those demands have become party policy... like, say, universal healthcare. Or staying in Iraq now that we've gone and gotten our stupid asses INTO it, so Iraq doesn't become Yet Another Terrifying American Foreign Policy Failure.

iceblink: tis indeed.

Are you really gonna vote Green and let the GOP stack the Supreme Court? Don't give me any garbage about 95-0 votes to confirm Scalia. Pres. EdwardsKerryClark doesn't even nominate Scalia.

Chad, send me an email you bastard!

Appreciate the smart although not perfect econ and financial analysis.
Sorry, you are too pessimistic re political arena.
Also, cannot split the vote to put Bush in again. Need a third party type influence grouping(can't be a party as too expensive, etc) of the smart non-partisans and those who know about money ( and don't want to keep spending increased tax dollars on those who do not use reason in lives, and cause extra social problems,etc.[of course, not talking about disabled) May be,right here. Do like the fact that there are some smart readers who comment.

Appreciate the smart although not perfect econ and financial analysis.
Sorry, you are too pessimistic re political arena.
Also, cannot split the vote to put Bush in again. Need a third party type influence grouping(can't be a party as too expensive, etc) of the smart non-partisans and those who know about money ( and don't want to keep spending increased tax dollars on those who do not use reason in lives, and cause extra social problems,etc.[of course,
not talking about disabled) May be,right here. Do like the fact that there are some smart readers who comment.

janus

Appreciate the smart although not perfect econ and financial analysis.
Sorry, you are too pessimistic re political arena.
Also, cannot split the vote to put Bush in again. Need a third party type influence grouping(can't be a party as too expensive, etc) of the smart non-partisans and those who know about money ( and don't want to keep spending increased tax dollars on those who do not use reason in lives, and cause extra social problems,etc.[of course,
not talking about disabled) May be,right here. Do like the fact that there are some smart readers who comment.

janus

janus

you posted three times stop post reads like telegram stop hard to figure out point stop third party stupid idea stop

At the risk of ruining the agreement that appears to exist here, I have to say that I think Howard Dean and his supporters *would* be better off as a third party.

Let us say, just for the sake of argument, that Dean doesn't win the nomination and drops out, say, on or before Super Tuesday. Not only do I not know where his votes go, but it doesn't seem that Kerry, Edwards, or Clark even *want* them. For all the talk about where Kerry voters would go, or where Clark's would go, I've seen no discussion of where Dean's would go. In a two-party system, a third-party vote is equivalent to a nonvote; this would at least allow Dean supporters one more chance to be heard.

Also, if harassing the Democratic Party to grow a pair winds up being Dean's contribution to the process, then there is every reason to extend that role as long as possible, since it appears to have been effective at whittling down the shrub's approval and fomenting resistance to his malevolent proposals.

I'm still hoping and believing that none of this proves necessary because Dean wins the nom and election, but I gotta look at the facts.

What Chad said. 97,000 voted for Nader in FL in 2000 when another 538 for Gore would have won him the presidency. Do any of you honestly think there would have been NO difference between a Gore presidency and the mess we're in now? The country is still evenly divided, go look at the latest Zogby poll. Bush's Saddam-in-the-spiderhole bump has evaporated already. Bush is trying to triangulate by promising programs we can't afford and he won't fund hoping Dems will shout "we need $10 billion for job training not half a billion!". That's a trap. The Dem candidate is going to have to run to the right of Bush on deficits. Dean, Edwards or Clark can do that. Dean has the cred from his record as governor and balancing budgets. Edwards and Clark can because they don't have long congressional careers on spending. To me Edwards is the best choice because he is the best campaigner. Clark has spent too much trying to outdo Dean on the left over Iraq. Dean blew himself up in Ia Monday night. We'll see what happens but whoever the Dems nominate has my vote, my support and they'll have to pull the phone from my bleeding fingers on election day before I'll leave the phonebank.

Re: Nader getting 5% of the vote.

I live in Houston and knew there was no way Gore was going to carry Texas so I voted for Nader for that very reason. He didn't even get 2% and I know I am not the only one smart enough to figure out the public funding angle. If Bush wins in 2004, there will be a third party but it will be a split in the GOP.

Michael Moore is one of the more prominent people "all that carried away" with Clark - and I truly hope he's right. Moore makes some nice arguments on his website. Though I'm no "Deaniac" I was hoping he was that elusive better option. Sadly, I think he is a little too abrasive for our image obsessed society. I live in a state that is unfortunately dominated by jerks who want a macho President who won't take away their guns or snowmobiles - believe me, I'm quite familiar with the knee jerk bullshit and it really galls me to pander to that element. All that said, there really is no better option than ABB and I'll be working hard for whomever that turns out to be.

I think it's a mistake to look to repeat the '64 GOP strategy of waiting in the wilderness to purify oneself and take over the Democratic Party. Hell, if the Democratic Party was in the wilderness it was between 80-92 when Carter, Mondale and Dukakis got trounced. It was a RIGHTWARD shift of the Democratic Party that saved it. It's an appalling thing to recognize but true.

However, the biggest reason the analogy with '64 fails is that the only thing that allowed the GOP to do what it did was the Democratic Party imploded in '68 over the war. Nixon paved the way for the GOP to pick up the pieces, especially on the far Right. It was mostly true after Wallace took a bullet in '72 that the Democratic redneck vote was gone for good. The ultimate conservative dream party envisioned in '64 was then a reality (realized in '80 after the Watergate setback). In order for this to happen for the Democratic Party today, the Republican Party would have to split openly over some major issue. The only one I see is the deficit. It worked in '92 by bringing in Perot. Polls show that most Republicans are not happy with most of Bush's policies, even if they love him as a President. And most of that unhappiness has to do with the profligate spending of the Administration and GOP Congress. But right now the GOP is too disciplined to split. Maybe the center can be plucked by the Democratic Party but that won't help the left at all.

... if harassing the Democratic Party to grow a pair winds up being Dean's contribution to the process, then there is every reason to extend that role as long as possible....
That's a very practical reason why I want all you Dean supporters to stay strong, even though for other practical reasons I want one of the others to get the nomination. That's OK, at this rate if Dean comes through to get the nomination he and the party will be stronger for it.
This 3rd party crap isn't even funny though.

"Hell, if the Democratic Party was in the wilderness it was between 80-92 when Carter, Mondale and Dukakis got trounced. It was a RIGHTWARD shift of the Democratic Party that saved it. It's an appalling thing to recognize but true." -- Elrod

There's a lot of evidence to the contrary. Bush 1's campaign adviser, Lee Atwater, said that Dukakis' late-in-the-campaign "class warfare" tactics were the only thing that really worried him, and indeed the message did give Dukakis a bounce but his heart wasn't in it. The same was true for Gore.

In any case, after Enron and Iraq, we can't move and farther to the right without truly losing whatever meaning we have as a party.

Billmon,

You did something for my life, that is beyond a thank you, which was commented on earlier!!

This post makes no sense. Guess in the blog world I am too late? You like Dean, you do not like Dean. I guess we all have an agenda.

We are not a Democracy, we a Rebublic. Who can win the South and who can win the Black vote?? It'a about getting the states.

Dare I saw they are evil!!, does no one get it?

And Werner, how do you hook into this? I can't believe what you wrote!?