Friday, November 12, 2004
Hearts and Minds
We're here to give the Iraqis FREEDOM.
Marines setting up base camp in a Mosque. My only question to War on Iraq supporters is, was our helicopter brought down in Fallujah because it was hit by flowers and candy thrown by grateful Iraqis?
posted by Green Voicemail 11/12/2004 01:39:00 PM
The Fun Starts Now
With a little help from our (Libertarian) friends...."
From The Green Party:
David Cobb and Michael Badnarik, the 2004 presidential candidates for the Green and Libertarian parties, today announced their intentions to file a formal demand for a recount of the presidential ballots cast in Ohio.
"Due to widespread reports of irregularities in the Ohio voting process, we are compelled to demand a recount of the Ohio presidential vote. Voting is the heart of the democratic process in which we as a nation put our faith. When people stand in line for hours to exercise their right to vote, they need to know that all votes will be counted fairly and accurately. We must protect the rights of the people of Ohio, as well as all Americans, and stand up for the right to vote and the right for people's votes to be counted. The integrity of the democratic process is at stake," the two candidates said in a joint statement.
Ow. So why are the Greens fighting for what the Democrats won't fight for? Even poor twisted Suicide Ralph is fighting for a recount. You can go to the websites listed in the article and donate towards the costs of filing. (Credit also given to the Libertarians for their partnership in this effort.)
posted by Green Voicemail 11/12/2004 01:19:00 PM
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Terry McAuliffe Petition
Don't let the door hit you on the way out!
http://www.firemcauliffe.com
posted by Green Voicemail 11/07/2004 03:49:00 PM
Meet the Candidates -- Democrats in the Hunt for 2008
Land ahoy!
You've already read my take on the people at the top of the hunt for the Republican nomination for 2008.
Now, it's time to get away from those ugly people and meet some Democrats.
Hillary Clinton (EVEN): Jesus, where do you even START with Hillary? You notice that Hillary, like JEB!, has that one-name thing going for her. If you say "Hillary", there's no question about which of the hundreds of thousands of Hillary's you're talking about.
Hillary has an astounding advantage. Most Republicans like to think of this as a disadvantage, but it's a startling advantage that no Republican has ever managed to decipher. Namely, that since Hillary is so polarizing a figure, it is literally impossible to drive her negatives up any higher than they are now.
Most of the people who aren't voting for Hillary have already made that decision. Furthermore...just listen to them TALK! David Neiwert has already spoken about how extreme right-wingers tend to introduce fascist ideas into the public discourse by letting them be spread by people like Coulter and Rush. The problem is, when the extreme right begin talking about Hillary, they just go bat-shit wild. They make Hillary sound more like some kind of cartoon than any actual human being, Comic Book Supervillain Hillary. After you listen to a hard right winger talk about Hillary for five seconds, you feel that you need to call someone in with a straight jacket and some bear tranquilizer.
This leads people to feel confident that they can run against Hillary on a platform of "I'm Not Hillary". Rick Lazio tried that, got all kinds of money and got shitcanned in his run against the Hillary juggernaut. He thought Not Being Hillary was enough to win the election. The problem in running aginst Hillary is that you have to actually RESTRAIN yourself and turn Hillary back into a human being when you run against her, else you look like one of those crazy wackadoos out on the street ranting about ZOG.
She's frankly, ironclad. She's taken the worst the Right Wing Hate Machine can dish out, and pops right back up like one of those Whack-a-Mole games. Travelgate, Vince Foster, Whitewater, Starr and Lewinsky. ONE of those would have destroyed any lesser woman, but not Hillary.
Indeed, there's a real cult of personality about Hillary. Many young women see Hillary as a role model, a woman who managed to somehow succeed in the tough men's world. There are more books written against her than in favor of her, meaning that the Right Wing see Hillary as someone they need to destroy to win the culture war. Older women see her as a tower of strength, a survivor. They feel good when Hillary is walking point. They know what it's like to have your husband make a fool out of you.
Already, there's HILLPAC and hillary.org and a ton of resources and connections that Hillary can call on, many from her husband's days as president. She's also the "Nostalgia Candidate", the person you'd vote for if you want to go back to the Good Old Days (TM) of the Clinton Era.
However, it's still uphill for Hillary. Hillary has to win her senate race in 2006, and the Republicans will do everything in their power to ensure her defeat, because if she wins again, she's bulletproof through 2012. Giuliani needs a national office to make a presidential run more credible in 2008. HE was the person scheduled to deliver the knockout punch to Hillary, but his health made that impossible. A Hillary-Giuliani race is quite possible in 2006, and it will probably be the most violent of all the senate races in that important year.
Furthermore, Hillary's record, neither in the past nor in the present, is really all that distinguished. She was the person Bill turned the new health care plan over to in 2001, and it was a disaster. Her positions haven't really been progressive ones. She's pro-NAFTA. When Russ Feingold worked on introducing finance reform, at one joint appearance, she shouted, "Russ, live in the real world!"
She's also on the BLACKLIST (see below). Still, she would be the person the Democratic leadership would be most likely to nominate in 2008 (aside from one other person, see below).
Chris Dodd (7 to 2). Senator from Connecticut. Yes, he does have money behind him. (CHRISPAC) and he has served four terms as Connecticut's senator. I guess people think he's a nice warm, fuzzy guy. Maybe people wanted a liberal senator from Connecticut, they just didn't want Holy Joe Lieberman.
Dodd is thinking of a run for governor of Connecticut. Undoubtedly, he's thinking about a move like that for the same reasons other Democratic senators are thinking of similar moves. Why take the heat as a senator from a minority party at the capital when you could have real power instead?
Why Dodd ranks so high, I can't figure it out. (Maybe another commenter wants to fill me in on that?)
He's big on deregulation. He kissed up to Wall Street big time with his Financial Services Act of 1999, which protected companies from lawsuits. Some say he's telegenic, but some also say he's a little bit too pompous and too Ted-Kennedyesque to play well on a national stage.
Dodd appeared in the national news recently regarding Daschle's senate defeat. With the need to elect a new Minority Leader in the senate, many people thought the position was Dodd's for the taking, but instead, it looks like Harry Reid of Nevada will get the job. Does this mean that Dodd isn't as popular among his colleagues? Or is Dodd dumb like a fox, putting Reid in the bind of being the Minority Leader representing a conservative-leaning state, while Dodd frees his hands for the national stage?
Dodd is a BLACKLIST candidate.
John Edwards (4 to 1): Soon to be former senator from North Carolina, Vice-Presidential candidate. By now, everyone knows who John Edwards is. He's young, he's handsome, and now, no one can say he isn't experienced -- the 2004 campaign served as his cram school. 2004 would have been a "watch and learn" year in any case: watch and learn what Kerry does -- do what Kerry did that works and don't do what didn't work. You can't get that experience just anywhere, and second-hand experience don't count.
Edwards is viewed as an "economic populist". He's anti-outsourcing and anti-NAFTA -- read his campaign speeches in the primaries. (Of course, Edwards never had to vote on NAFTA.) Some people say that Hillary sees John Edwards the major obstacle to the 2008 Democratic nomination.
However, some say that Edwards didn't really add that much to the ticket. (Then again, what vice-presidential candidate ever does?) He does not hold any political office right now, and only has 4 years in the Senate to point to as experience. His debate performance against Cheney was a tie -- not exactly expected from someone who was considered to be an agressive, overwhelming speaker. I mean, if you can't beat Dick Cheney in a debate, who CAN you beat? Kerry often pointed to Edwards's foreign policy inexperience -- would that be a factor again in 2008, with Edwards out of office for four years?
John Edwards is a BLACKLIST candidate.
Bill Richardson (4 to 1): Governor of New Mexico. Hispanic. Probably has the best resume of any of the possible Democratic candidates for 2008. He was Secretary of Energy under Bill Clinton.
However, there is a whiff of George Bush Sr. about Bill Richardson, Poppy being another candidate that had a resume a mile wide. Poppy's resume was a mile wide, but an inch deep -- could the same be said about Richardson?
Furthermore, Richardson is seen as "undisciplined, and lightly informed" by many. Richardson isn't the most telegenic of candidates, and he could NOT carry New Mexico for John Kerry in 2004. That doesn't speak well of any personal power.
There is a taint of pseudo-scandal in Richardson's background. There was a claim by the rightists that Bill Richardson was asked by Clinton to help Monica Lewinsky get a job in government while Lewinsky was a witness in the Paula Jones case. The problem for the rightists is that Richardson denies it, Vernon Jordan denies it, and Lewinsky herself denies it. Of course, they'll try to dig it up again, leading one to wonder how strong Richardson would be in handling it.
Bill Richardson is a BLACKLIST candidate.
Evan Bayh (9 to 2): Senator from Indiana, and popular ex-Indiana governor. Senate seat is seen as safe by Democrats and Republicans alike. How so? It was considered so safe that the Republicans, knowing they had no chance of winning it, ran a black guy. (See: Keyes, Alan in Illinois)
He was a major founder of the Democratic Leadership Council, and currently serves as its chairman (Al Frum is its CEO and general boss). This gives Bayh an incredible amount of networking power. He's definitely popular in Indiana, and Democratic bosses believe he would be popular in the Midwest. I personally see either Clinton or Bayh as the handpicked candidate in 2008.
The disadvantages? Well, his chairmanship of the DLC should tell you just about everything you need to know. He voted for the cuts in revenue which led to the Bush Deficit. He's very conservative for a Democrat, definitely an accomodationist, and he gives off that creepy Zell Miller vibe. Some people say he has little power to fire up a crowd, and one wonders how he'd do in a presidential campaign. He's probably so conservative that he wouldn't be able to galvanize progressives, and if he moves to the left, he probably can't carry his home state.
BLACKLIST candidate? Hell, he's the reason for the Blacklist!
Al Gore (6 to 1): Ex-vice president, Democratic candidate in 2000.
Al Gore, Part II?? Hey, why not? You can say what you want to about Al Gore, but here's one fact no one can take away from him -- he beat Bush in the popular vote in 2000 and should have beaten him in the Electoral Vote if it wasn't for Republican voter fraud. The President-in-Exile has been finding his progressive voice since his presidential loss -- some are calling it an "ideological reconstruction". A founder of the New Democrats, Gore pissed off his allies big time when he endorsed Howard Dean in the 2004 Democratic primaries.
Indeed, the fact that he was willing to reject the New Democrat candidates may have severely damaged his chances of ever seeking the presidency again. To quote Howard Dean: "I do think the endorsement of Al Gore began the decline (of Dean's campaign)...the establishment in Washington realized that I may be the nominee and they did not like it." So in addition to the New Democrats pulling out all stops to end a Gore candidacy, the right wing will dust off their old manuscripts of flip-flopper, earth tones, Love Story, and inventing the Internet. (My theory: the reason the press seems to like Bush so much is because they are as intellectually lazy as he is.)
Barack Obama (7 to 1): Senator-elect from Illinois. Nice big state, lots of electoral votes, and Obama's job is safe until 2010. He's a great speaker, multicultural, photogenic, inspiring, and he's just enjoyed a massive, overwhelming victory in Illinois. (See: Keyes, Alan)
However, beyond his hopeful speech at the Democratic Convention, he's a political cypher. He says that he has no interest in running in 2008 (and indeed, he's young and he can wait). An Obama candidacy would lead to the ultimate question to be asked: has America finally come beyond racism enough to elect a candidate like Barack Obama?
Howard Dean (9 to 1): Former governor of Vermont. Even though his detractors state that Dean's record was more conservative than you might think, he has the reputation as the progressive's progressive. He dominated the Democratic Party when millions of young people and Internet users swarmed to his high-tech candidacy. However, it all came crashing down in Iowa.
The New Democrats -- calling themselves the "rank and file" -- rejected Dean and if you go to the ndol.org site, they were too happy to kick the corpse of the Dean campaign months after it was over. The "Dean Scream" might have turned him into a cariacture, and damaged his electability.
Pat Leahy (12 to 1): Senator from Vermont. You know he's a fighter, because he was the man who obstructed many of Bush's judicial nominations. The Bushists hate him, earning a "go fuck yourself" from Cheney , meaning that Leahy succeeded in drawing blood. He's a very safe senator, and his seat will remain warn until 2010. He also voted against unilateral war against Iraq. Dohiyi Mir could probably tell you more about him than I could.
John Kerry (18 to 1): See: Elections, 2004.
Wesley Clark (18 to 1): Clark dodged a bullet in 2004 -- he wasn't able to dislodge Kerry or Edwards, but he fought a hard campaign all the way and lost none of his credibility. He's a Vietnam War hero and former NATO commander --what more do you want in miltary credibility. (Of course, the Republicans are great at smearing military vets.)
He ignored Iowa, which turned out to be the smart move in the campaign, allowing him to save his money and stay alive. However, he's never held political office (neither did Eisenhower) and he is only a new convert to the Democratic Party.
Joe Lieberman (18 to 1): Joe was great at attacking Democrats and sounding like Republicans. No help to the ticket in 2000. Soundly rejected in 2004. Third time's the charm?
posted by Green Voicemail 11/07/2004 03:28:00 PM
