Campaign 2008 Posted by Oaktown Girl, 02 Oct 2007 05:32 am

Draft Al Gore? No, Thanks.

Last Thursday I happened to hear Randi Rhodes on a serious “Draft Al Gore” bender. Now, I like Randi Rhodes a lot. I agree with her probably 90% of the time, and think overall she does a heck of a service providing a passionate, informative alternative to the screaming loony Right.

I also like Al Gore, and think he’s providing a heck of a service as well. But as a possible Presidential contender, I can’t say that he is so head and shoulders above the current slate of Democratic candidates (or, conversely that the current slate is so bad) that we need to turn all our attention to getting Gore into the race at this late stage.

For the record, Al Gore has not ruled out running for office again (specifically, for the Presidency). In interviews, he makes it a point to never say “never”. This, I feel, serves no one… except possibly Al Gore?

The Presidency is not something to be approached passively - waiting in the wings for the cries of the populace to be so overwhelming that in a heroic act of self-sacrifice you finally acquiesce. No. As much as many of us would like it to be otherwise, you really have to want it, and want it openly. (Note: as in every other goal-oriented matter, if you’re a woman, this makes you a “bitch”). You have to want it openly because you’re going to have to fight to win. How can you effectively fight for something you either don’t want, or are pretending not to want? Remember, Gore was viciously attacked by a corporate media cowed to its knees trying to prove it didn’t have a “liberal bias”. The next Democratic candidate can expect similar treatment, if not more so:

The pundits, however, invariably come around to the same question: “But if he ran, would he revert to the ‘old Gore’?” Another question—in light of countless recent stories about John Edwards’s haircut—might be: Would the media revert to the old media?
-Evgenia Peretz in Vanity Fair**

Without a doubt, Al Gore, and more importantly, the American people, were robbed in 2000. Be that as it may, Gore had his opportunity. Let’s give someone else a chance to prove that they, too, can run a campaign founded on the principle of being a spineless tool of corporate “advisors”.

♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
**Good but long article. Worth reading even if you think you know it all already. Skip the intro and go right to the parts with sub-headings if you are short on time.

Trackbacks

Responses to “Draft Al Gore? No, Thanks.”

  1. on 02 Oct 2007 at 7:15 am 1. christian h. said …

    I’m not a big fan of Gore, the politician (I hasten to add that there is no doubt that he would have been a much better president than the one we’re stuck with now), so naturally I agree. In particular, looking at the filth the media are already rolling out against Hillary Clinton (”she laughs - that must be worth a dozen frontpage articles”), one can only imagine the furious attacks they would run on Gore.

    Given that Gore has been more outspokenly liberal since he’s no longer running for office, I imagine it would be even worse. At least 8 years ago the media millionaires could be fairly certain a Gore presidency wouldn’t hit them in their pocket books - now they might no longer be so sure.

  2. on 02 Oct 2007 at 9:47 am 2. James Killus said …

    I can’t say that Gore is currently being “passive.” He does, however, show a refreshing lack of Presidential Fever, a serious mental illness that seems to affect all who ever thought they had a serious shot at the job.

    But really now, if some demogogue from the Democratic Right (I’m thinking warmongering corporate shill Frankensteined to an anti-immigrant faux populist) came to be the frontrunner sometime down the pike, I’d certainly be happy to see a Gore alternative, wouldn’t you?

  3. on 02 Oct 2007 at 10:32 am 3. Oaktown Girl said …

    To answer your question James, well sure. But in my opinion, a true frontrunner can’t really be determined until after New Hampshire (I don’t care who the corporate media tries to anoint months ahead of the fact). And strategically speaking, barring a miracle, by that time it’s pretty much too late for someone new to jump into the race, regardless of their name recognition and popularity.

    That’s why I don’t think Al Gore never saying “never” serves no real purpose, at least not one that does us any good.

  4. on 02 Oct 2007 at 12:35 pm 4. James Killus said …

    It may serve some purpose for Gore, even if it’s just for his own amusement. More likely, however, it’s part of his mystique (and pause for a moment to consider how strange an idea that seems), which is part of what he uses to push his political agenda by means other than seeking elective office.

    Hell, he can paint himself blue for all I care. He’s earned the right to be taken on his own terms, and whether or not that does “us” any good doesn’t seem like a question he should have to answer. It’s not like we ever did him much good. A little more support from the progressive left in 2000 (and a lot less “oh, they’re all the same corrupt liars”) and he’d have won the Presidency by too big a margin for Bush to steal.

  5. on 02 Oct 2007 at 1:01 pm 5. Oaktown Girl said …

    which is part of what he uses to push his political agenda by means other than seeking elective office.

    Absolutely, and I wish he’d do more to champion progressive causes now that he’s freed (at least in theory) from needing to be elected. He’s got a major platform, and a ton of goodwill built up. I wonder if keeping the door ever-so-slightly open holds him back?

    It’s not like we ever did him much good

    I’d disagree with that, considering how many people did bust their ass to get him elected. More importantly, I’d say he didn’t do himself much good. In addition to running a lousy campaign, he didn’t even carry his own state.

    And I completely agree with you about the “oh, they’re all the same corrupt liars” stuff. Still gets me ticked, and I fear we’re in for more of the same in 2008.

  6. on 02 Oct 2007 at 1:22 pm 6. Seattle said …

    Was it only me who felt that “An inconvenient truth” was half warning, half long running campaign promotion?

  7. on 02 Oct 2007 at 1:49 pm 7. christian h. said …

    And I completely agree with you about the “oh, they’re all the same corrupt liars” stuff. Still gets me ticked, and I fear we’re in for more of the same in 2008.

    I agree as far as it goes - they are not the same corrupt liars. However, that doesn’t change the fact that at some point we have to move beyond the policies on offer (I’m not talking about candidates, but policies). And what I’m afraid of is that the people who care spend all their energy on one promising candidate-about-to-turn corporate shill after another, never ceasing to be amazed when they are betrayed afterwards. Guess I ticked you off now, sorry.

    I don’t think we owe Gore or any candidate anything. If they can’t come up with policies (here I go again) that actually excite people to vote for them, that’s tough. And no matter how much the media’s disgusting war on Gore, and concentration on prefab storylines inventing personality traits may be responsible, it is also the case that the voters aren’t just puppets led around on Maureen Dowd’s strings. They may just be able to form an opinion for themselves; and when they hear yet another healthcare plan designed to be “politically possible” and more support for “free trade” and more tough talk on the “war on drugs” and … they may just decide to not spend one of their 10 vacation days to stand in line and vote.

  8. on 02 Oct 2007 at 1:52 pm 8. spyder said …

    At some point this all gets down to what’s good for the country in terms of pulling the lever, or pushing the stylus, or using a #2 pencil or black ink only. As i see the big picture, a Gore/Obama ticket can win and make a huge dramatic statement to the rest of the world, that the US is really not the nation it appears to have been for the last six years. Obama cannot win with anyone else (Dodd, Biden, Edwards??), it just won’t happen here (but what about Kucinich you ask?? cough cough choke choke, can you say Vilsak?). Hillary is massively unacceptable in so many ways. So where do you draw your line and make your stand and vote????

    Perhaps we won’t have to worry about it, considering Cheney trip to Salt Lake City and the secret conclave. I suspect he was laying out the upcoming scenario for 2008: surgical strikes against Iran, Iran retaliates throughout Middle East, terror acts (presumed to be such) in US, US nukes Iran, US citizen anti-Bushco rebellion is quashed with military and paramilitary force,necessitating the canceling of the elections (you do remember that odd little executive order signed last May, right?), and onward with the fascist christian inspired totalitarian state. Howz that for some conspiracy crabapples??? I mean there must be a reason they are building all those razor-wire enclosed camps along the railroads throughout the west, yes???

  9. on 02 Oct 2007 at 2:11 pm 9. christian h. said …

    Spyder - I don’t see it happening. I’m quite sure we’re going to have an election come November 2008, and a Democrat is going to win; this even if the US should attack Iran.

    On the lines of what I wrote before, because I have no great illusions about how progressive a Democratic president would be, I have no problem with trying to get Clinton elected should she be the candidate. Why? Because at least she would be competent and not clinically insane. Something that can’t be said about pretty much all the Republican candidates with the possible exception of McCain, and he’s so much of a warmonger that it doesn’t really matter if he’s sane in general.

  10. on 02 Oct 2007 at 2:29 pm 10. Oaktown Girl said …

    Guess I ticked you off now, sorry.

    Can you be just a little more condescending? And just for that, I’ll blame you for allowing that spam comment to get through.

    I don’t think you have to worry about “everyone” throwing all their energy and hopes to just one candidate. We have grassroots organizing all across the country these days, greatly facilitated by the miracle of the internets. It’s paying off. Progressives are winning offices in local areas previously held by Republicans and “conservative” Democrats all across the country. Democracy for America, a group which you’ve indicated you don’t care much for, christian, is leading the way in helping folks to do this.

    Short of a revolution, I don’t see any other way to go than this. The way to get policy changed is to get enough progressives elected to pass to Clean Money Elections and Instant Runoff Voting. That pretty much wipes out your “lesser of two evil” thing right there.

  11. on 02 Oct 2007 at 2:50 pm 11. christian h. said …

    Can you be just a little more condescending? And just for that, I’ll blame you for allowing that spam comment to get through

    Point taken. I actually meant to express that I really am sorry for ticking you off, because it’s not something I want to do; but I admit it sounds condescending the way I wrote it.

    Did I indicate I don’t care for DfA? Are they the ones with the Bush Dog thing? I simply disagree that the ineffectiveness of the Democratic congress is due to the conservative members of the caucus (I’m mostly talking about the House here). Or am I off-base and said something bad about them in some other context?

    I am convinced the “liberal” leadership is very happy to have the “Bush dogs”. They’ll provide both the votes to pass, say, war funding, or bankrupcy reform, or N/C/?AFTA - and the cover (”the Bush dogs did it!”). So I think the strategy of going after conservative Democrats is based in a flawed analysis and won’t be effective. But I’ll be very happy to be proved wrong.

  12. on 02 Oct 2007 at 3:08 pm 12. Oaktown Girl said …

    Are they the ones with the Bush Dog thing?

    No. (It was in the Obama post you indicated you didn’t care for DFA. Or at least that’s how I interpreted your comment).

    What was condescending (and insulting!) was that you would think this comment would tick someone off:
    And what I’m afraid of is that the people who care spend all their energy on one promising candidate-about-to-turn corporate shill after another, never ceasing to be amazed when they are betrayed afterwards.

    Why would we be ticked off? Are you saying we’re the ones you’re describing there? That we’re really that shallow and stupid and naive? That’s what came off as condescending. I am, of course, presuming that’s not what you really meant.

  13. on 02 Oct 2007 at 3:40 pm 13. christian h. said …

    Yeah, I see. And no, this is not what I meant. Here’s what I do mean: I know of no person who claims that “they are all the same corrupt liars.” There are people who do claim, or did in 2000, that there was/is no discernible ideological difference between the candidates. This may be wrong, but it’s not preposterous - as claiming “they are all the same corrupt liars” is. So I answered to what I think is a caricature of a perfectly legitimate position in the same way. I apologize if I inadvertently insulted anyone, including in particular present company.

  14. on 02 Oct 2007 at 3:48 pm 14. christian h. said …

    So I read again the comment where I mentioned DFA (how good is your memory? I had totally forgotten about that). In the context of that post, what I was saying is that for me personally an organization dedicated to producing a better Democratic party isn’t that interesting, since I don’t believe it’s really possible. I was clearly misinformed, as I certainly do support any initiative leveling the political palying field.

  15. on 02 Oct 2007 at 4:05 pm 15. Oaktown Girl said …

    Yes, DFA, while founded initially around the Howard Dean campaign, (back then it stood for “Dean for America”), is not part of the Democratic party. All are welcome, and there are plenty of Independents and Greens active, for example. They really do perform a very good service, and have helped to get a hell of a lot of people moved from simply complaining to taking action (Not that complaining’s a bad thing).

  16. on 02 Oct 2007 at 4:14 pm 16. James Killus said …

    In addition to running a lousy campaign, he didn’t even carry his own state.

    Just a little FYI background here, from a friend of mine who has remained active in Tennessee politics.
    Apparently, in 2000 (and to a degree even now) there basically was no organized Democratic Party in Tennessee at all; it was (and remains) entirely a near-feudal system of contending fiefs. Gore could have organized to win in Tennessee or he could have run for President, but he could not have done both.

    As for the “lousy campaign,” I can only ask “relative to what?” The only “non-lousy” Democratic campaigns for President in the last 25 years were Clinton’s, and he was the most charismatic politician since Kennedy (Reagan possibly excepted, but I tend to think of his mojo as more “celebrity” than “charisma”). I think the “Gore ran a lousy campaign” narrative is another of the propaganda hooks that have been used to cover up the basic fact that Gore won the election, it was then stolen from him, and every establishment institution in the country was both complicit in the theft and the following “get over it” crap. In 2000 the masks slipped, and now they’re gone completely, and it’s raw insanity that’s showing its ugly faces.

  17. on 02 Oct 2007 at 4:19 pm 17. christian h. said …

    DFA does sound like an organization worthy of support, then. I add that I am generally convinced that any progress to be made in the electoral arena has to start at the local and state levels, if only because the monetary entry barrier is much lower.

  18. on 02 Oct 2007 at 4:30 pm 18. christian h. said …

    and the following “get over it” crap.

    That was the first step in my radicalization (I used to a normal, well-adjusted leftwing social democrat). The way every mainstream organization, from the Democratic party to the media (with the single exception of, if I recall, the Congressional Black Caucus) thought it more important to keep up the facade that “the system works” and avoid a “constitutional crisis” than to fight for the rights of voters (especially, black voters) was hugely disillusioning to me. The almost Stalinist manner in which the few who refused to capitulate were treated as, basically, nutcases, opened my eyes to the possiblity that other “nutcases” maybe had some valid points to make.

    (I should say that at that point I’d only been in the US for a little bit more than a year, so the whole conduct of elections here was new and weird to me - that probably exaggarated the impact of it.)

  19. on 02 Oct 2007 at 4:33 pm 19. Seattle said …

    What James said. If President Gore had been in office, would we be in our 6th year of war in Iraq?

    If I were him I wouldn’t run again. Nobody should have to go through that sort of wringer twice, unless they actually sat in office for 4 years and wanted to. Plenty of people must be telling him he’s having a bigger impact outside the office-especially with the moral force of a winner defeated by mechinations rather than actual numbers.

  20. on 02 Oct 2007 at 4:45 pm 20. Oaktown Girl said …

    I can only ask “relative to what?”

    Lousy not relative to anything. Meaning, I’m not comparing it to anything else. Understand, I still fume everytime I think about seeing Gore on CSPAN shortly after the 2000 campaign, loose and charismatic and passionate, and literally screaming at my TV, “Where the hell was this Al Gore during the campaign?” Though he certainly was not all to blame by any means, he was the leader. And that others before him also ran lousy campaigns (also not their faults alone) doesn’t give him a pass in my mind. And true, that “lousy campaign” statement is used as part of the nasty “get over it” meme, which I hate for all the reasons you mentioned.

    And as far as TN goes, that’s one of the reasons I’m so in favor of DFA. Without DFA, Howard Dean would never have become Chairman of the DNC. DFA knew that Dean was going to do what progressives had been begging the DNC to do for years - go to a 50-State strategy. Excellent article from The Nation here on that.

  21. on 02 Oct 2007 at 5:02 pm 21. James Killus said …

    I still fume everytime I think about seeing Gore on CSPAN shortly after the 2000 campaign, loose and charismatic and passionate, and literally screaming at my TV, “Where the hell was this Al Gore during the campaign?”

    Under ongoing and continual attack, 24/7, would be my answer. Kinda hard to remain loose when you’re under fire, and every offhand comment you’ve ever made is being used as a weapon against you.

    On the other hand, roughly 1/3 of the public now “approves” of G. W. Bush, down from a peak of somewhere near 90%. But I could swear he looks like the same guy to me, well, except maybe for the prozac and klonopin, which I think he now takes by the handful. But he was obviously a deranged, lying, boorish, sadist in 2000, just as he is today. Yet few noticed then. Not very many will admit it now. Why is that? I’ve been told it has something to do with Jesus.

  22. on 02 Oct 2007 at 7:44 pm 22. christian h. said …

    And if Gore ran again, he would again be under continual attack. And all the old made-up stories would be dredged up again - the press corps is already using any chance they get. I just really agree with Oaktown Girl: I don’t think Gore would have a better chance of winning than the other Democratic candidates, and it seems to me that all of them that have a chance would make reasonable or even good presidents.

    Now is the time to fight tooth and claw against the media narratives being constructed about Clinton, Edwards, Obama … in anticipation of the general election campaign; and the time to push them on issues while the primary campaign gives us the chance. Not the time to look for a “savior” - let’s leave that to the Republicans, they could use one.

  23. on 02 Oct 2007 at 9:13 pm 23. Oaktown Girl said …

    Like most of the questions I launch at my TV, the “Where was this Al Gore?” one was rhetorical. (Is that frickin’ umpire blind, drunk, or BOTH??!!”) I think I did a pretty good job documenting the severity of attack he was under. And we’ve seen that he’s just not very good at working the cameras and sound bites in the face of it,** so why run him up there again? Especially if he doesn’t really want it? No guarantee that the next person will do any better (but I hope they certainly do), but let’s give someone else a chance.

    Back to the “Who does it serve?” question: regardless of whether anyone thinks we ought to ask it of Gore or not, if he’s a person of integrity, he certainly ought to be asking of himself. He’s no ordinary private citizen, he’s a very public one, and his actions have a big (potentially huge) impact. Most spiritual paths with which I’m familiar teach the importance of being aware of, and responsible for, your impact. I would like to think that Gore’s brand of Christianity teaches something similar.

    **Is it possible that John Kerry was even worse? Oh yes. Yes it is.

  24. on 02 Oct 2007 at 10:14 pm 24. JP Stormcrow said …

    Do go on y’all - very entertaining.

    But against all better judgment I will weigh in. The Gore savaging is something I do know quite a bit about - Daily Howler (and TPM) were the first two political blogs that I followed. Plus I personally fell for some of the Gore stuff during the campaign - I was only then slowly awakening from a political slumber during the 90s. (When Clinton got elected I canceled my subscription to The Nation and tuned out, relieved that insane (by standards of the day) people were no longer in the White House.)
    The whole Florida theft show was what pulled me back in completely. My bad .. sorry.

    0.5) After ranting away below on topics germane and not, I realized that I never addressed the point of the post. I yearn for the days of the smoke-filled room and in that scenario would have him stick around - but in the reality of todays media-saturated/totally whacked primary system it is probably best that he comes out and agrees to give it a pass.

    1) He does, however, show a refreshing lack of Presidential Fever, a serious mental illness that seems to affect all who ever thought they had a serious shot at the job.

    Unfortunately, this reminds me too much that one of the many negative narratives on Gore was how he wanted it so bad that he could “almost taste it”. Unlike Bush/Rove for instance. (Jesus, my blood pressure is probably up 20 points just remembering it all.)

    2) I do agree that the “get over it” was among the most truly shameless episodes of a truly shameless national political media/punditocracy. All of it done with assurances that Bushco would “hafta” be centrist, “hafta” work with the Dems, hafta, hafta, hafta. Of course then when BushRoChe responded by showing that they didn’t “hafta” do shit - the self-loathing slimy sub-humanoids in the Press didn’t even call them on there bullshit …aaarghh. .. Ok off topic a bit… but Jesus Fucking Christ are we doomed or what? ..christian h is right, must kill the narratives, must kill the narratives, must kill the narratives. Breaking Drudge Report exclusive !! Hilary squats to pee!!

    3) OK, where was I…. Ah yes, Gore, bad campaign. Given the strength of the narratives, I really do not how to deconvolve what was Gore and what was the projection. Remember the motherfucking “sighs” during the debate for God’s sake. The one thing that I do fault Gore with is running away from Clinton personally. I know he would have taken flak, but there he is with about the greatest natural campaigner evah .. AND HE DOESN’t USE HIM!! Should have taken the Big Dawg out there and had him take on those twisted, closeted, sexually-repressed Republicans and their media whores head on. Sure all of the focus would have been on Clinton .. but let it happen!! Then Gore could have sat back a bit and been ethereal and statesman like. You know, the old Horny Cop, Nerdy Cop routine.

    4) And I do not know how much say Gore really had, but the selection of that unctuous creep Lieberman (all part of running “away” from Clinton) was a freaking disaster. All that I will say is that Joe showed he had a great future in ventriloquism when he managed to convince everyone that he was “debating” Cheney when he was in actuality performing oral sex on him for an hour. (Contrast this with his attitude towards Democrat Ned Lamont.)

    5) Back to the “recount”.
    The incident that resonates to this day with me as showing a truly ugly side of America was the “Brooks Brothers” riot, or more to the point the reeaction to “Brooks Brothers” riot (as embodied right in its name). As you probably recall, it was so hilarious that these middle-class white men (mostly repub congressional staffers, later rewarded) were “rioting” to shut down vote-counting. (Who’s afraid of them? look their being physically intimidating while wearing suits! … how droll. Ohmigod!! Jesse Jackson might have some black people at a rally - now that’s scary!!) But I guess to be fair, what harm have politically-motivated gangs of Caucasian males ever caused anybody in the past 150 years or so. Why it’s ….. inconceivable!

    Ok. Done now. You know, I’m not quite to the point that spyder desribes above… but you can see it from here. Because, seriously, if they did let it all hang out, who in the media would stand up to it? Only if the Big Money guys thought it was too extreme.

    I may have told this one before, but for the insurance at our work we take a yearly “Health Check” test. (behavioral questions, mostly) One that always brings a chuckle:
    Do you have periods of rage? A. Always B. Sometimes C. Rarely D. Never.JP’s Answer “A” for 7 years running, and it should have been for 13.

  25. on 03 Oct 2007 at 6:05 am 25. The Constructivist said …

    Yeah, Gore would make a great Energy Secretary, just like I’d like to see Richardson in Condoleeza Rice’s job, and so on. President, he just doesn’t excite me this time around. And if he were to run and Hillary still won, he can give up on any Cabinet position he might have been hoping for otherwise.

    In 2008, I’ll vote for any combo of Hillary, Barack, and John. I’m not as anti-Hillary as I normally would be b/c I saw how effective she’s been at winning the upstate (Red) vote in NY as a Senator. Doubt she’d be able to replicate her listening tour/barnstorming approach nationwide, but she had to have learned something from the process.

  26. on 03 Oct 2007 at 7:17 am 26. JP Stormcrow said …

    I will second what TC says on Hillary - I am fine with her if she can win. This may be a retreat on principles - so be it. The main concern I have here is that the Dems can’t “outsource” the decision on who’s electable to their opponents and the media. That is how you end with John Kerry as your candidate.

    Some day the way the whole John Dean thing went down will be held up as an exemplar of subtle “ratfucking” - but with the help and consent of the media and the establishment Dems. The Dean Scream is one thing - the attacks on his wife, especially from powerful women in the media was another. It was so “weird” that a practicing doctor did not leave her practice and campaign with hubby. And who had heard of a woman doctor anyway? And how could we even function as a country if she did not come to DC if he were elected? It was so strange to sit here in the heartland and hear east-coast NY/DCers stating how this would not fly out here - when in fact I had not heard it raised as an issue even once by anyone, including the usual suspect wingers I know.

    Looking at this whole sordid history, I will say that if Hillary is nominated, it will be a campaign like none other in US history. Swift Boats won’t be the half of it. A “good” side of this is that the interest generated will be enough to generate a large turnout.

  27. on 03 Oct 2007 at 11:21 am 27. Oaktown Girl said …

    JP - I think you mean Howard Dean, not John Dean. But yeah, I definitely feel your outrage. In much the same way the corporate media goes out of their way to attack Democratic candidates/elected officials to try to prove they’re not “liberal”, I think it’s the same thing happening with some women in the corporate media: go after professional women to prove they aren’t “biased” - but only if they aren’t Republican.

    The corporate media on both coasts loves to declare what will and won’t “play” in the middle of the country because they, of course, are the experts. I think David Brooks is most famous for this, and he knows absolutely jack shit about the middle of the country. I heard Brooks get completely torn apart one time on an interview on Air America, but it was a long time ago, and I can’t remember who was being interviewed. There’s probably a blog somewhere that has some of his bullshit on this particular issue documented.

  28. on 03 Oct 2007 at 2:13 pm 28. JP Stormcrow said …

    Yes, yes, Howard Dean , of course.

    Here is David Brooks being ripped a new one back in 2004 in Philadelphia Magazine - “Boo-boos in Paradise”

    But Brooks takes their findings and, regardless of origin, applies to them what one might call the Brooks Consumer Taste Fallacy, which suggests that people are best understood by where they shop and what they buy.

  29. on 03 Oct 2007 at 2:55 pm 29. spyder said …

    Just for the record (of whomever is the keeper of these things) i will never vote for Hillary until she disavows most of her contemporary positions on pertinent matters. The old adage of knowing your enemies is easier than knowing your friends, because your enemies can’t betray you applies in this case. The GOP fascists are easy to find; it is the closeted ones in the DLC, DCCC, DFA, and those other supposedly liberal organizations that will get us all stomped down.

    Hillary will also get destroyed publicly by the GOP machine (and certainly so would Obama); use the current Limbaugh versus MoveOn saga as a point of reference. The man boldly lies, revises his copy of the historical record and garners support from all sorts of circles, and not just the FauxNews net. The swiftboating of Kerry will be trivial matters should Hillary become the candidate. In one way i suppose it would be good for the country to have that sort of raw gaping wound in the fabric of the country; perhaps some folks would even begin to pay attention.

    But if you want to see how bizarre this round is getting, check out Chris Matthews being interviewed by Jon Stewart???

  30. on 03 Oct 2007 at 3:37 pm 30. Oaktown Girl said …

    DFA, spyder?

  31. on 03 Oct 2007 at 4:18 pm 31. christian h. said …

    Spyder, don’t make the same mistake I did with DFA - I looked into them a little after being justly chastised by the MoJ; they are really doing good work. Not working for the revolution, but patient work for progress from the ground up. The kind without which we can wait for the revolution till hell freezes over…

  32. on 03 Oct 2007 at 10:28 pm 32. JP Stormcrow said …

    check out Chris Matthews being interviewed by Jon Stewart???

    He didn’t know it at the time, but Bob Dylan wrote “Ballad of a Thin Man” about Chris Matthews.

    Because something is happening here
    But you don’t know what it is
    Do you, Mister Jones?

  33. on 03 Oct 2007 at 10:59 pm 33. spyder said …

    I supported the DFA in 2004 and have continued to receive near daily updates since. Certainly they do “good work,” but that can be said for the other Democratic party support PACs when they are focusing on funding electable progressives in local elections. The DFA receives funds from the DNC and from the DCCC along with other financial support. A vast majority of the people who participate in the DFA, are mainstream Democrats with mainstream Democratic values. They are simply not all that progressive; and i am not a Democrat.

  34. on 04 Oct 2007 at 9:06 am 34. Oaktown Girl said …

    DFA is a national organization, but each group is local and independent, and these local groups truly are grassroots organizations. There’s no top-down marching orders whatsoever. As such, each local group is going to have a different flavor. The Oakland and Berkeley chapters, being in the region they are, would very much be viewed by most anybody as “progressive”, not “mainstream Democratic”.

    I can’t speak to the financing issue. There may be that money you mentioned coming in to headquarters, I don’t know. But I sat on the Oakland steering committee for quite a long time before work hours interfered, and we certainly weren’t receiving any money from “above”. In any event, I think to compare DFA to the DNC or the DCCC is wildly off-base. You’re equating ground-up versus Washington top-down (not to mention the money and power involved). If you don’t care for the organization, fine, but make your comparisons to other national grassroots organizations.

  35. on 04 Oct 2007 at 10:17 am 35. spyder said …

    OF course, i shan’t make my own comparisons:

    1. We hire organizers chosen by the state parties in every state — experienced local activists who know their communities.
    2. We bring those organizers together for summits where they can learn from each other the best practices for getting organized to win elections.
    3. Armed with the knowledge they’ve shared with each other, Democratic organizers return to the states and recruit and train leaders at the local level.
    4. Those local leaders recruit more leaders and volunteers until every single precinct in their area has a trained, effective organization of Democrats dedicated to winning votes for Democrats.

    And i suppose the DFA has zero part of this effort?

    Yes you live in a progressive hub that has been electing progressives, socialists, liberals, and Democrats long before anyone ever thought of the DFA; but you must admit that your “very long time” in the last three years does not accurately represent the truly long haul of a successful national grassroots organization. I am not unfamiliar with CA politics, nor with Bay Area grassroots political processes, nor with truly progressive politics. There has been a relatively successful, on-the-ground, grassroots progressive presence in the East Bay for decades. Occasionally marred by controversy, corruption, conflict (hell bombs and gunfire), those efforts have definitely promoted progressive candidates, ballot measures, and wise policies in that area for a long time. But that is not due to the DFA, and most certainly does not represent the DFA across the country.

    To suggest that my comparison of the DFA with the DNC is “wildly off-base” presupposes that Howard Dean has absolutely nothing to do with Howard Dean.

  36. on 04 Oct 2007 at 11:14 am 36. spyder said …

    All this DFA analysis aside, and i publicly apologize to Oaktown Girl for being snarky and pissy: BUT, we have got much bigger problems than trying to elect local progressives. Consider one of today’s lead stories National Review runs with Pace for President! What??? Last week it was Betrayus that was being promoted, and now Pace. These people are freaking begging for a fascist state, top-down militarized security state, run by a military chain-of-command linked to Cheney and funded the military contractors. I suppose Blackwater would become the official US gestapo that doesn’t officially torture or shoot first, but also can’t ever be held accountable because that would tip our hand to outside interests in matters of national security.

  37. on 04 Oct 2007 at 12:19 pm 37. spyder said …

    Goldy, over at HorsesAss.Org, offers this tale from last night’s Drinking Liberally Seattle:

    There I was the other night, pint of Manny’s in hand, plotting mischief with a couple of politicos, when who should walk up to us but Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander — and I gotta say, perhaps the most energetically outspoken politician I’ve ever met. Within seconds we’re talking Iran, and Gen. Clark didn’t mince words. President Bush is preparing to take us to war with Iran, and the Democratic Congress, Clark warned, is unprepared to stop him. Don’t get too cocky about 2008, Clark told us. The Republican plan is to use the war, and the patriotic fervor that seems to swell up around every new military adventure, to kick ass next November, branding us Democrats as weak, indecisive and obstructionist… if not out-and-out traitors.