And, I am not sure why Democrats should not point out that From and his crew have not only been total disasters, but that they generally are just asses who love nothing more to slam the 90 percent of the party that does not agree with them. Besides that, he is just a plain loser. He comes up with brilliant ideas like, "don't appeal directly to Hispanics!"
Both Bayh and Clinton would be awful candidates. And, I think that if either one of them somehow snuck out a win (and I think Hilary has a good shot at the nomination, Bayh has none), it would still be more of the same- the march of public policy to the far right would only be temporarily slowedm, because we would still be playing on Republican's turf. That said, in a crowded field, Clinton would have a huge, huge advantage in the primary.
And-This moderate our image thing- can you explain it to me? Who in our party (or, as the DLC would say, "special interests") would you like to sell out when you say that? What specific policies would you mean by that?
I don't think we need to "moderate" our image, we need to do a better job of expressing our values, and how that relates to social security, education, the environment, consumer protections, etc. Can you let me know what issues the Democrats need to change on? I would be very interested to hear...
Here is the thing, just about every person on here specifically has said the Democratic Party has room for many ideologies. You are not, once again, really responding to what I sam saying.
Two main points: You are basing the comparison of the Clinton and RFK campaigns on a slogan about welfare? That is just silly. Clinton was the ultimate retail politician, who could charm the pants off anyone. RFK, unlike his brother, was never really known as a great public speaker, and for a long time was sort of considered unlikeable. They had very, very different themes in their campaign.
And, as far as RFK "said something" about Hoffa. Yeah, us, he said quite a few things, none of which had to do with his stance on organizaed labor. (IE, his solidarity with Chavez.) He went after Hoffa loooong before he was running for President.
Second, people do not hate the DLC because they are moderate. So really, stop saying it. They are hated because they are self-righteous, corporate funded, holier-than-thou assholes. So you can try and put Rendell in with them, and ignore From, but how often do you see Rendell associating himself with them? Ever? Just being a member once does not make you one of them. And, if I could give you one Rendell specific example (of many possible): He excoriated Clinton and Congress in 1994 over the Welfare bill. I mean, truly went off, over and over. Another example is, again, Simon Rosenberg. He is a moderate, was once a DLC leader. But, he believes the party cannot be corporate driven and cannot be dominated by the same old people. From, on the other hand, is concerned about From.
Again, you are defending the organization with no real substance. Tell us how we benefited from their agenda or their tactics. As said above, read Lakoff for what happens when Democrats try and play on Republican frames. And, please, tell me you are a member for a reason that does not involve networking. Because if that is really it, then all you are doing is giving us empty points.
You read whose book? Clinton's? IF that is what you are basing his "I ran like RFK" thing on, I would strongly advise you to consider the purpose of Presidential memoirs. They are how President's would like to be remembered. They are not, not fact.
So, any other evidence on RFK and his campaign? Clinton, for all his merits, told people what they wanted to hear. RFK, on the other hand, was burned in effigy for forcing desegregation efforts. He protested with Cesar Chavez. When asked by a crowd of medical students who would pay for Universal Healthcare, he responded something like "you will." He campaigned relentlessly on getting America out of Vietnam. He did not gain huge crowds because he was a dynamic, feel your pain speaker, as Clinton did. He had them because they felt the convictions of what he stood for.
The backbone he showed has not been largely seen in national progressive politics ever since. Comparing Clinton to him is just not acccurate.
As for Rendell, saying he is a DLC Democrat is silly. I have seen him up close since I was 12 years old. He is one of the more progressive national scale politicans there are, and he looks for REFORM. So, sure, he may have been a member, he may still be. But so was Simon Rosenberg, and he is not a DLC democrat.
In a large democratic party, there are going to be differences. But there is a section of the party that not only is dominated by corporate Amerca, but are plainly, a bunch of assholes. They love nothing more than crticizing Democrats for being, well, Democrats. Virtually no one likes them, ideology aside. They go by the name of the DLC.
Over and over, you say things that I (and others) believe are factually untrue.
For example- the DLC helps in red states.
Or- Bobby Kennedy would be a DLC Democrat. (What? Wait, what?)
Anyway, people have given you some substantial rebuttals to what you say. Yet, essentially, you ignore them all, and never give any substantive response. Just look at this diary as an example...
It is fine (and healthy) to take a position that many would disagree with. But, if you cannot or are unwilling to defend that position, why bother coming on here in the first place? This is a discusssion back and forth. And it seems too often that you say something outlandish (especially the RFK=DLC thing) and then give no argument or evidence at all to back it up.
The whole idea is to shame Republicans? Really? So, the party that has seen its power further increase by a mid decade redistricting of Texas, that is sure to be copied elsewhere, will say, "shucks!, how embarassing!"? I am sort of stunned at this logic. So, the party of the "clear skies" act, the "middle class" tax cut and the "leave no child behind" act is going to feel shame? Really? The party that paints a crippled veteran as Osama Bin Laden? Really?
This redistricting issue, while dirty, is not one we can claim any high road on a state by state basis. Because while that is happening, the RNC is punching you in the mouth, and consolidating their base of power for generations.
You want some examples that we can push statewide, to acheive high ground? How about putting ballot initiatives on a minimum wage on every state possible? How about a wedge issue like stem cells? How about an issue that we can fight for in every state, but are not destroyed on a national level because of it?
Take a stand on redstricting, by all means. Have the new DNC chair mention it every single time he is on the air. Taunt Mehlman with it repeatedly. See if by miracles of miracles, we can declare a detente. But Jesus, do not attempt to just shame the shameless. Only with a complete national agreement is this something we can enact.
No offense, but if the moral highground you are so after results in a further entrenchment of a party hellbent on returning us to the Pre-Roosevelt days, I would just assume forget the highground, and instead punch back.
Is that Bob Casey, Jr may run for Senate after all, especially if he is asked in a very public way. Casey, despite his loss to Rendell, would be a very good candidate. He is probably the only person in PA with as much name recognition as Santorum.
Obviously, the fact that he is pro-life is a turn-off to many. But I will tell you that from everything I have seen, he is a fundamentally good man, and I think would make a good Senator.
I completely agree. We gotta forget about presidential electioneering. We have to find our voice, find our signature issues and disseminate them everywhere, all the time, on all levels. From that, a viable Demoratic candidate will come. If not, we end up banking our hopes on a magical canidate who may sneak out a win, but will still be serving in a country dominated by Republican power.
Actually, if I remember correctly, Santorum's opponent was Ron Klink, who had zero name recognition whatsoever in Philly. Zero. (He was a Pittsburgh weatherman turned Congressman who endorsed Spector.)
Santorum will have a ton of cash. But he can be beat. Hafer will have Rendell's (unofficial) backing in the primary, giving her access to his fundraising machine, and a big leg up.
I don't know that Santorum is as popular as everyone thinks... He was swept into office in the 1994 republican wave, then faced easily beatable Klink in 2000. If we get an opponent who can simply campaign with Rendell non-stop, especially in the suburbs of Philly, Santorum is a goner. I think Hafer, as a moderate, pro-choice woman, seems like a good pick.