There's a bunch of negativity and hate building among progressives right now, as evidenced by the discussions on this forum. That's a very dangerous thing, and I would suggest that its also where the Democratic Party has gone so terribly wrong: it has tried to engage Karl Rove and the rest of the hatemongers over at the GOP in a finger-pointing, angry chess game. So the Dems spent most of their campaign talking about how bad things are under Bush / Cheney. Well, any voter that was likely to vote for Kerry already had some idea of that, and focusing on that simply couldn't help to energize those people to vote. It could only serve to depress them, to make them feel like the world is fucked, because that's all they heard. And if you look at the world right now, it does look fucked, but I certainly didn't need John Kerry to tell me that. One thing that people generally don't need help with is divining the present.

So what do I think the Dems should have done? Instead of talking about how bad things are, paint a picture of how good the world could be. I think people on the left, the youth vote, minority vote, etc., are driven by imagination, if only because, for the most part, they haven't the material wealth that tends to lull to sleep the imaginations of those in the GOP base. So what better way to get those voters excited than to stimulate their imaginations by asking them to imagine a future in which American foreign policy doesn't lead the majority of people in the world to despise us, a future in which the environment is protected, one in which people get help from the government when they need it, one in which the government says, "No" as infrequently as possible, but instead focuses its resources on saying "Yes" to people. Just thinking about it gets my juices flowing.

But the Democrats didn't do that and I don't think they could have done it. I don't think they have the imagination, and I don't think the corporate shills that run the party wish for that kind of world, or even want people to think about that kind of world. I suggest that it's time to start imagining a better world again. But I think we're gonna have to do it without the Democratic Party.

joshsolberg wrote:So what better way to get those voters excited than to stimulate their imaginations by asking them to imagine a future in which American foreign policy doesn't lead the majority of people in the world to despise us, a future in which the environment is protected, one in which people get help from the government when they need it, one in which the government says, "No" as infrequently as possible, but instead focuses its resources on saying "Yes" to people. Just thinking about it gets my juices flowing.

But the Democrats didn't do that and I don't think they could have done it.

you didn't watch the debates, did you? i did. i also seem to remember hearing people say stuff about how kerry just kept repeating himself. one of the things he kept saying was he would bring america back to the point where we worked with the rest of the world, unlike bush. he said that a bunch of times. he said it so many times that bush had to respond and say he wouldn't want our security to be decided at the whim of other countries. remember that? so yeah, the dems did paint that picture, but the pubs immediately painted it black, and turned it into the scare-tactic that so many people are upset about right now.

anybody else remember it happening that way?

I watched as much of the debates as I could bear. While I agree that Kerry did talk a bunch about bringing the U.S. back to the point where we were working with other nations and the UN, it was in the context of cleaning up the mess in Iraq. Well, he was still talking about us being engaged in a war that many of us didn't and don't agree with. So he wasn't talking about some vision of a different direction for the future of U.S. foreign policy, he was just talking about damage control. That's all Kerry ever had to offer: damage control.

And dude, why do you gotta imply that I'm talking out of my ass? Do I really do it that often? Seriously, if my effort to be constructive has offended you in some way, I apologize. Man, it's not like I'm just some ne'er-do-well, criticizing "them" from the sidelines. I actually worked the phones for the DP, contributed, I fucking tried, so don't bum-rush me with your condescencion.

alright man, easy there. i don't understand how you interpreted kerry's talk to mean he was only gonna work with the rest of the world with regard to iraq. the way i heard it, it seemed pretty clear he was talking about foreign policy in general. he was talking about getting america back to the way it was with hoover or FDR or george washington or whoever the hell's names he kept bringing up when he would talk about how he thought our foreign relations should occur. i don't see how you thought he was only talking about iraq. it seemed to me like he *was* painting the picture of the future that you describe. maybe the problem is, he wasn't charismatic enough to make you believe he could pull it off. i don't know that i necessarily believed he could or couldn't, though i suspect he could. i happen to think that his stance re: vietnam, back in the day, probably would be something that in the context of the modern world and where things are at right now, the perception of america that people suggest is rampant, i would think the nations of the world would respect him for having done that. they'd sit down at the table with a guy who, by many accounts, fought valiantly in vietnam as a solider should, and then came back to talk about what was wrong and how things should be different. that seems like just the guy that people would want to be involved with as far as diplomatic relations go. a guy who does what he has to, but has a sense of right and wrong and he's not afraid to cry foul on bullshit. i would think the only nations that wouldn't work alongside him would be those who are afraid they might be exposed for being bad news.

whatever. i could rant all day about how i think kerry did a lot of things right. i guess i don't understand why you didn't get that same sense from him, especially if you were working the frontlines for the dems during this election. sorry to bum-rush you. you obviously did a lot more to help kerry win than i did.

can we all just write letters to obama begging him to run for president in '08? that's what the dems really need, is a guy like him. although it doesn't seem like there is a guy like him, other than him.

anyways, again, sorry. it just seemed like you were lodging a complaint against kerry that didn't seem so valid to me based on what i heard him saying over and over in the debates.

You know who I think the dems need to run? They need McCain to run on the Republican ticket, that's what I think. I think it's currently our only hope - a moderate, feisty Republican. Until someone better comes along, & Obama (and the country)'s gonna have to wait a little more than 4 years before he (and we)'s ready.

spoot wrote:You know who I think the dems need to run? They need McCain to run on the Republican ticket, that's what I think. I think it's currently our only hope - a moderate, feisty Republican. Until someone better comes along, & Obama (and the country)'s gonna have to wait a little more than 4 years before he (and we)'s ready.

this is very sound, clear-headed logic. i believe i will cast my vote for YOU! SPOOT IN '08!!!!

I think there's a distinction between slimy politics and stupid politics, even if the line is a thin one and we can't always agree on where it should be drawn. It would genuinely sadden me if the left adopted the sliminess of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove--that is, Willie Horton and the Swift Boat character assassins. It's true--that's not really what we do, and I think it would ring false if we did. We just don't have the stomach for it, which is a good thing. It took a brain tumor and imminent death for Lee Atwater to apologize for Horton. Those of us without scales for skin wouldn't need Death staring us in the face to realize how despicable the Horton issue was.

But while we shouldn't be slimy, we could stand to be more stupid. Al Gore was subjected to a whole host of completely ridiculous issues, aided and abetted by a press corps that was pretty open in their dislike of him: he "invented the Internet," "claimed he was the inspiration for 'Love Story,'" was a "liar" because of a few totally banal inconsistencies, and on and on. This stuff works. The right wing media echo chamber keeps this shit going, it makes the candidate in question look weak and un-leader-like, and the whole discourse is dragged down. With Kerry, they really blurred the line between slimy and stupid: Kerry said terrorism was a mere "nuiscance" (he meant we should realize it will always be there and not let it ruin our lives), "he wasn't changed by Sept. 11" (he meant that terrorism was always a high priority for him), and of course that whole stupid thing about "not funding the troops."

Now Kerry made it too easy for them (especially with that last one), but why wasn't our side just as quick to jump on things the other side said? Why weren't the Dems loudly guffawing about Cheney saying he'd never met Edwards? Or about Bush saying the war on terror wasn't "winnable"? If Al Gore had said what Cheney said, we'd have been subjected to smirking ruminations on his "character" and "selective memory." And if Kerry had said the war wasn't "winnable"--holy shit, we'd still be hearing about it! Granted, we don't have the echo chamber on our side, but c'mon--if those are the rules the other side wants to play by, Bush certainly gave us enough "stupid" to capitalize on. (And I don't want to hear about how Bush was more "likeable" than Kerry, and therefore less succeptible to ridicule; Kerry's supposed unlikeability was a media canard and nothing more.)

To that end, this is how far I personally think we should have pushed "stupid" in the direction of "slimy": I think "Where's Osama?" should have been coming out of every Democrat's mouth at every opportunity. They should have made much more hay about Bush saying he "doesn't think about" Osama much. Do you really think if Gore had been president on 9/11 and we still hadn't gotten bin Laden, we wouldn't have heard about it every day--with a "day counter" on Fox news, just like during the Iranian hostage crisis under Carter? The way I figured it, if Osama had been caught as part of an "October Surprise," it would have been over for the Democrats anyway, so they really had nothing to lose by screaming "Where's Osama?" at every opportunity.

I like that we're, generally speaking, the more decent and humane side. But enough is enough.

Joe Lieberman and Dick gephardt? Are you out of your fuckin' mind?

Yes, truly the problem with the Democratic party is that they did not nominate one of these two completely dull, uninspiring 65 year old white guys who are more conservative than most of the Republican party.

God, I just love the high quality of arguments that the right makes about Democratic candidates. "Well, you'd have a winning candidate if you picked one who talks, legislates, and acts exactly like the Republicans. Like that Zell Miller. Now there's a democrat we could rally behind."

So if Bill Clinton says the EXACT SAME THING I SAID, does it make it suddenly a valid point and not 'ignorant'?

From today's New York Post... the money quotes: Clinton said it would be "a mistake for our party to sit around and . . . whine about this and that or the other thing" and that the Democrats "need a clear national message."

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/31816.htm

He even used the term 'whine' that you took such exception with when I used it.

He also said that "The Republicans had a clear message, a good messenger" implying, like I did, that the Democrats muddled their message and didn't have a good messenger.

Now I know why Steve called you all 'internet morons'.

angry planet wrote:Now I know why Steve called you all 'internet morons'.