Tweet
Let’s make a list.
Progressives have one ally at this moment, roughly three months before the 2012 presidential campaign begins: Time.
But that said, time’s a-wastin’.
Barack Obama announced his candidacy for president on February 10, 2007. I fully expect that by that same date in 2011 – if not sooner – the GOP noise machine will be in full swing, beating the drum for its challengers. If we progressives are serious about primarying Barack Obama, we must identify potential opponents now, and work over the next three months (or less) to qualify, vet, contact, and draft them.
To begin, we only need a list of names, and this diary is for compiling that list. Subsequent diaries will be put up for thinning the list, for vetting/discussing each prospective candidate, and for building support.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a first: A wholly online, wholly transparent nomination process for a primary challenger to a sitting president.
Let the nominations begin.
315 Comments
Some work has already been done on this by Michael Kwiatkowski, myself and others:
http://my.firedoglake.com/jeffroby/2010/10/23/dump-obama-time-for-a-candidate/
Dump Obama: time for a candidate
The conversation is well worth a read, as we try to move to brass tacks. We have come up with:
Al Gore
Alan Grayson
Alexander Cockburn
Andrew Romanoff
Arianna Huffington
Ben Affleck
Bernie Sanders
Bill Black
Cenk Uygar
Cynthia McKinney
David Sirota
Dawn Johnsen
Dean Baker
Dennis Kucinich
Dick Durbin, Senate
Donna Edwards
Elizabeth Warren
George Clooney
George Miller
Glenn Greenwald
Henry Waxman
Howard Dean
James Galbraith
Jan Schakowsky
Jane Hamsher
Jeff Merkley, Senate
Jerrold Nadler
Jesse Ventura
John Aravosis
Joseph Stiglitz
Madonna
Maurice Hinchey
Michael Moore
Mike Gravel
Peter DeFazio
Ralph Nader
Raul Grijalva
Richard Trumka
Russ Feingold
Susan Sarandon
Tammy Baldwin
Yves Smith
The list below breaks (arbitrarily) into roughly 3 categories:
celebrity names
heavy hitters
less powerful progressives
One issue we will need to rassle with is the tension between liberal big names vs. more radical smaller figures.
Thanks jeffroby, I was traveling that week and must have missed it.
TheCallUp points out here a statement by Howard’s brother Jim.
In the spirit of adding to the list (without prejudging anybody at this point), I’ll add (less powerful progs) Bill Richardson and George Mitchell; and (celebrity names) Lewis Black, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert.
I have to disagree that the next steps are as you describe, jeff. I think a website is a mistake at this point. This (FDL) has proved to be a great open forum, and I think carrying the process out here rather than trying to migrate it elsewhere would expose the effort to the greatest number of potential supporters. Here we can continue working within what is both a very reasonable structure and arguably the most widely read, truly progressive address on the Internet – without the constraints of website administration or diverting Jane’s painstakingly built audience away from her site.
Once we have a candidate, that’s the time to launch a site.
How about a final deadline for nominations? Given the depth of the list you’ve already compiled, but allowing for people who are newly interested in primarying the president after his lame-ass news conference, allow me to suggest one week from today?
I agree that FDL is the best forum for this. I know others mentioned a website, but I don’t recall doing so myself. In any event, I agree with you.
One thing I’m increasingly leaning towards is putting forth a “minor candidate” with solidly progressive views, centered on a 3-point program: Jobs (and Safety Net), Peace, and Civil Liberties. Filing with the FEC and beginning the actual ballot access. It would provide us a rallying point, and it would not leave us holding the bag if so-called “major” candidates don’t step forward, or step forward, suck out the oxygen, and then drop out.
Stewart would be the best option, IMO, but who in his right mind would leave his gig to go on the campaign trail? (Unless he could take his show on the road and make the whole thing a joke that is really serious.)
I’ve wondered about the same approach. Amy Klobuchar is someone I’d consider for such a strategy, also Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
How about Rachel Maddow and Dylan Ratigan?
A lot of good ideas. Here’s the tough question. How do we get a progressive to run? How do we get out of a position of passivity?
I think we have to narrow the field of potentials to six or ten, and essentially make it a job interview process. I don’t think letters are the way to go. I think an organization – the “Primary Obama in 2012 Steering Committee” or some such – is needed, with a widely known chairperson at the helm, to ensure that our entreaties to each prospective candidate are taken seriously. So…
1) found the org and find a chairperson (Jane? Greenwald? Feingold?)
2) narrow the field based on vetting and implied or known willingness to run, and
3) make contact to open discussions
?
Have you forgotten Pat Paulson??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Paulson
…
I thought this was going to be a serous exercise with proper vetting of the people on the list.
Bill Richardson is one of the most corrupt govenors we have had here in NM. When he leaves office next year for his $1.2 million job-reward in CA most New Mexicans never want to see his Carpetbagger face again.
I would also hope that neoliberals like Gore would not be included in a list of true progressives.
I recognize that this is a serious conversation and I didn’t mean to be facetious.
Nevertheless, Paulson’s candidacy offers a few lessons that may be useful here. For example, going on the campaign trail may not be necessary.
I’m merely listing the names that were put forth. Prune away. By the way, I don’t consider Madonna a major contender. Lady Gaga was eliminated because she is too young.
It’s like building a snowball starting with a single snowflake. Where to begin?
There’s no need for a whole new web site. We already have at least one and a half that can be used to promote progressive candidates from the left. One is my own, which was set up expressly for that purpose. The half a web site is FDL (the moderators actively work against third party efforts, and Jane won’t promote third party candidates, so we can only rely on FDL as a communications resource — direct fund-raising will likely be problematic).
As for candidates, we should eliminate the vanity suggestions, namely, the celebrities floated by people whose only reason for even throwing them out is that they’d like to see such people run. It ain’t gonna happen, and arguing why we should include people who aren’t ever going to run for public office in a list of potential challengers for 2012 is a waste of time and energy we can’t afford. I would cut down the submitted list to the following:
Ralph Nader
Cynthia McKinney
Dennis Kucinich
Bernie Sanders
Mike Gravel
Elizabeth Warren
Donna Edwards
Andrew Romanoff
Jesse Ventura
Dick Durbin
Elizabeth Warren
Jeff Merkley
Peter DeFazio
Russ Feingold
Bill Black
Dean Baker
James Galbraith
Jan Schakowsky
John Aravosis
Joseph Stiglitz
Maurice Hinchey
Raul Grijalva
Richard Trumka
Tammy Baldwin
Yves Smith
I’ve broken down the list of remaining names into three categories:
1.) Those who have run for and held public office, who have either run for or expressed a desire to run for president, or some combination of the two, in order of ideological preference.
2.) The second group is comprised of those who currently hold public office, but who have expressed no desire to run for president and whose progressive credentials are suspect.
3.) The final group is made up of people whose names and records are unknown to me, or whose career paths mark them as potential cabinet or regulatory picks.
The problem with placing people on a list of potential draftees is that too many suggestions are made on the basis of desire, as opposed to practicality. As politically passionate as Susan Sarandon is, when has she ever run or expressed a desire to run for public office, much less president? For that matter, why would anyone seriously expect George Clooney to run? Likewise with Jane Hamsher, Arianna Huffington, and Glenn Greenwald. Not one of these celebrities can be counted on to run for anything, so why waste the energy trying to recruit any of them?
Similarly, politicians with inconsistent records of progressivism should be excluded. Alan Grayson may be strong on matters of Wall Street regulation, but his position on Israel is deplorable. Russ Feingold may talk the talk when it looks as though a progressive bill isn’t likely to pass, but I’ve yet to see him walk the walk when it comes to actually supporting progressive legislation if it stands a chance of passage. And Bill Richardson is a DLCer, so why even include him to run against fellow DLCer Obama?
That’s my handle on the nominating process. I think we need to be more practical in picking recruits to run for president in 2012, and we should be aware of the very real likelihood that a primary opponent from within the Democrat Party in 2012 is out of the question, and that we’ll need to go outside the party for candidates.
In fact,…now that the internet has caught on…, a Youtube campaign might be the most efficient way to reach the people who voted for HopeyChangey last time. That makes fundraising less important.
I haven’t – although admitting it dates me :)
Michael Kwiatkowski wrote:
“It ain’t gonna happen, and arguing why we should include people who aren’t ever going to run for public office in a list of potential challengers for 2012 is a waste of time and energy we can’t afford.”
With all due respect, Michael, why? Because you say so?
The fact that people haven’t (or have) previously expressed a desire to run shouldn’t be considered an indicator of how they would respond to a sufficient popular movement in support of them. In fact, I’m a bunch more leery of those who ARE interested than those who have not indicated one way or another. Despite your own sense of emergency, we have lots of time, provided we move things forward and refuse to get prescriptive and pre-emptive towards one another.
I started this thread to engage those who, since Tuesday, have awakened to the futility of this presidency. That you and others were there before them should not preclude their participation, and certainly doesn’t indicate any kind of pre-eminence on your part. So I respectfully ask that you give others a chance to absorb the lessons of the midterms and give potential nominees some thought.
One other thought I think is important: I have a web site too (several, in fact), but I’m not using this effort to try to drive traffic to them. That’s not to suggest you are, but put yourself in FDL’s place and ask if YOU wouldn’t take what you wrote above in just that way. You may not like FDL’s approach but many – and I’m one of them – recognize it as the one Lefty site that doesn’t just outright ban people for suggesting that the Democrats are dead, let alone for discussing what’s next.
I might exclude fewer than you, but the sentiment is right on.
Does this mean you disagree with the above steps? Because I think someone at the helm with name recognition within the braoder progressive movement is crucial.
My champions are Bill Black, James Galbraith and Elizabeth Warren. But I see them as critical members of a competent Presidential administration rather than as President itself.
As for some of the others that I highly respect: Hamsher, Greenwald, Baker, Yves… I think they provide maximum service to the nation as political outsiders/watchdogs.
At the end of the day, I suspect that it’d have to boil down to a short list of men such as DeFazio, Grayson and Feingold. Any of those three would be capable of mounting a serious challenge and all of them would be a vast improvement over Obama. I like DeFazio’s chances the best but then again… he’s already got a job.
The remainder of the people mentioned either don’t have sufficient name branding, have already been politically assasinated and/or have already tried and failed.
I agree. Richardson and Gore ARE most definitely part of the establishment.
Michael has a strong 3rd party commitment, and in my opinion has been moving closer to an alliance with progressive Democrats. I agree with him about needing to be concrete about the mechanics of actually getting a candidate, but he is working on a much shorter timeline.
Times are changing, and absolutely agree with you that it’s a whole new ballgame. We may end up backing someone we’ve never heard of. Building the movement is still my bottom line, and the candidate is a tool towards that end.
List:
Jane Hamsher
Glenn Greenwald
Cenk Uygur
Ralph Nader
Elizabeth Warren
Russ Feingold
George J. Mitchell
Howard Dean
David Sirota
Bill Moyers
Paul Krugman
Arianna Huffington
To beat Obama, we might have to just shortcut to a big name progressive celebrity: I.e. George Clooney would snag the women’s vote, and many of the white males who otherwise might not vote for a liberal. Kind of sucks to think along these terms, but we are sort of throwing a Hail Mary.
David Corn would make a great President, but like a lot of the names on my list, I have no idea whether they’d ever contemplate such a thing.
I can’t agree with you on Corn, he has consistently struck me as a chameleon depending on where he’s “pund”ificating. Some of the stuff he said on Olbermann during the first year of the Obama admin was nothing short of apologist.
That said, of the names on your list, I would take (in order of preference):
George J. Mitchell, Howard Dean (tie)
Elizabeth Warren (caveat: still too early to tell)
Ralph Nader
And would add (in no particular order):
Al Franken
Dennis Kuchinich
Andrew Romanoff
Amy Klobuchar
It’s not going to happen because not even one of those vanity candidates has expressed any interest in running for president, and not one of them has ever run for public office. Sure, they’ll donate to various causes and to the DNC, but beyond that, what can we point to that leads us to believe that, say, Sarandon or Clooney will ever run? Why waste time and energy on a futile effort? We need to run people who will actually run, not people we want to see run because we think it’ll be cool. If Clooney were to announce tomorrow, I could believe it possible, but I don’t see that happening.
I love Dennis, but like Nader, I fear he’s ‘shop worn’ from having run so many times, and not ever gained much ground. That’s the ONLY reason why I suspect Kucinich and Nader wouldn’t be good choices. As far as their platforms, I’m all aboard.
Corn is pretty gutsy. He’s one of the few journalists/MSNBC contributors who actually challenges Matthews’ conventional TP.
He and Isikoff also wrote a well-researched investigative book on Bush war crimes (related to misleading us into the Iraq war). I suspect he’d be a great advocate for restoring the rule-of-law to Washington. But I doubt he’d ever do it, so …
Damn! And he was such a handsome fellow!
But seriously, there is the matter of vanity candidates, and then there are possibilities who have not yet expressed any interest in the office. Among those, there may be possibilities.
We’re on the same page re Nader and Kucinich.
Frankly I think Dr. Dean would be a great candidate. “The scream” was long-since exposed as a Democratic party tactic to oust him from the running, and I think that fact could be played to his advantage if he were willing to use it in a run against the party’s incumbent.
Mitchell is terrific on every count. A terrific senator, his work in both Northern Ireland and the Middle East, and his Arab-American ethnicity only adds to his appeal. But he’s getting old.
Romanoff I’ve only just begun reading about, and while he impresses me, who knows if he’d risk destroying his Dem party cred at his young age? And Bill Clinton’s endorsement of him in the Colorado primary gives me the (slick) willies. All of that aside, he’s obviously smart enough to see the Dem party is on its last legs (if he chooses to), and may be gutsy enough to stare it down. Plus Dana Milbank hates him, which is a real feather in his cap as far as I’m concerned.
Klobuchar I like purely on the strength of what I’ve seen of her on TV, which is not good enough. More study needed.
Franken would kick ass and take names; I can think of no one who would more relish a head-on collision with the Righty wingnuts, and would think that he also knows the traditional two-party system’s days are numbered.
I’ll have to read up on Romanoff and Klobuchar. Anyone Dana Milbank hates is automatically a friend of mine. :)
I agree on Franken. Loved him on Sat. Night Live, and appreciate his guts and positions as a Senator.
I like Mitchell for all the reasons you mentioned.
And yes, I always admired Dean, and would support him despite his ridiculous position on the Islamic Community Ctr. in lower Manhattan. Let’s hope he’s had time to reflect and is embarrassed by that.
That last reply above was intended for themalcontent.
Yeah, I’m willing to chalk that up to a brain freeze, but he’ll need to specifically and very publicly reverse himself on that.
Wow, Klobuchar. Just… Wow.
My point exactly. Mike, to have any chance, a primary-cum-independent candidacy may well have to be as much about people expressing their popular support for them – in effect, “drafting” them – before an announcement, as it is about them deciding to run.
Not at all. But when we get to:
“1) found the org and find a chairperson,” who specifically would found the org? And you want to find a chairperson who’d be listened to, such as Jane, Greenwald or Feingold. How do we get that?
We are in a somewhat passive position. Consider the variety of views on this thread, as well as on freesociety’s “Why Obama Must Be Primaried” thread. Not trying to throw cold water at all, just pointing out the work to be done.
I think there will be those who step up to the plate, independently of my or your efforts. We’ll then have to make hard decisions as to who are the best of these. And even if “we” come up with someone, we may not be the only players.
May we live in interesting times.
Ron Paul, and here’s my case: http://my.firedoglake.com/fuckno/2010/11/05/would-you-give-up-your-party-if/
She has an impressive profile, though she does seem quick to sign AIPAC letters that admonish the Administration for not being more of a lapdog to Netanyahu.
I know that’s par for the course in Washington, but that seriously needs to change.
Here’s just a few of those letter:
Senator Klobuchar signed the AIPAC-drafted letter following Israel’s public humiliation of Vice President Biden that urged that any disputes between the U.S. and Israel be resolved in private. – Washington Report – Sept. 2010
Senator Klobuchar signed the Senate letter to Obama defending “Israel’s right to self defense” following the 5/31/10 attack on the Gaza aid flotilla. – Washington Report – Sept. 2010
“Senator Klobuchar supports an immediate freeze on settlements in the West Bank. She supports continued aid to Israel as well as humanitarian aid to all citizens caught in the conflict.” – Zach Rodvold, 05/23/09
“I believe that, like the U.S., Israel has a right to defend itself from terrorist attacks. As the situation continues to unfold, I believe the U.S. must work with all parties to reestablish a ceasefire agreement as soon as possible and to provide humanitarian assistance to all civilians caught in the conflict.” – Klobuchar statement re: Gaza annihilation to Daily Planet, 01/01/09
Senator Klobuchar signed the AIPAC-endorsed Bayh/Risch letter to the President which focused on the need for Arab leaders to demonstrate their commitment to the peace process without mention of needed initiatives by Israel such as a settlement freeze. – August 2009
Allow me to point out the Arianna Huffington is not eligible to run, having not been born here.
Agreed. That said, I like her affiliation to congregationalism, not b/c I give a rat’s ass about someone’s religious beliefs, but that denomination in particular speaks volumes to one’s ability to think for oneself, as does her membership in the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. That’s no great shakes in MN, where being a Dem often means you are also a DFLer – but again, it points to an independence of thought that is sadly lacking in much of national politics.
And how do you reply to kabuki’s excellent points here?
You might also want to read this, a bit of Ron Paul’s voting/bill sponsorship record, which he’d probably rather keep quiet.
I know that to affront AIPAC by not signing one of their letters is paramount to political suicide.
But it also reveals that they can be controlled by entrenched interests, and will even compromise their own integrity and sense of justice/human rights to advance their own self interests. Unless we’re to believe that a major majority of our party are just keen on funding and deliberately enabling ethnic cleansing and apartheid.
I consider it a good indicator to gauge a politician’s true independence. Having said that, I’m sad to say that not everyone on my own list passes that test.
Good point.
I’m looking at stopping wars, the deaths of 100′s of thousands of civilians, to start. Kabuki’s objections outweigh that? Patriot Act, DADT, prosecuting criminals on Wall Street, etc.
What are Progressive’s priorities then? I’m totally confused now.
I thought that was a Georgia accent!! /s
Read the other link, fuckno. It makes his real motives clear.
Would you offer up a list of the 5 top issues that progressives are concerned about, and assure me that the persons you listed fully support those issues,
I am painfully aware that Ron Paul does not reflect many of my values, I frankly, however, cannot find anyone who does. So I’m trying to be open minded and honest.
Are the motives of the DLC dominated Democrats suspect these days?
I think we both know the answer, fuckno – none of us can assure anything. But when we’re talking about someone who has sponsored legislation to get us out of the UN (Ron Paul) it think that pretty much puts the lie to any interest he may be stating in support of world peace.
I support a primary and second almost all of the above.
themalcontent November 5th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
the reply buttons are fritzing out again.
And what the fuck is the UN in it’s present iteration good for? It’s dominated by the US’s Washington consensus ideology, after all. Look at the I/P situation. You want to end that, don’t you?
Greetings, All: For reasons I’ll keep private mainly for courtesy’s sake, I didn’t think I’d be logging on to FDL again — but I did so solely to make a case for “nominating” Rep. George Miller to this list (on this thread). I noticed he was on a previous list, then apparently his name was removed?
I usually vote Independent/Green, by the way. Moreover, I wish to emphasize the following: I feel that folks who are so impoverished they they can be placed beneath the poverty scale (and usually have little time to devote to blogsites) all too often get ignored if not entirely left out of discussions of this nature. Thus, this admittedly would be my bias, if I truly have one at this point (other than my real and true disgust for Barack Obama).
Anyway, last week, I spent much time looking at voting records, issue positions, and so forth regarding several different political candidates. ALL DUE MATTERS CONSIDERED, including some personal reservations/unresolved questions, and also Nancy Pelosi and her decision to run for House minority speaker, I think Rep. Miller would 1) have the best chance of success in what would be a very difficult primary/election situation, and 2) seems to have the best progressive Dem overall track record (and face it — not one of them can claim to be pure and spotless here, not even Rep. Dennis Kucinich at this point).
I just would like to get Rep. Miller’s name out there so that we can um, “look under the hood” together, so to speak. By the way, I’ve even gone as far as to email him and leave a phone message (no response so far). I’m not a constituent so I’ll probably need to make another attempt to fax his offices (I got a busy signal last time I tried).
Anyone willing to second my nomination?
The one vote that the US holds at the UN, is the vote that manages to perpetrate all of US’s aggressions.
Get rid of this UN, IMF, World Bank and WTO. You really ready to defend these Corporatist Neocon/Neoliberal institutions?
The UN — though far from anything resembling perfect — does a LOT of admirable work. They send human rights monitors, peacekeeping forces, peacekeeping negotiators right into the line of fire during inter-national disputes, intra-national disputes (civil wars), genocide, etc.
They were the only ones there — smack in the middle — during Rwanda’s genocide. Were they prepared, or were they given a mandate, to stop it? No. But they were witnesses to one of the most grizzly acts of genocide in history.
They were on the ground during the Srebrenica massacre.
They often get slagged for not stopping these horrific incidents. But it’s most often the US who insists they only maintain monitor roles — and strips them of power from defending civilians. Why? Because the US is paranoid of getting dragged into military conflicts.
But their presence on the ground ultimately saves lives, provides relief to those in danger, and serves as witnesses to account for exactly what is going on on the ground.
I personally think they are one of the most important organizations in the world.
My message above was directed to fuckno.
Set the good they do against I/P, and ending all wars. If then America, because of Ron Paul backs out of the UN, might the UN not be a better institution?
I second that nomination. George Miller for president!
And let me say this primary should have some stated objectives. One I think would be to raise awareness of issues Barry has sat on for the past two years: Gitmo, illegal assassinations, Helicopter Ben the economy, outsourcing (don’t want to be redundant though). . . , lack of Global Aids funding (seems Barry likes to sneer at our activist) . . .
I’ll leave my list open. Because it’s such a large list, I don’t think I could possibly cover everything.
Plus new issues: expanded war on terror, Yemen.
Let the record show that Mui1′s “second nomination” is duly noted.
Anyone else?
I think we need to get the momentum going here.
The US more or less controls the purse strings to the UN. When the US demands the UN forces not be allowed to protect civilians — thereby making themselves sitting ducks — then that’s ultimately what happens.
There’s a great book written by UN Force Commander, Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire that I highly recommend called “Shake Hands With The Devil”. He was placed in charge of UNAMIR in Rwanda, and he and his troops were sitting ducks in the center of unspeakable genocide.
Bill Clinton had just been humiliated with what happened in Somalia (Black Hawk Down), and he was determined not to get dragged into Rwanda. Dallaire reported to his superiors in New York, and to American UN reps that genocide was underway. The press would question Albright, Clinton, etc, but they’d continue to downplay it (and it’s been revealed in declassified documents, they knew intimately what was going on on the ground).
The reason: An international convention was drafted in 1948 after the Holocaust and ratified by the United States and other countries that commits the world “to undertake to prevent” the crime of genocide. The US is legally bound to intervene if they are to admit genocide is occurring.
If you read that book, I promise you’ll never see the UN the same again.
And unfortunately if the US stopped helping to fund it, the UN would become even less affective in stopping crimes against humanity.
As far as I/P, Israel intentionally targets UN facilities (in both Lebanon and in Gaza). The Hutu extremists also targeted UN troops (killing 10 Belgium peacekeepers) just before they began to slaughter the Tutsis, because they too were convinced it would scare the UN out of Rwanda. They didn’t want the West to have any witnesses on the ground, and they had just seen the US flee Somalia under fire.
And let’s face it since many of us are the mtv generation, we might as well have campaign songs for that momentum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlTvWvfEMxE
No Alan Grayson? He’s a Huey Long-type, too extreme? Maybe just the match to light the fire! Warren is great, but she’s not going to jump CFPB ship that fast to make a serious run, she would be great though.
TheCallUp November 5th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
“And unfortunately if the US stopped helping to fund it, the UN would become even less affective in stopping crimes against humanity.”
Hold on there appaloosa, are you putting forth the UN, as balance to the list I furnished?
I see Alan Grayson. So your second nomination is duly noted- by me at least.
More than half of those are ludicrous choices. We have Dean Feingold and Warren…
Those are the real choices.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
Isn’t she friendly with Iliana Ros-Latinen, to the point of supporting her against a Dem progressive?
No, I was just responding to your criticism of the UN. I think if more people understood that the UN is pretty much the ONLY international body out there with a charter to peacefully mediate international conflicts — in so many different ways — they’d be less critical of the UN.
The UN is not effective, because of the US’s political calculations.
Without the UN, there would be little if anything out there to prevent, or at least deter, genocide. Human rights would suffer a tremendous setback without the UN.
Many of the names being suggested are unknown to me and others so it would be great if their supporters would do a small bio. so we can know them better.
It will be interesting how they respond to being choosen since running will make them targets for attack by the dem faithfull. I imagine some will run screaming away from us and see this as political suicide.
Well, it’s not the ONE Lefty site. Docudharma and ePluribusMedia have no problem suggesting that the Dems are dead.
The world is decoupling from this perverse empire that we allowed our bipartisan political class to erect in our name.
Fuck the UN if it’s the cost of preventing US and Israel sanctioned genocide.
Are you blaming the UN for Israel’s egregious crimes against humanity? I’m not sure I understand your logic.
Israel has more UN Security Council Resolutions against it than any other country in the world. The Palestinians are now turning to the UN to get them to formally recognize, once again, the Palestinian state running along the 1967 borders.
The UNRWA provides aid/assistance/shelter/food/medicine/schools to Palestinian refugees. The Palestinians would be even more desperate than they are if it weren’t for the UN.
This is what I find frightening about Libertarians. They want to flippantly dismantle all the extremely important organizations without giving a second of thought or consideration. It’s all purely ideological. Government is bad, corporations are good.
I agree on many of Paul’s foreign policy positions, and the role he’d like for the US to play on the world stage — being much more limited — and his advocacy for enforcing the rule of law, and bringing accountability to Washington. But anyone who hopes to weaken international law, humanitarian relief, and organizations that prevent future Holocausts from occurring are not someone I could ever support.
Check out these folks: http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=71&Itemid=108 . Talk about “Hire One” (link: http://my.firedoglake.com/tobywollin/2010/11/04/an-patriot-with-a-wallet-god-bless-us-everyone/#comments).
Yes.
DWS is not an acceptable progressive, and she would never challenge the president. She differs from him not one whit.
Two brief thoughts:
1. Age is a factor. I had looked up the ages of people bandied about as top candidates on earlier threads such as Nader, Warren, Dean but can’t find that information quickly now. The top names then all seemed to be already in their mid-to-late 60s at least, which if you add 8 years to each of them would eliminate them as viable prospects for an election 2 years from now.
2. If the Tea Party rages on and the Republican candidate in 2012 is not a Teabagger, could the Teabaggers run one of their primary losers in the general? If a Democratic primary challenger is not successful against Obama, could that candidate then run as an independent or Green or whatever? I’m just looking at ways to break up the electoral duopoly.
You know as well as I why these resolutions aren’t worth shit. So, The US withdrawing from the UN, would finally enable the resolutions to be implemented, – at least that is how I see it.
The rest of the decoupling world, might then be finally permitted to do that which the US has been preventing.
It would seem that those running away are intellectually and morally neutered.
Reply to fuckno November 5th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
That’s not what would happen. The US financially and logistically helps to make it possible for the UN to deploy to these often dangerous and remote areas. When there’s a blood bath somewhere in the world, the US won’t want to get its own troops involved, but they might throw $5 million at it, and provide say 20 jeeps, artillery, help to grease the wheels to ensure they can deploy all these vehicles/equipment (often the US will literally deploy them themselves by air). The US might threaten these rogue/oppressive governments not to harm UN personnel.
Most of these UN operations overseas are bare bones operations. They sometimes get vehicles that are old and unusable. For what may be a pittance by the US standards, they can get up and running and see a peacekeeping operation deploy.
Without the US involved in the UN, it would be very difficult for the UN to even accomplish what it does today.
Also, when the US gets peeved at Israel, it could merely abstain from vetoing UN resolutions in order to pressure Israel into complying with international law. Considering AIPAC has a stranglehold on our Congress, thereby keeping any Administration from using aid as a tool, the UN is often the only tool the President has at his disposal, to circumvent Congress and actually punish Israel.
Howard Dean Howard Dean Howard Dean…smart has guts and is electable.
In short: lets keep our war machine intact, because it’s important for the UN to be hogtied by the US.
Sorry, it just doesn’t compute for me.
Fuck no Ron Paul, Fuckno.
He’s a militia supporter.
He might have cheered when the OK City Federal Bldg was blown up. Have you lost your nut?!?
Where’s the nucleus (brain trust 1,000 intellectuals) and can they get 100 million to support and donate?
Alan Grayson too extreme?!?
Who do you want? Obama?
Wake up. We’re fucked. Look around you.
We’re in an extreme mess. Times require someone who know how to stop speaking DC-establishment and cut to the truth.
Now pick who you like!
No, that’s not what I’m suggesting. The US can withdraw its troops from all over the world, and mind its own business, and still help to fund the UN as an international organization who tries to keep world conflicts from spiraling out of control, who provides humanitarian relief, serves as peacekeepers during periods of unrest where violations of human rights and massacres are observed.
The UN plays a vital role in discouraging genocide and crimes against humanity. That’s why aggressive countries routinely target them. They realize that as long as the UN is within their borders they have witnesses from the West, and they risk facing the ICC for all the HR violations they intend to commit.
You can defund the Military Industrial Complex and still have a strong and robust UN.
U.S. Georgia or ex-Soviet Union Georgia?
Arianna talks like Rocky and Bullwinkle arch-villian Boris Badenov’s side-kick Natasha
And who, pray is going to defund the MIC? Name your candidate, please.
UN in the news today:
UN HUMAN RIGHTS MEET
BLASTS US TORTURE, GUANTANAMO
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/11/05
You’re talking out your ass now. Utterly clueless on the facts on the UN.
The UN has been trying to do something about Israel and Zionism since the 70′s. The UN has been prevented from acting over and over and over by the US using it’s veto power. Couple hundred UN actions have been stopped by US veto over the last 40 years.
Above reply to “fuckno” clueless statements about UN
No, fuckno, it seems you’re clueless on the facts on the UN and talking out of your ass.
Stop before you make yourself look any worse.
Alan Grayson.
Correct me where you find fault, otherwise your just pissing in the gale.
One thing about voting for Ron Paul. If he were to win, the guy who was inaugurated would be the same guy who ran (warts and all, if you like). You voted for Mr. Change, and got what? What did you get?
The answer to question 2 depends on the state. That course is certainly one to be considered but it requires considerable and planning research will in advance.
—Mod Note: Comments designed to provoke or inflame are prohibited, and are subject to moderation.—
Edit:
…considerable planning and research well in advance.
Who writes this stuff anyway???
The idea, Adam503, is to give opinions and arguments rather than personal attacks.
So where is the point of disagreement with me?
I’ve read the resolutions and know which country cast what votes.
The UN as currently constituted with the US at it’s helm is doing nothing to solve the I/P situation.
Remove the US and voila, – no?
I was merely responding to your comment:
“lets keep our war machine intact, because it’s important for the UN to be hogtied by the US.”
Reply to fuckno November 5th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
The point is, the Military Industrial Complex has NOTHING to do with the UN. Our misguided foreign policies have NOTHING to do with the UN. Israel’s egregious HR policies have NOTHING to do with the UN.
The UN is limited in what it can accomplish, due to the politics of the countries who fund it (in particular the US). But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t accomplish a world of good in some areas. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t keep civil unrest in some parts of the world from escalating to outright genocide.
Impossible to “Correct where you find fault” when the post is factually incorrect in most places.
Almost everything statement you’ve made about the UN today on this thread across multiple posts is wrong factually.
We’re going in circles here.
My position: Let the US withdraw from the UN, and then the UN myy become the functional entity it was intended to be. As for funding, the US is in deep arrearage to the UN, with china being our major creditor, so it all is just a bitter Ponzi scheme here as well.
Give it a try, Adam503, we may all benefit.
An update re: Rep George Miller, with a slight-but-not-off-topic digression:
Rep. Miller just released a press statement supporting Nancy Pelosi’s bid for House Minority Speaker. No surprise there, but here’s the thing: FYI, I did attempt to contact Cindy Sheehan to see what her CURRENT opinion was, and I was unsuccessful due to using an old email address (I more or less eschew social networking for personal reasons).
Anyway, I just now read Cindy’s “POTA” blog for Nov 1, 2010 and I feel she has legitimate concerns that to my knowledge never really have been propery addressed by Pelosi. Personally, I’d feel more comfortable if I could see some sort of interview take place between Sheehan and Pelosi, sort of a public airing with somebody with respect to these concerns. Rep. Miller, also.
Moreover, it may just be me, but I sense an increased degree of factionism developing between the Corporatist-embracing, “Third Way” Democrats and the more progressive leaning “branch”, especially with respect to money and access to money. IMO, the former seem to support and embrace Obama in anticipation of Obama’s successful 2012 re-election. Um, they also seem to be in support of a 2016 campaign by Howard Dean? Anybody wish to clue me in on the sordid details of this unfortunate development? I also see increased interest in the “Working Families” Party…
You wrote: “As for funding, the US is in deep arrearage to the UN, with china being our major creditor, so it all is just a bitter Ponzi scheme here as well.”
Good point. Though I would say that I’d rather have the US contribute its roughly $1 billion per year to the UN to keep world peace and prevent genocide, then the $3 billion per year to help fund Israel’s land confiscation/ethnic cleansing.
That’s my point. The US is spending billions of dollars per month to fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to keep troops in S.Korea, Germany, and all over the globe.
Why is the far less money used to prevent genocide and to ensure human rights are observed in the world even at question?
There is a name prominent on the list – and I don’t want to say it because I don’t want to upset sensibilities & sensitivities & sentimentalities – but when someone is credited some far-Right exploits when he was in office nominally as a liberal/progressive before, and has never explained nor investigated the incidents to complainants’ satisfaction, then that person should perhaps not be considered for the post. Do you think his opponent Democrats or Republicans will ignore it? And if the messenger faces anger for bringing up the politician’s record, then the annoyed or enraged ally is losing perspective: Indians are people too.
The stories will come up.
The record will come out.
TheCallip,
How on earth is The UNSC preventing genocide when there’s this:
Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties
Your logic confounds me.
still no edit function, TheCallUp.
Also agree about eliminating Kucinich and Nader. And Kucinich totally annoyed me with his health insurance giveaway vote.
In general, I’d like to see the candidate under age 55. Also, I like folks to use a process of discussing and selecting candisates that really challenge their conceptions of “electability. For example (link: http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_advancedtags&view=tag&id=83&Itemid=108):
“Bradley Birkenfeld was born in 1965 in Brookline, MA. He attended the Thayer Acadamy in Braintree, MA. He obtained a BS in Economics from Norwich University Military College in Vermont and a MBA in the American Graduate School of Business Vevey, Switzerland. Before becoming a whistleblower, Mr. Birkenfeld had a distinguished career as an international banker. Since 1988, he has worked in International global investment and wealth management at Credit Suisse, Barclays Bank, UBS and Union Charter. He has also held teaching positions at Thayer Academy, International Institute for Management and Development and The American Graduate School of International Management.”
This very experienced and principled man put his life on the line to try to stop part of the economic hell we are going through now. Why shouldn’t he be considered “electable”?
More here (link: http://capwiz.com/whistleblowers/issues/alert/?alertid=14933501).
Keith Olberman just got suspended without pay indefinitely, which sounds a lot like fired to me and should be added to the list.
I completely agree on that point. Like I said earlier:
the UN is “far from anything resembling perfect” and mostly that’s because of the political pressures put on it by those who fund it.
Let’s face it, the human race is an imperfect species. It’s all political. At some point you have to weigh the good versus the bad for each organization. Yes, the US ties the hand of the UN from stopping genocide in Rwanda, and in Srebrenica. Yes, the US acts with complete impunity in Iraq, Afghanistan,etc. and so does Israel in many occasions due to the US’s role.
But seriously, weight all the good the UN has done. Imagine the world without UN Security Council Resolutions — which is the only thing that even establishes the 1967 borders between Israel and Palestine. Consider all the points I made above on Rwanda.
If the UN never existed, there’d be no ongoing debate in the Middle East. The Pals would have already been transferred by force to Jordan.
Too bad Desmond Tutu just retired from public life and isn’t a US citizen.
I want someone who believes in the Golden Rule, not just for individuals but for nations too.
Would anyone vote for Nancy Pelosi?
I would support any movement that could be incorporated into the Democratic Party. Third Party’s only get the opposition in but if there were two opposing parties ie a third and a 4th then I’m all in. This would be the only way to take down the two dominate Dem and Rep Parties by supplanting two new Parties.
Bill Black
Bill Moyers
No Pelosi.
Robert F Kennedy Jr.- a working hero for our environment.
I hereby nominate Dahr Jamail.
Please see his blog. Also, he’s often interviewed on Democracy Now, and is a very articulate guy.
I just sent an email to him about this via his website. I suggest that others do, also. He’s seen firsthand the results of US militarism, and speaks truth to power. Apparently, he’s also been doing so with respect to the Gulf disaster.
Barry Sweitzer, Governor of Montana. Strong and proud liberal. Articulate, idealistic and a cowboy, so he appeals to rural voters.
Andrew Romanoff. I had registered Independent after the 2008 primary, but rejoined the Democratic Party just to work for ROmanoff. If the DNC and the bankers had stayed out of COlorado’s politics we would have a Senator to be proud of. Instead we get Bennett who ran on his promise to oppose Unions.
Let er rip! If someone has a blight on their record, it’s valid to this discussion. Frankly, I think the more information, the better.
Some might like to disregard issues not important to them, but if it’s important to you, then you can be assured, you’re not alone. Your voice represent other voices.
I am sorry to throw cold water here, but there is no way President Obama will be primaried. The Democrats learned that lesson with Carter/Kennedy. Obama has on his side many people who consider themselves liberal and are always ready with excuses as to why he is enacting conservative agenda. Then there are the “moderate” Democrats who will not choose someone more liberal over President Obama.
I do see a potential challenge from a third party candidate. This candidate would have to appeal to progressives and to those tea partiers who have come to realize, “Hey, when I was talking about cutting spending, I was talking about reducing spending on other people. I wasn’t talking about reducing my social security and medicare.”
I like Nader and I think he could have that appeal, ESPECIALLY if he would be allowed to debate. Unfortunately, so many people have a negative view of him now, that Nader would probably not be the best choice.
I voted Democratic during the midterms. If the Democrats can’t let the tax cuts on millionaires expire during the lame duck, I am definitely turning to a third party. There is just no excuse for them if they do this. Of course they are not all to blame. Some Democrats are great. But I will have lost faith in the party as a whole.
Obama won’t be running as The Party will (or has already) ask him to step wown.
The Party will champion HRC And A General.
THAT is the threat we will face.
I have to say, the Hollywood candidates mentioned are just goofy. Grayson: AIPAC supporter, and did everyone forget about him reversing on telcom regulation?
http://www.americablog.com/2010/08/alan-grayson-liberal-hero-appears-to.html
I certainly preferred Andrew Romanoff to M. Bennet, but he was not much of progressive before running against Bennett:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-salzman/romanoff-clinton-style-de_b_631591.html
OT:
The Irish banks have been bailed out with 34bn Euros, to make amends with the people of Ireland, the Irish Government has decided to distribute 53 tons of free cheese.
Government to let them eat cheese.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1105/breaking22.html
What if it’s done in a way that Democrats don’t have much of choice to allow/or not allow? Or what if it is a challenge that just scares the crap out of them, and raises awareness of certain issues, Gitmo, the economy, the expanded war on terror etc. That’s why I suggest goals for this primary challenge. Candidate has to fit the bill. Nominations are good.
As for Grayson, he doesn’t have to be perfect. He has to be game and willing.
Actually Obama is so much of a disaster IMHO (He’s actually worse than G.W. in several areas: predator drones, immigration detention and deportation, probably the war (now Yemen?), assassination of American citizens, “sentences” at Gitmo, zero funding of Global Aids prevention etc.), don’t think Hilary could be worse. But the disaster presidency has set something in motion, don’t know how it could be reversed.
this new comment format is really difficult and I don’t like it btw.
One thing at a time.
Jim Hightower.
Paul Craig Roberts for Vice.
Game willing and want to rip Obama a new one, so to speak.
Nomination duly noted and recorded. Any willing to second those nominations?
Whistling.
I already seconded. But that sounds good.
I see that too. Noticed working families endorsed dems here and there too.
factionism is a better alternative to bowing and scraping like a bunch of fascists to corporate world domination. It’s a little more like democracy. I swear I think Barry plans a party cleansing. either that or he’s totally clueless to local situations or he feels he can afford to ignore certain factors that even previous presidents couldn’t ignore, or he’s so concerned about the career that he doesn’t give a flying freak how many people lose their jobs.
I don’t think we have to think about “electability” at all here. Just significant challenge plus goals.
good one!
too true. last sentence. careerism is everything these days.
Is that a second nomination, fuckno?
So for seconded nominations so far I see Alan Grayson, George Miller. . . and someone else can add to this list if game.
I self-nominated Hightower a while back. As for PCR, I would leave that to Hightower himself, in which case we might consider him for a Treasury post.
I definitely think that Jesse Ventura should be Chief of Staff, in any sane Administration.
A Third Party would only give the election to the Republicans. Please be real or just go and vote Republican. The only chance of a Third Party is if there is a 4th Party to counter balance. Now that would be interesting.
I’m in it for the long haul. I’ve got a 14-year old niece and two of her friends gnawing their way through Chomsky’s “Chronicles of Dissent” armed with Webster’s unabridged and Macbook Pro’s for reference purposes. They finished some heavy research on factory farming and Ed Abbey’s “Desert Solitaire” last year and got over a dozen of their school chums riled up, seriously outraged, and motivated as a result. I tell my niece, her 9 and 12-year old brothers, and every neighborhood kid that strays into my circle about the concept of “intellectual self-defense”. I tell them every truth that I carefully judge they’re ready to handle, how to recognize propaganda and lies within pop culture and “the news”, and to never believe ME until they check my rap out for themselves. I speak to them about (and model) compassion; I tell them about Dan Berrigan, Thich Nhat Hanh, and the rewards (and often painful consequences) that come with rebelling against unjust authority. I’m floating the idea that they can save themselves, and maybe the planet, by embracing disobedience; that they deserve independence; and that they need more of it. And that’s just for starters.
Don’t forget to talk to the kids. Most are at least somewhat receptive, and many are awed by the truths that our society conceals from them. They all deserve a shot, they’re all precious, they’re all around us, and we’re all gonna need ‘em.
standing on a chair and cheering!
off to re-watch V for Vendetta on this 5th of November Guy Fawkes day.
I will second Jim Hightower
How about Joe Wilson, or even his wife Valerie Plame? Those are really brave people who showed their stuff during the Bush years and have name recognition as well. Personable, too.
How about Joe Wilson, or his wife Valerie Plame? They showed themselves to be brave folk during the Bush period, personable too. And they have name recognition.
What about a writer or pundit such as Bill McKibben, Paul Krugman, or Matt Taibbi? McKibben, for instance, might be persuaded to run on a climate change platform if he thought it was the best way to get comprehensive energy reform. By the way I asked John Talbott if he was interested and he said no.
Maybe you are not working from the same set of facts. These are news reports, not fantasy,
THE UNITED NATIONS & RAPE
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2010/10/the-united-nations-rape.html
U.N. ‘peacekeepers’ rape women, children
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=28177
I’m new around here. I don’t get this thread at all. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to explain the strategy behind “primarying” Obama. The question is being asked by an ex-Democrat who is far to the left of the Democratic Party and did not and will not support Obama.
Here are some of the questions I have.
1. Is the plan to ignore voters to the left of the Democratic Party? Doesn’t this continue the unfortunate divide between progressive Democrats, Greens, Democratic Socialists, etc? I don’t see this as a path to unity.
2. What is the strategy AFTER the primary if the DLC candidate prevails? Are you fighting for issues or do you then turn around and fall in line behind the Democrats’ nominee with more bankrupt, lesser-of-the-evils voting strategies?
3. Doesn’t fighting inside the party tend to preclude building a sustaining movement? If you fail, what have you actually built? Why is “fighting them on their turf” preferable to building an energy outside the party? They kicked Kucinich and Gravel out of the primary debates. What makes you think you can stop them from doing that to your candidate?
4. Aren’t you putting candidates ahead of platform? Shouldn’t you define what the purpose is before looking for someone to lead the charge?
That’s enough for starters. Not to throw cold water on the parade but, at this time, I don’t see viability for a progressive Democratic Party challenger and I don’t see viability for a third party candidate either.
It seems to me that ultimately what is needed is an in-the-streets, high energy movement anchored with strong working class values. The Left is nowhere right now. We have no organization and no focus. Electoral politics with a goal of winning near-term elections is not an option. We need to “build up the soil” before we start planting our crops. It might take years.
If third parties can be used as organizing mechanisms, keeping the focus more on building membership and defining platforms than on campaigning, perhaps then they make some short-term sense. Primarying Obama, and he more than deserves it, seems like a dead-end.
I have a problem with it. My Trojan Horse spidy sense is tingling. I don’t remember why. Something to do with war.
Alan Grayson is my first choice, so far, I am keeping an open mind. I think it is a BIG mistake to decide something this important before having a through discussion about all the various pros and cons.
” I imagine some will run screaming away from us and see this as political suicide. ”
We can take that as a weed out test. Warren would probably be in that camp. It is not a bad thing to be loyal to one’s party in power and the president. We need people to hold that position against the Republicans, we don’t need to tear them down about it.
This is why I wasn’t disappointed when Grayson lost his seat. A person out of office has it a lot easier when sniping at the insiders. I figured when he lost, we lost a congressman, but we gained a good presidential candidate.
I see it as a badge of honor when the corporatists go after one of our own like they did to him. I think it will only make him scrappier, and isn’t that just what we need?
We need a candidate who can appeal to Tea Partiers too, the real ones not Beck’s bullshit troops. Can Grayson do that? If he can, he might win. Starting out as a Democrat against Obama puts him in a position where maybe he could.
I heard pundits on TV yesterday discussing a possible three or four way presidential race in 2012.
Sorry, I don’t remember who it was or what show. I listen to the political shows online while I do other things. It might have been Chris Matthews or one of his guests.
If I was building a new party and could choose whoever I want, I’d put him in charge of party chair. He is proven to be completely awesome at that, a proven winner for the job. We’d be stupid not to put him in charge of it.
We can’t run him as president, he is too short. It is a well known political fact that the tall guy nearly always wins. We don’t need to give ourselves any handicaps by picking a short guy. Same issue with Kucinich.
Sorry, but that is a political REALITY. How about Dean for VP?
The Tea Party was my idea.
I’m full of them. I was a girl scout leader doing big events for ten years before I decided to get involved in national politics. To me national politics had always been a spectator sport, even as a little girl on my daddy’s knee. He explained to me; how they were lying, and how politics really worked.
He even ran for office once and was brought down by the police. Busted in the men’s room for soliciting sex. That didn’t work when running for school board, did it?
I enjoyed politics like others watch football, that is until blogging and the advent of internet. Then politics became an interactive opportunity for me, especially as I had some background in analyzing media. And, I am a witch. I have issues with religious discrimination motivating me.
I also had what I thought was a brilliant idea to end the drug war, and by extension, all war. It is all about the freedom of religion, the rule of law and ending slavery. I guess I tend to think big.
I have talked a lot about “taking back my country,” the rule of law, and the constitution, so if you listen to me, you will hear a lot of Tea Party rhetoric. I do believe they listen to me, and as a super lefty, that is a pretty interesting situation to be finding myself in.
Personally, I think it is pregnant with possibilities.
Look into the corruption of the drug war to understand what motivates him.
Keith is a great guy, but he is not smart enough to be president.
He couldn’t even figure out that 9/11 was an inside job, that makes him complicit in their media cover up – NO THANKS!!!
Nancy Pelosi could have already been president if she had just followed the rule of law and impeached the Bush administration like she should have done. No, she is involved in a major criminal cover up, it does no good to promote her. She has already proved herself to be one of them.
I think the goals are clarifying themselves.
Obama is splitting the Democratic Party. He is keeping the old guard for himself and handing us the Progressives on a platter. We would be foolish not to take advantage of this unique opportunity to start a new party.
OK, now a long time ago when I planned this event, I saw it proceeding like this: First we split the Republican party in two with a new party (Tea Party), then do the same thing to the Democrats (Progressive Party). Then we combine the two new parties to win.
The trick is to use the rhetoric that appeals to that 70-80% of the people who are dissatisfied with the present situation. That way the actual issues we run on are the populist issues that win.
The winning candidates on the Tea Party/Republican side are using my advice and winning. I suggest maybe the folks on MY side should start paying attention. I taught Quiddich, don’t you know, so I’m a pretty tough witch. And when I’m in teaching mode, I don’t usually take sides in the game.
In this last round it could be argued I helped the Republicans. They had an awful lot of talk about a ‘wave’ election. I think that is their superstition showing, they don’t want to give ME any credit for organizing anything, so they keep pretending everything I do is due to some kind of magic instead.
The longer they keep that story going, the more it will accrue super special secret powers to me, and eventually backfire on them. I’m all about constitutional law and freedom of religion.
I agree.
Jesse Ventura should be Chief of Staff.
I second that nomination. He’d be perfect, or for press secretary. That would be fun.
Amen.
We need somebody who is willing to take down our own government corruption – even if it is in the CIA.
Do you really think they would do that? I think they are too much of the Washington insiders to take it on, and we would end up with another Trojan Horse presidency like we have right now.
I don’t think we have time for that. The opposition is not the Republicans, it has moved beyond that and taken over the old guard of both established parties. We need a lot more than name recognition, we need vision.
1 No, it was to capture them.
2 We are working on a Progressive platform, other threads have been about this issue.
3 The movement is to counter the one party system of corporate rule we have now. The two parties are an illusion ‘they’ do to fool us in a big game of take away. A new grass roots party is a proposed solution. See my other comments on this thread. Stealth moves.
4 Other threads.
5 Tea Party. It was my idea.
OK, here are two candidates I consider unqualified because of some disgusting Right-wing actions. Again, please don’t get angry at the messenger, but here in New England, many people decry Howard Dean’s perceived fake progressiveness, for:
1. Blocking the Abenaki Indian tribe from being officially recognized as and actual Native American tribe, which they are. With Dean out of office, it now looks like the Abenaki will get the recognition they deserve. A Vermont couple far Left of Dean who probably voted for him told me, after I wrote the link below, that they believed then-Governor Dean went along with discriminating against indigenous Vermonters because of the stereotype that, if Indian tribes are recognized, they will set up casinos. As sovereigns over their land, they’d have that right.
2. Despite having smoked Marijuana himself, he supported continued harassment of Vermonters of less prestige for the same crime he committed.
3. Dean should have allowed or led an intensive investigation of Vermont police killing an important Left wing activist. If he runs, everyone who knows about Dean’s Right-wing shenanigans will try to make the truth known. The link is to an article I wrote here about it. That then links to an Abenaki site and a story about Woody’s killing.
http://my.firedoglake.com/normanb/tag/jonathan-alter/
Here’s the other one: I know it gets people perturbed when someone with a great reputation whom propaganda tells us is a man of peace is proven to be a capitalist pig profiteering off Oil and war, when he’s appointed to position wherein he and President Obama are defrauding the American people into believing he’s trying for peace. The business partner of George Mitchell, Pres. Obama’s Mideast “Peace” Envoy, was convicted of Bribing officials in the Azerbaijan Government, Bribing them to get their Oil. Azerbaijan borders Iran. Here’s the link, and links to more info on details of Mitchell’s collusion in the crimes are in the comments.
http://my.firedoglake.com/normanb/2010/05/09/obama-administration-profiteers-getting-filthy-rich-on-oil-explosions/
We shouldn’t primary Obama. We should challenge him in the open election, and we should start now.
I don’t know who is best. Very possibly it could be someone most of us don’t know right now. Mckinney would seem to be the obvious choice, for starters, though I would rather see her run for the House or Senate. I’m not sure that our candidate has to be a celebrity already, and I think McKinney would be a great Senator. One of the mistakes Left parties seem to make is nominating a celeb for president. That confers credibility to a point, but it’s a two-edged sword. It makes a party seem desperate for notoriety and shallow. What if we had Nader and Mckinney, and others of equal note, as Senate candidates and House candidates? Wouldn’t that encourage folks to look twice and a third time at our presidential candidate? Wouldn’t it make them curious?
“Electoral politics with a goal of winning near-term elections is not an option.”
Don’t know about themalcontent, but see jeffroby’s diaries on the Dump Obama theme as to why this is not the primary purpose of a Presidential primary.
When the Detroit Pistons developed well defined strategies for beating the Chicago Bulls, by defending against Michael Jordan with 2 and maybe 3 defenders, the idea wasn’t to stop Jordan from scoring, completely. That was impossible. The goal was to limit Jordan’s opportunities, force the other less capable players to take shots, etc. IOW, it was to defeat the team, not the man.
Obama may be a focal point of defeating the DLC, corporatism, etc., but he is not the DLC, himself.
============================================
I think serious thought should go into getting previously unpolitical fraternities to take up reform politics in a major way. For those fraternity members still in college who lean progressive, liberal, or Democratic, supporting and even providing candidates could be a natural process. Think about it – a national fraternity should be open to giving free housing and local support to a fraternity brother who is willing to run for President. (Free beer, also, for their nutritional needs. :-) ) Particularly if the platform embraces issues that are of keen interest to young people, like having an economy that can provide them with their first job so that they can begin paying off their too-expensive college loans.
Fraternities could and, I argue, should be willing to jump in with support and candidates for Congress, also. The motivation is basically the same – is Congress working for young people, or against them?
If progressives want to cede fertile soil on campuses for activism to the Tea Party, well that’d be par for the course, now, wouldn’t it? The Tea Party exhibits signs of being a real, sustaining movement*. Progressives have, IMO, mostly wasted the last two years.
Googling:
tea party on campus
yields some interesting hits, such as
College Tea Party Groups Boost Campus Conservative Ranks
and even
Socialists host Tea Party on campus
* Yeah, I know about the Koch brothers $$. Do you know about the Soros $$? Influence control.
The thing is, there is a vast alternative political movement out there, full of up and coming leaders. There are lots of talented leaders cutting their teeth as activists, most of them not necessarily that well known outside their particular areas. We should be very suspicious of organizations and activists who are funded by foundations, however well-meaning they may be. There is a lot of this astroturf, for example, plaguing the national social forum. But there is a wealth of growing leadership talent in the Activist Ocean and the beginnings of a POWERFUL movement with real answers to real questions.
I may be wrong, but I don’t think of Wilson/Plame as Washington insiders at all. You might remember that Joe Wilson wanted to frogmarch Carl Rove and was strongly against Bush’s lies about Nigerian yellowcake at quite some risk to himself. That gives him a kind of credibility most of the other candidates don’t match.
It is quite unlikely that either of them will want to be in opposition to Obama; I will give you that. They could, however be the kind of rallying point for a restitution of adherence to accountability and justice, rather in the way that Al Gore would be. That’s the kind of “recognition” I had in mind, one that stretches back to the beginnings of this era’s progressive struggle.
I would also grant that this is a backwards way of going about things, since normally it is the candidate who announces thereby showing he or she has the desire to put her or himself in the spotlight, but we are in a new day now and conversations can become public on the issue, so I say, full steam ahead. The nominations should not ever completely close, should not perhaps exclude any candidate completely since their presence on the roster affords further examination – until and unless someone comes up with good reasons why they don’t qualify.
I would add one with respect to Bill Richardson. Before the Iraq invasion I wrote him directly opposing it. He sent me back a letter, probably standard issue, completely supporting Bush. ‘We must do what we have to do’ – in that vein. Al Franken too, by the way, was supportive of that war in his radio program as well.
In the spirit of multiple nominations, Tom Udall has been visible on the airways and is making progressive statements about reformulating the Senate rules (which should have been done long ago.) He’s well respected in New Mexico. He doesn’t have the stature of a Ted Kennedy as yet, but he’s laying the groundwork.
Influence < > control, that is.
The Independent Progressive Movement needs as broad and complete a slate as candidates as possible, even in communities where we stand no chance at all, and for offices where we don’t have a prayer. Just to be there is a start. We need a central office that advises candidates on legal and financial and logistical aspects of running for office. We should encourage Dems to seek our support, but they should not be privileged. They should face very strict standards.
Gore, Richardson? These are Dem insiders. They should not be considered, not for a moment. Gore is a prime example of the way Dems, when out of power, sometimes do some pretty strong progressive POSTURING. We ought not to be fooled by that anymore. Gore? No way. Richardson? HELL NO! Not even Dean should be considered. Kucinich would be a good candidate for our support, but NOT for president. He is far too weak.
No primary challenge to Obama. We need to focus our energies, starting now, on challenging him in the open election. And we must refuse to look back. We must never again listen to the Nader Hater types. Nader had real momentum in 2000. What if we had pushed for him HARDER in 2004, instead of listening to the whiners and criers who said that we gave the election to Bush in 2000? What if Nader had made it to ten percent in the national in 2004? Kerry never had a chance in 2004 (an election he probably won, but his lack of concern over election stealing in Ohio made it clear that the election was always in the bag for Bush, and besides, Kerry would not have been much different from Bush) – but a boost for Nader in 2004 might have made a real difference to the Progressive Movement, and who knows what might have happened in 2008?
What we on the Left consistently refuse to recognize about electoral politics is that you have to lose a lot on the way to winning.
1. No. This would be an invite to all green & left independents to come out and play. In fact, their support would be crucial. What’s McKinney doing these days?
2,G*d no. I hope not. 3. Hopefully this challenge builds momentum & solidarity between activists for civil rights, economy, LGBT, environment etc.. Those groups aren’t exactly mutually exclusive anyway. But can we try something that gets us all to cooperate without accusing the other of “whining”? I hope so.
4. No that should not be the case that candidates are put ahead of platform. And yes, as I said earlier in the thread we need to agree on goals more than electability. In other words, who cares if Grayson isn’t perfect, or Kucinich is short, or McKinney is green. I mean I know I my goals: closing Gitmo, raising awareness of civil rights problems and etc. Plus mucho other issues having to do with economy etc.
Actually any kind of campaign can build momentum, how to sustain afterwards is a problem. I must admit I do like the idea of pasting Obama in a primary. G*d he’s just like lieberman.
I like this idea,mostly Joe Wilson.
What about Sherrod Brown?
And doesn’t Keith Olbermann need a job too?
Just yesterday, I floated Rachel Maddow’s name on someone’s diary. And I wasn’t kidding. Why not just tap into someone’s high profile, instead of having to do it from scratch? Also, I hadn’t seen Ben Affleck’s name before. Excellent choice for Vice President, and not much baggage (except J Lo)!
Put Sherrod Brown at the top of the ticket.
And may I suggest that we actually state during the campaign who we will nominate as Treasury Secretary (Elizabeth Warren, of course)? No one is interested in another Larry Summers surprise!
I don’t see how you can say “we must” and categorically reject the primary idea. Speaking for myself, I’m no political operative, but nothing should be off the table – we should have learned that lesson well by now – someone’s going to come up with a good idea that will gather momentum of itself. It may well be we’re like the blind men describing the elephant, but put all the descriptions together and something begins to take shape which others in the political arena can carry forward.
That was a long time ago — in fact a GENERATION ago! Voters have changed since then, and voting patterns have changed. There are more Indies who will vote Dem. Plus we are in the midst of two wars, and there is higher unemployment.
Dems better look to see what ALL the voters want in this election, or they are dead.
After watching this recent interview of Cenk Uygur and Greenwald, I think he might be perfect. He’s not only passionate, he obviously not afraid to show it. He sounds like a fighter, and he even looks physically imposing.
Sorry, I was referring to Cenk as a possibly “perfect” candidate. He says he’s ready to go to war against the Obama White House.
In my opinion, organization seems to be disrupted by “election fever”. So why not coopt election fever into a progressive movement? and call it a primary challenge or I’m not too picky, because Obama seems to want to kick us all out of the dem party, so independent if it comes to that. Make sense?
Yeah I respect Wilson, but Joe Wilson and Plame are kinda more conservative than most of the commenters here and considering some of the goals, which we should be agreeing to, that kind of leaves them out.
IMHO, Keith is too much an Obama loyalist.
Top choices:
Al Franken
Howard Dean
Anthony Wiener
Worth Considering:
Alan Grayson
Cenk Uygur
Dylan Ratigan
Keith Olbermann
We need articulate fighters who are not easily cowed.
Come to think of it, convincing some Dems that Obama has no use for us, doesn’t want us, wants us out of the party, doesn’t care about the little guy, the prisoners at Gitmo, Global aids funding, civil rights, etc. (at least not as much as he cares for his career) is going to be hard. because people see what they want to see even when it starts to get pretty obvious.
I like the choices, but you are going to have to cross out some of the Obama loyalists. And I believe there are some on that list.
Well forgive my French, but…
HOLY SHIT!!!
I last checked on this thread around 5 p.m. Eastern Friday, and now THIS!
Thanks all! I’ll catch up later today and add my thoughts, but have a mid-day commitment to which I must vamoose. But again, all the the thoughts and comments are wonderful; please keep them coming, and the conversation going! We progressives can be heard, and discussions like this help us determine how best to make that happen.
Look what *you* started! Now they can accuse *you* and not Jane of “evil witchdom” (as they seem prone to do these days.)
& for those who don’t think independent support is crucial. Think again. I see a lot of nader bashing, but if you look at certain primaries, and they see a decent deal . . .
& if you look at the material support, mojo, again independents (think green) crucial. I say no more on that subject. Just put two and two together.
You’re going to need to debrief me on that one, because I haven’t been following with Gitmo, 40 year sentences for non terrorist juveniles and all that.
I agree. But I think we need to keep clarifying, cause there are bound to be disagreements later on. And disagreements are unfortunate but that’s life.
Hightower seconded twice!
Anyway, there’s plenty of good reason to believe Obama didn’t careif he lost the elections, this year or in the next two years possibly. The only thing I see that’s important to him and conservative dems and goopers is exchanging one corporate head for the other.
Again, the loyalist factor makes Wasserman Schultz a lost cause.
Okay well let’s research that then.
Objections to Dean duly noted. I didn’t look some of his wiggly stuff on healthcare, before I stopped following.
I don’t remember who said that the Dems (Obama et al) will be forced to listen to us if they want all our votes. They won’t. Count on it. I think they’ll try to rely on their usual piss poor way of messaging out to the public.
That doesn’t mean I don’t think we need to get a campaign going though.
Rachel’s sarcasm is annoying. We have an arrogant type now. We need somebody with populist creds. I do like Dylan though.
And Correntwire
FYI–Jane said on another diary by, I think it was Jim Moss–that she is NOT backing a primary challenger at this point in time. She said there is a real possiblity of an independent run by Bloomberg–which is working hard in the background right now, and she said she had heard about another “for real” third party run in 2012 by….SHIT! I can’t remember the fricken name…”something..008″ quicken?,,Aww Hell… Anyways…she said it was too early in the game to guess where/if this idea of a primary runner would actually turn into something real, but in the past a primary challenger has left the candidates too damaged to win an actual presidental election. BUT–she also said that her website fosters open ideas which are necessary to a good democracy… I’ve totally paraphrased this, and I am in no way speaking for her.
Put a moratorium on sex scandals and add Eliot Spitzer.
Okay–so even if we do find a viable candidate to run against Obama, chances are pretty good that although we ALL know Obama will NOT win another election with his constant weak-kneed, no leadership, lack of vision, appeasement of GOP corporate-owned, bought-and-paid-for, legislation, Obama will SEVERELY damage whichever VIABLE candidate we DO find to run against him, which, will more than likely lead to, hard to fathom, somebody worse than him being elected. Ugh…can anyone find the post from Jane that I’m referring to? I am all with you firepups, and I’ve been posting diaries about replacing Obama since April…but where do I/we go now?
I found the post:
Jane Hamsher:
“My sense is that things are happening that will break down the Democratic/Republican two-party domination of the political system that are far outside of our control. Bloomberg has been carefully laying the tracks for a third party run, and after Tuesday’s election results, it looks like all systems are go for that.
The banks are teetering on the edge of having their insolvency exposed, however, and I don’t see how a choice between Obama/Bloomberg/Mitt Romney offers anyone an opportunity to stand up to the banks. I’m also hearing about some Unity 08 resurgence. So in a race that already gets split three ways, the dynamics could exist to fracture it into a four- or five-way race.
I don’t think a primary challenge to Obama is realistic, it just won’t happen. And even if it did, I can’t see right how it would be successful. He dominates the party machinery, and anyone who would challenge him would be hobbled by a damaged and embattled brand in the wake of a nasty intraparty fight. So what would they have even if they won?
So my guess is if there is a 2012 shakeup it a) will probably happen outside the Democratic party b) is not foreseeable now, and c) is way, way outside our ability to director or control. And I never like to put a foot down until a path forward becomes both clear and desirable. So until then, at least for myself, I’ll just be watching and listening and trying to sift through the available information. And, of course, writing it here.”
I’m guessing we need to get behind one of these independents, or even create our own candidate, as Jane says, a field of 4 or 5 runners may open up. We need to name a third party candidate something to the effect of “the working-families party” or something to that effect. The librul and Progressive brand has been damaged by our current Preznit (thanks to the corporate MSM) labeling him as such, even though, he is BY NO MEANS A Proggy by any sense of the word. He’s a thief for stealing our hope and our trust. Asshole.
arch, not that it matters all that much, but do you have the date of this post?
But none of the vanity candidates floated have given any indication that they would run, even if we could find some way to launch a recruitment PAC. I am not kidding around about this. Waste all the time, money, and energy you want in a futile effort to get George Clooney to run for president. When 2012 rolls around and there is no Democratic challenger to Obama, and Nader or whoever runs from the outside gets marginalized into political obscurity while the GOP candidate gets in, you’ll be beating yourselves up for having failed to focus efforts where they needed to be.
I second, with the caveat that we take a good long hard look at his record.
Bad news: Cenk was born in Turkey and immigrated to the U.S. at 8 years old. Can’t run for president.
ricecakes, one person’s ludicrous is another’s fabulous. We’re just beginning the search, and limiting it is the exact way in which Americans have been repeatedly railroaded toward candidates and eventual “leaders” who lack the very qualities we seek.
Try to keep an open mind and read on; there are lots of good ideas here.
Thanks for the info, normanb. That kind of stuff is good to know. Especially after getting duped by Obama, I think the more we really vet our candidates the more likely we’ll finally get one who will serve us best.
Cindy Sheehan is on FaceBook, and she’s on my friends list. Look me up, add me, and then add her. What if we recruited Cindy Sheehan to run as an independent? She did run against Pelosi in 2006, she was the face of the anti-war movement back when the Democrats were using her to gain votes from the anti-war crowd, and she has the cajones to speak truth to power.
Well, I think all of US found the org! And the way we get a chair is sending an official letter of interest from the org, and then having those who support the effort flood the prospects’ offices with requests. I think we send to all those we are interested in at once, because the only thing better thanone hi-profile chair would be co-chairs representing several spheres of the progressive movement.
As to your other points, I agree with everything but the passivity piece. We are simply in the first phase, brainstorming. That is a necessarily internal task, and I think it’s exciting that we’re doing it right out in the open.
My plan (and I’d like everyone’s input) is to keep this conversation going until next Friday and reconnoiter at that point, issuing the full list of everyone who’s been named, and then asking folks to vote for their top three (candidates). And perhaps we then take the next three to five as possible chairs??
Thoughts, all?
You kinda missed my point; I was being sarcastic. Grayson’s not been extreme enough for my taste. I don’t recall him ever criticizing Obama, perhaps he’ll start doing that now? And let’s not start acting like this is Dkos, huh? Look before you jump on someone, I don’t have to defend my anti-Obama creds to you. I’ve been on his case since this charade of a “Progressive” Presidency started!
MK wrote:
“But none of the vanity candidates floated have given any indication that they would run, even if we could find some way to launch a recruitment PAC.”
OK, two things: (1) We’re just gathering names! When they’re all in, we can post a list and ask folks to vote for their top three (or five, or whatever) Nobody’s talking about spending any money at all, which brings me to…
(2) With the PAC thing, IMO, you’re thinking old school. A whole lot of this can be done without any fiscal investment at all. By building a list and then whittling it down AS A GROUP, we will also weed out those who would seek to derail this movement with candidates who are clearly not progressive, thereby strenghtening support for the top picks AND building a team that is committed for the long haul.
How about Andrew Bacevitch?
Good info, thanks. Glad to see she at least favors the settlement freeze and hunanitrain aid to ALL civilians caught in the conflict.
Yes, my thoughts exactly. Thanks for having the chutzpah to put it plainly, Adam503. As far as I’m concerned, Ron Paul is a nut.
Hey, Arianna, watch me pull a rabbit outta mah hat!
Dude, you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. As TheCallUp notes below, it is far from perfect, but it does a bunch of good.
Shirley Sherrod.
It was “after Tuesday’s election results.” See line 3.
KindGSL, are you fucking kidding me? WorldNetDaily? BlackFive? These are not “news reports,” and your claim that they are is simply a lie. They are blog posts taking a line from a news report completely out of context.
That’s right, no, fuckno – no.
you use the word “decoupling” as if sticking our heads
up our assesin the sand is the answer. It’s not. The answer is ousting the elements in the U.S. government who have perpetrated the neoliberalism – AND neoconservatism – which have LED TO our support for the IMF, World Bank, etc., and kept us OUT OF the International Criminal Court, Kyoto Accords, etc.Getting us out of the U.N. is John Birch logic (which of course is a contradication in terms), pure and simple.
If your purpose here is to point us toward Ron Paul, I for one can say this right now, without equivocation: You won’t get my support.
George Soros might Chair the Organization.
Blast! Lady Gaga, Pigasus*, now Cenk. Well, Dahr Jamail’s web page says that he’s 4th generation Lebanese American, and born in 1986.
* OK, my pigasus recommendation wasn’t for a serious run
Just FYI, mui1, my intent is as follows:
1) Keep this discussion/nomination process going thru Thursday, 11/11.
2) Compile a list of ALL names floated, no matter how serious or silly, and post it on Friday, 11/12, asking folks to research and choose their top five preferences, and to state those preferences in a SEPARATE diary I’ll post Monday, 11/15, with a voting deadline of 11:59 p.m. Pacific time on Wednesday, 11/17.
4) I’ll then post the top five picks in preferential order on Friday, 11/19.
I’d appreciate a couple of volunteers to help with the tabulations, so we have independent checks to ensure accuracy.
I like Sherrod Brown. I did vote for him, after all, but I think he’s too much of a party loyalist to run against Obama. Besides, he’s up for re-election to the Senate in 2012 and is already focusing his efforts there.
How about the dude from the Rent’s Too Damned High Party? At least he would be entertaining.
Jerry Brown
Andrew Cuomo
Jill Stein
No, it wouldn’t. There are two Ron Pauls, the one who runs for president and the one who sponsored these bills in the current congress. Please wake up.
I like this idea, although i need to do more research/strategic thinking. At a minimum, she’d be a great as steering committee chair (or co-chair)…
I agree normanb and thank you. At a minimum, we can now confront them on these issues ourselves.
Further, I’ll say that as much as I might preliminarily support both of them, I tend to agree with those here who feel that age must be a consideration, for both practical and political purposes. Let’s face it, if you’re over a certain age, you are much more likely to be a Clintonite, and the last person I will support is any damned Clintonite.
I have info that someone will announce the start of a campaign today on an internet radio program beginning at 4pm:
http://unregularradio.com/
It’s a Marijuana activist-comedy call-in show in Boston called Two Hotheads on Cannabis (THC). 617-606-4122
The “candidate” is a longtime political-theater activist. No matter who you may end up supporting two years from now, you may want to get involved in this hip leftist artistic consciousness-raising tour of the first Presidential battleground state: New Hampshire. You’d probably approve of the effort if you want peace, environmental protection, social justice, Marijuana reform, sense in politics, less corruption, electoral reform, or just plain fun.
The name of the post is:
What was the “Message” of the election?
Dated Thursday, November 4, 2010
Imka, the primary is just the first step in doing that. we are not likely to get into general election debates any independent who has not already proved him/herself a viable candidate, and primarying Obama from the left, with someone who will be happy to run as an independent WHEN they lose the nomination, is the surest way of doing that in a “country” with 50 different sets of election rules.
Weiner is a total sellout.
Interesting. I did not know that. I will say I never liked Howard Dean; he always reminded me of a sleazy used car salesman for some reason. The more I learn about him, the more confirmed my first impression becomes.
I thought about Brown, but I think if he left the governorship after two years, Californians wol dbe pissed enough not to suport him for president.
Aunt Nellie and cousin Bubba, since we’re all being serious.
Believe me, my mind is open. But Cynthia Mckinney? Nader? Madonna? Michael Moore? Come on man…
More than half of those choices are doomed to immediate failure.
It may depend on how bad the emergency is. Probably you’re right and neither Brown nor Cuomo could likely challenge Obama.
If we build it, maybe the candidate will come. Why not really start a cohesive movement with our own contract and agenda and put it out there as an alternative. Seems to me we have to direct our realism in an opportunistic direction. If the movement is there, the opportunity may present itself as it did with Reagan for the right. The important thing is not to capitulate to the centrist vision because the way things are going, it’s going to lose again in 2012 anyway. Back candidates who support our agenda. Let the Republicans defeat the centrists. Then we seize the first opportunity to defeat the Republicans.
themalcontent,
Are you still keeping track of nominations? I would tentatively suggest Patrick Fitzgerald, now U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. I say ‘tentative’ because I would want to more thoroughly investigate his political positions on a number of issues; like any good U.S. Attorney, he generally keeps his politics to himself. But I nominate him because his record over the past several decades demonstrates his commitment to upholding the rule of law. Specifically, he has gone after powerful forces with a tenacity that reminds me of Elliot Spitzer (who will also be on my top 5 list). He has prosecuted and convicted such criminals as: Scooter Libby for the Plame Affair, Gov. George Ryan for widespread corruption, aids to Mayor Richard Daley for the Hired Truck scandal, Area 2 police torturer Jon Burge, criminal fraudster and billionaire media mogul Conrad Black, etc.
The man has some serious courage to operate as he does in his District, he knows how to handle media and politicians, and as far as we know he has a clean record. In short, he doesn’t just talk a good game (insofar as he talks); he has an actual record of prosecuting corruption no matter how wealthy or powerful the criminal.
Right now, I think we should set a criteria and goals for choosing. Like our candidate must talk specifics closing Gitmo, end the ban on former detainees/political prisoners entering the U.S. (Uighur refugees, Ahmed Belbach et al)., end DADT, get Global Aids spending back to acceptable levels, not challenge habeas corpus cases, not assassinate American citizens citing supersecret evidence, stop the gov. working for wall street, reform, regulations, stop harassing teachers’ unions, stop saying things like “it’s unfortunate” if Israeli soldiers murder a 19 year old American on a Turkish peace ship (that doesn’t make us feel safe when our gov. sides with Israel against humanitarian missions). — open list —.
Jane seems to be talking about winning and viability. I don’t think winning should be our goal here. It’s rebellion against a Dem machine that wants to toss us on our asses and putting issues that Obama has sat on back on the table. Use election fever to get discussions back on the table.
And yes, the dems will be nasty about it. So we have to get someone who’s not a career politician, or at least puts the future of humanity above all & career. But we don’t know what happens. Chances are it may come to a point where they can’t afford to destroy anyone (not that means anything) with the way Obama’s presidency is going.
As for Bloomberg. I don’t care if Jane is pro primary or not. I do think it might be a good idea to start pasting Bloomberg now. He’s dreadful. He’s destroyed NYC public educatoin. He needs to go south.
Bloomberg is Obama’s vision of a perfect Dem. I think he’d cleanse the party and have all Bloombergs if he could. And Liebermans too. Don’t forget who mentored the guy.
The announcement will be between 5pm and 5:30.
As for dem nastiness, I’m sure Kucinich, as well as McKinney and Nader have been on the receiving end of that.
[edit] murdered American citizens: Not just murdered. Knocked out cold, face down and shot 5x in the face, the head and elsewhere. That’s cold blooded murder of an American teenager. Appears those Israeli soldiers who raided the marmara also stole from it.
I’m sick of the disappointments. Why I suggest we do goals and then pick our own. preferable a non career politician.
While I respect Jane’s observation that she can’t see how a primary would be successful, the goal to me is not “winning” the Democratic party nomination.
The primary elections simply represent the best way, under our current electoral system, to (1) make the challenger’s politics plain to the electorate, i.e., that they are running to the LEFT of the party’s incumbent, and (2) raise enough awareness of/votes for the candidate to ensure that they easily gain ballot access for the General, whether that means petition signatures, ample percentage of votes in the primary, or whatever the case may be – and it “be” different in every state. (More here.)
Whether Obama or anybody else in the Democratic party likes it or not, they can’t stop someone from registering for and running against Obama in the Democratic Party primary. The downside is that in “closed” primaries (and primary formats vary from state to state), voters wanting to support that person must be registered Dems. Which is fine, but just something the Indies here (that includes me) need to be aware of, going in. That said, I think the value in running in the Dem primary to the left of Obama far exceeds the risks of running as an Independent from the start, because by running as a Dem, the challenger’s message – “I’m here to represent the Left” – is instantly clear, while running as an Independent in the priamries brings with it whole-cloth challenges in terms of that messaging, and makes it easier for establishment Dems to target the challenger.
More info here.
Trust me. I don’t want to capitulate to any centrist vision. Because centrist vision = rightwing loon spin.
The chairperson has spoken! All in favour, vote Aye.
I’m an aye, with an emphasis that the challenger’s politics reflect our own.
Thanks for expsoing these two blatant kabuki merchants for the bags of wind they are. Good riddance to both.
I’d have liked to see Jesse Ventura fight Tiny Dancer (~~~Edited by Moderator. Not as joke or as snark~~~ of course) for the position. Maybe he could do this for mayor of Chi-town instead? No election. Just a fight ~~~Edited by Moderator~~~ between Tiny Dancer and Jesse?
What do you think of Patrick Fitzgerald in view of the post (also read the comments), “Blago Lesson: It’s Okay to Sell a Senate Seat, So Long as You Don’t Lie about It,’ by emptywheel, Aug. 17, 2010 (link: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/08/17/blago-lesson-its-okay-to-sell-a-senate-seat-so-long-as-you-dont-lie-about-it)?
Really? Guess I need to research his record some more.
Is Whitehouse a possibility?
Having just updated myself on Jesse’s “conspiracy tv series” (I’d never seen any of it), I’ll have to reassess. If people who know this about him are still nominating him, this website is going into the realms of National Enquirer. Jesse’s brain is clearly “going off” in his old age. Let’s get serious and think of people who have (mostly) a sound grasp of reality.
I feel about the same about him as I did before. Fitzgerald was likely disappointed with the outcome of the trial. The FBI gave an equivocal denial, but it seems pretty clear that Fitzgerald was forced to bring the case in early after the Chicago Tribune published a story about the corruption investigation. According to the records, having read the story Blago canceled the sale of the Senate seat (my guess: to Jesse Jackson Jr). It is hard to prosecute a case in front of a jury when the primary crime was effectively cut short by premature publicity.
I am painfully aware that Ron Paul does not reflect many of my values, I frankly, however, cannot find anyone who does. So I’m trying to be open minded and honest.
Who do you think would vote for Ron Paul? I can tell you those who wouldn’t, in droves, because of his libertarian ideology–African-Americans (“The Civil Rights Act was wrong”), union workers (“More ‘free trade’!”), non-union low-paid workers (minimum wage), environmentalists, consumer protection advocates, and many others.
So we’re left with what?…the white male nerd vote?
StewartM
Jeff wroter:
Lady Gaga was eliminated because she is too young.
Not for lack of talent? Geezzzzzz . . . . .
My position: Let the US withdraw from the UN, and then the UN myy become the functional entity it was intended to be
League of Nations anyone? How well did that function without US involvement.
I understand what you’re driving at–that US involvement in the UN has at times worked to bad ends. But there is also a possibility for it to work towards good ends, and having the world’s current military superpower out of it would tend to neuter it, dontyathink?
StewartM
Mal you Pied Piper you . . . 260+ comments with a thread that starts off with a list request.
FWIW, good on you for sticking to the ‘brainstorm’ portion of list makin.
Like any decent sales, marketing, promotions or other meeting one does not restrict the lunacy in round one. It’s the Whack On The Head style . . . just say it and write it down.
Streamlining the list comes later.
Having said that, there are some names including Madonna and more that are just beyond the pale and should never have come up from an intelligent gathering as FDL draws.
Have you people no shame?
JeffR . . . you surely shoulda edited your list a tad hoss . . . . even given it’s an open minded procedure, does NOT mean it has to be an empty HEADED oine!
*G*
Final thread thought . . . I repeat my recent mantra.
Obama will not run, he’ll be asked to step down by the party.
The Party will bundle their nuggets into HRC And A General, be prowar about the ticket . . . because the economy is about to crash hard and large.
And nothing like foreign wars takes a poor man’s or woman’s thoughts off their family’s hunger and lack of shelter . . . like a red white and blue flag waving war on foreign shores.
Think about how to Primary THAT Pups.
Sorry, final thread thought on MY account, did not mean to seem to speak for the thread . . .
Rock on Mal . . . *G*
Al Gore
Alan Grayson
Alexander Cockburn
Andrew Romanoff
Arianna Huffington
Ben Affleck
Bernie Sanders
Bill Black
Cenk Uygar
Cynthia McKinney
David Sirota
Dawn Johnsen
Dean Baker
Dennis Kucinich
Dick Durbin, Senate
Donna Edwards
Elizabeth Warren
George Clooney
In no particular order from the list:
Alan Grayson
Glenn Greenwald
Howard Dean
James Galbraith
Jane Hamsher
Michael Moore
Raul Grijalva
Richard Trumka
Russ Feingold
Add:
Paul Krugman
First of all, they have to be smart. Second of all, they have to have trustworthy progressive credentials. (And despite the histrionics of some, I don’t consider a vote or stance on particular issue, such as the recent HCR, a disqualification). Thirdly, they can’t have too much past “baggage” or be so much of a celebrity that they would be the butt of jokes (Moore, whom I’ve included, is dangerously close to this).
I believe, unlike Jane, if that a challenge must be mounted, it is best done within the Dem party. Just like the Right seized power in the Republican party away from the Rockefeller Republicans, taking almost 20 years to do so, the progressives have to take over the Dems. I don’t see how a Third Party can make it, unless the Democrats implode like the Whig Party did pre-Civil War.
StewartM
I see no way to edit my after forgetting the strip out everything above Clooney. Oh well.
StewartM
HRC and General Wesley Clark for VP is my guess
Jon Hamm and Elliot Spitzer!
A Question:
Who will the GOP run?
Condoleeza Rice? Chris Christie? Does anyone care to guess?
I see Elizabeth Warren as someone who can handle the job. She is bright enough, strong enough, and can talk sense to people without talking down to them. Most importantly her economic ideology appears highly pragmatic without a trace of neo-liberalism
We cannot say the same about Feingold, or Fazio, or most of the others mentioned above. Also, she does not come over as an elitist. That is very important for a progressive candidate.
The Democrats usually have New England sewn up. But if Romney is nominated, that complicates many things. With his Right-wing rhetoric, he would play well in the South, the primary base of the Republicans, except that there many born-again Christians don’t even believe that Mormons like Romney are Christians. His religion never came up when he was Governor here, didn’t seem to affect his job at all.
He might be able to take New England from Obama. I am a far-Left Lefty, but if I had only the two choices, I’d choose Romney over Obama, having lived under both: Romney governed as a moderate in a pot-smoking gay-marrying state. Obama governed as a far-Right ideologue in a country trying desperately to turn Left.
During the Vietnam War in the late 1960s, it was Mitt Romney’s father, Senator George Romney of Michigan, a leader in the Democratic Party often mentioned as a potential future President, who first publicly and forcefully attacked President Johnson for using propaganda to trick citizens and Senators into supporting the undeclared War.
By standing on his principles, George Romney gave up his Presidential aspirations to speak truth to power.
If Mitt Romney is the nominee, his record as a Governor may look good, but his record before that is questionable: That part of his career is most famous for his role in bringing the Olympics to Utah. He still touts it as one of his great achievements.
However, some of his close associates in Utah’s Olympic exploratory committee were prosecuted for Bribery of people on the International Olympic Committee, to get the games to Salt Lake City.
Mitchell is not New Deal enough. he is part of the group that learned to compromise with the neo-liberal Republicans. Franken does not have the years to have erased his public celebrity persona. In other ways he is really great, I think, but I just don’t see people identifying with him to the extent we need. Kobluchar I see as someone who’s a relatively conservative Democrat. Not as much of a blue dog as Claire Macaskill, but not very far from her position in my view. She is no Wellstone, and nowhere near as progressive in economics as even Humbert Humphrey was.
Warren is a consultant and will be returning to Harvard soon, unless Obama nominates her as head of CFPB and she is confirmed. Even then, she may not take the position unless she is guaranteed meaningful independence.
I don’t see Grayson as a “Huey Long”-type. I see certain tea party candidates as having that problem. I think Grayson can be an inspirational leader, but I wasn’t pleased with his capitulation on health care reform, and then his echoing of the Administration line. For me that raises the problem his being too ready to “pragmatically” compromise.
I had the same thoughts about Grayson, but I don’t agree about Warren. I think that if Obama supports the Catfood Commission on SS, she’ll be ready to go by the end of the year.
Warren will be 62 in June 2011. If we are looking a candidate who is most likely to give us a New Deal 2.0; we are, in my view, looking at Warren, Jamie Galbraith, Bill Black, and, perhaps, Alan Grayson.
There is another candidate, no one has yet mentioned. His name is Warren Mosler. He has just concluded a losing run for the US Senate in CT as the candidate of CT’s Independent Party. You can learn a lot about Warren at these web sites.
http://moslereconomics.com/
and
http://www.moslerforsenate.com/
His positions on economic policy are very clear and specific. He is another who would give us a new deal.
I’m not a big fan of Grayson. AIPAC controls too many Dems and some of the things he’s done makes me think they may control him too.
I’m not so certain about the war thing. It would be a total misreading of the current sentiments of an American public, who is aware of the costs of wars, their failures, and since they are fought in far off lands without even being reported on, would do nothing to help Americans forget their daily struggles.
Of course, I’m not saying that the callous bastards wouldn’t do the wrong thing again, merely that it would fail to accomplish their ends.
Yes, get her on board, even if she’s not the primary challenger. She was ultra popular until she challenged Pelosi, then the corporate shills at DailyKos, which at the time was the nerve center of the progressive movement before most people realized the truth about them, attacked her mercilessly.
I stopped being a Dean supporter after he failed the healthcare sniff test. Decided he was just another phony. But I think his 50 state strategy was brilliant.
No. It needs to be a primary challenge. That is critical. Going third party is just wasting time, like Nader did.
Not true. Bobby Kennedy was such a serious challenge that they had to kill him to ensure Nixon won.
I’ll nominate Paul Krugman. Do I have a second?
I want to see a new “model” of American leadership instead of a rehash of the tired, old, corrupt, toothpaste salesman stereotype. The transformation first begins in our own minds.
But first I must preface my remarks with the fact that governance is a team sport in a dynamic environment and one must have many quality and qualified folks inter-operating and who are themselves great organizational managers/leads. The POTUS is just one of those hence why “villian rotation” and “good cop/bad cop” has been effective in controlling the playing field thus far. The present state of “the system” and its environment is pretty challenging but it ihas improved over the recent past IMO because some real watch dogs have stepped forward speaking truth to power.
One our great problems is a broken judicial system. In “Our Corrupt Legal System: Why Everyone Is a Victim (Except Rich Criminals),” Evan Whitton provides an “insightful and scathing critique of the common-law adversarial justice system [..]
What is the crux of Whitton’s argument? He says the British adversarial system has failed us and should be replaced with an inquisitorial model that prevails in much of Europe. Whitton provides a simple chart that shows how the two systems stack up:
Investigative Adversary
Seeks truth Yes No
Conceals evidence No Yes
In charge of evidence Judges Lawyers
Length of hearings About a day Months
Conviction rates 95 % 50 %
Innocent in prison Rare 1-5 %”
- from “The Best Lawyer Joke Ever!,” by legalschnauzer, Nov. 1, 2010, link: http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2010/11/best-lawyer-joke-ever.html
So not only do we need to change the system but flush out the corrupt judges, the corrupt attorneys, and put in place a better system for keeping great judges in judgeships and the same for the attorneys. The foregoing activities must be concurrent.
Next, I think we’ll need those who are already effectively doing that job to stay at their post for the most part. We want more to step forward while more of the deadwood with POTUS et al continues to be sorted out. The process of running for POTUS, etc. involves identifying and building a team of leaders. Again very dynamic in nature.
So, what I do care about is that any one of the “team of managers,” and the POTUS especially:
+ possesses a high level of self esteem and confidence
+ has robust health and stamina as these service positions age you to the point you have gray hair in less than 4 months and burns you faster than any corporate start-up in the go go 1990s. Hence why I previously said that, in general, the candidate should be 55 years old or younger.
+ likes challenges, eats adversity for breakfast. The POTUS “will scale all obstacle in pursuit of truth and justice” (hattip legal schnauzer, link: http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com).
+ has wickedly incisive mental faculties
+ can see the forest for the trees
+ excellent sense of humor to keep them balanced
+ has a finely tuned bullshit meter, is a shrewd judge of character and understands human psychology/motivation
+ possesses a tenacious good character, especially under duress or even physical threat
+ is fearless for self and fiercely protective of the happiness and welfare of others
+ has enough of a grasp of the present system to interface with it and assist in its transformation
+ is a compassionate decision-maker versus a figure head (e.g., Reagan had Alzheimer’s upon entry to office so guess who took over in the background?)
+ is an out-of-the-box systems thinker, very open-minded, flexible and adaptable. Not a critter of the present system.
+ has an accumulation of significant experience with life and death and has resolved all the Yoda questions for self. Views preservation of life as an overarching principle. Resorts to brute force as the last alternative but has to properly assess that timing. We don’t want a procrastinator (that’s a liability) but a pro-active go-getter.
+ is an artful program manager able to envision in at least 150 year windows on multiple projects
+ is a gifted communicator and negotiator that can identify barriers to cooperation and overcome objections with egalitarian flair (“you catch more flies with honey”)
+ has “foresight” (can perform a running window of interpolations of conditions now and where they are most probably migrating), “hindsight” (memory of past pertinent facts and conditions) and an uncanny sense of the opportunities available in the now
+ is not ever afraid of admitting a mistake, saying “I’m sorry,” changing course or replacing non-performers if the present approach is not yielding the desired results
I don’t care if the candidate is male, female, intersexed or transgendered.
I don’t care if the candidate is white, yellow, red, black or any combination thereof.
I don’t care if the candidate is “short” or “tall.”
I don’t care if the candidate is married, single and dating, or an avowed celibate.
The citizens’ part is an active support when merited; criticism and disciplining when needed. Improvement will come faster and is foundational if we also better organize ourselves locally and make incremental change there concurrently. That way we get a distributed system effect.
In reply to your initial question, my intent is to compile a full list of nominations without any kind of comment or categorization, and allow people to research to their hearts’ content. That’s what the Internet is for. Then I will follow, or approximate as closely as possible, the schedule laid out here, with the caveat that as things move along it may change somewhat.
yeah, Jesse has continually struck me as weirder each time I hear from him.
But again, the point here is mainly brainstorming. I no more want Bill Richardson than most here have expressed, but again, we’re throwing out names. How people respond to the list will only make the core of whatever our organization turns into more cohesive.
You know who would be awesome to primary Obama in 2012:
Elizabeth Edwards.
A former Attorney, she is extremely smart — smarter than John — and her influence on John’s campaign pulled him further to the Left.
She is also one of the nicest people you’ll ever meet. I’m not sure where her health is these days, but I ALWAYS thought she’d make a better candidate than John.
Stewart: first name that came to my mind. Would he run? Intelligent; Jewish; recognizable name… I’d vote for a Jon Stewart/Elizabeth Warren ticket.
Robert Reich
Progressive Tea
How on earth are you going to divine those qualities, and are they really persuasive give that most of the ones you listed describe Obama to the T?
Sounds good. I’ll help tabulate on Thursday afternoon.
I leave that to you.
Mock if you must my empty head …
But Barbara Fritchie is already dead.
Seconded.
Jerry Brown is not a progressive- and I say that as a resident of Oakland who has seen him up close and personal. Also, there seemed to be support for running someone younger, and he’s already over 70.
The war they are planning could easily send oil prices north of $200/bbl. Whilst the whole world would suffer under this scenario, energy inefficient America would suffer disproportionately. This would be national economic suicide. And of course it would also remain an act of pure evil worthy of history’s bloodiest tyrants.
I agree on candidate nominations. I think it’s good to get as much input. not be judgmental but note “objections.’ Brainstorming/barnstorming should be kinda fun. People think better when they’re laid back about it, IMHO.
Objections duly noted! Especially the potential loyalist and “pragmatic” part. I’m not happy with any potential candidate who has any tendency to stray to the “centrist” position and call that moderate rather than address it for the right wing lunacy it really is.
I would consider Eliot Spitzer.
Merci, Citoyen!
Interesting. This one has my attention now.
though you meant it rhetorically, fuckno, your question speaks to exactly what we MUST do: make sure that a candidate will walk their talk. The list describes what Obama TOLD us. By getting together a short list and then vetting the prospects on the clear understanding that this not a corporate party with which they are plotting and colluding, but REAL Lefties with REAL objectives and a VERY REAL intention of holding their feet to the fire, THAT’S how we divine whether someone can even rise to our requirements.
It’s not a candidacy. It’s a job interview.
Thanks Jeff. That’s Thursday, 11/18. I’ll probably also shoot you my compiled list this coming Thurs (11/11) so you can make sure I captured everybody.
A quick count of commenters here shows 52 unique voices have participated. I erred on the side of caution and may have missed one or two, but am pretty confident that this number is low, if anything.
Thanks all. I will put up a “Last Call” thread (with a link to this one) on Tuesday, and again, nominations will close Thursday at 8 p.m. Eastern. The final compilation of all names will go up Friday.
I’m still struggling with the number of preferential votes to seek. I was thinking people’s top five choices, but given that tehere will still be much vetting and that even those who pass our muster might reject our overtures, I’m thinking 10 is better.
Thoughts?
Thanks letsgetitdone. I can’t support Grayson because I think he is all bluster and no balls, but appreciate your suggestions.
One thing I wonder about is the ability of an economist to capture the imagination of people, which, like it or not, is part of our electoral mileau. Warren may be one exception to that, as someone who has clearly inspired many already. But what most concerns me about her is the same thing that concerns me about all these folks: will they finally agree that the chance to bring American into the 21st Century politically is worth the personal risk?
Let’s hope there are still some people out there who are willing to put country and the greater good ahead of their own interests.
Hmmm … thought I head some heads explode.
How about free former Alabama Governor Don Seigelman (link: http://donsiegelman.org, take action here: http://donsiegelman.org/action_home.html) as the “Siegelman Conviction Vacated by Supreme Court” (by Scott Horton, June 29, 2010, link: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/06/hbc-90007323) then support him for a presidential bid unless he wants to go back to Alabama.
Adding this thought to the ‘primary or not’ question – we can see from both the Lieberman (ugh) example and the lady in Alaska this time around (won’t attempt to spell her name) that the primary gets you on the board even if you don’t win it, so it isn’t an ‘either/or’ situation. You do both.
I don’t know what the Alaska outcome is, but it is close to being a successful strategy because voters are making it that.
malcontent, 52 uniquely unique voices is not bad. Especially since many of us probably didn’t get a memo or see advertisement. Which reminds me, I think there should be an email list /& or facebook page. Even the faithful need reminding.
Wasserman Schultz is DLC, through and through.
I realize that this response is so late that no one will likely see it, but Georgy Romney was a – pretty liberal – Republican (the rest of what you say is accurate, save that he was a Presidential candidate in 1968 and due to fairly ineffective campaigning lost the nomination to Nixon).