Tweet
UPDATE 3: Friday, 11/12, 3:50 a.m. Eastern This thread timed out Thursday afternoon. The final diary on which you can beat the nomination deadline, titled “Saturday Midnight Approaches!” will post Friday morning.
UPDATE 2: Thursday, 11/11, 5:15 a.m. Eastern Cindy Sheehan replied to the e-mail mentioned in Update 1 below (clarifying FDL policy) with the following, which briefly answered another mail I’d sent sounding her out on the possibility of running:
“Many states (including California) have ‘sore losers’ rules where one has to be registered the party he/she wants to run in at least 13 months before elections and I totally agree that we need a left party (worker’s) that would be the goal of a campaign.”
This is good information, of course, which I see not as a deterrent to our effort but quite the opposite: A unifying factor, helping make this a true “peoples’” movement. Here’s why:
Say we nominate Candidate X on the understanding that s/he will run in all the Democratic primaries based on our platform. Then say they lose the nomination (as expected). Because Candidate X ran as a Democrat, the “sore loser” rule (which I’ll henceforth refer to as the “status quo preservation” rule!) prevents them from registering as an Independent timely enough to run in the General. But we don’t want Candidate X; we want a PARTY that will not compromise on the ISSUES we care about. So throughout primary season, while we and Candidate X are campaigning hard on our ISSUES, Candidate Y is trailing along behind, getting signatures to run ON THOSE SAME ISSUES in the General, as an Independent. Should Candidate X happen to win the Party nomination, great! If s/he doesn’t, fine. We’re covered! And either way, we already know who will be paired on the ticket!
This is exactly what’s needed to ensure that ISSUES remain the prime focus of our effort. It also dovetails nicely with both our near-term goal of “supercharging” either the birth of a new Lefty party or the return of the Democratic Party to Lefty principles, and long-term goal of building a movement that places ISSUES above the usual popularity/charisma/lowest-common-denominator election bullshit.
Cindy and I will be in touch again when she’s back in the states. In the meantime, hats off to her once more for her support and encourgement!
UPDATE 1: (Wednesday afternoon, 11/10) As I noted in the comments to this diary yesterday, I e-mailed Cindy Sheehan about a report circulating in the UK of an impending presidential run by her as a Socialist. Ms. Sheehan replied:
“The report is only partially correct-there are some socialist parties in the US asking me to run for prez–but not in a primary.”
The U.K. report says nothing about a primary, so it’s possible Ms. Sheehan conflated it and the link I provided her to this diary (thus her “not in a primary” comment). Nonetheless, it’s important to note how Ms. Sheehan closed her reply:
“I support what you do and I hope you are successful.”
And then she asked that I call her “Cindy.”
Thanks Ms. Sheehan Cindy – for all you do!
(Note: I’ve made Rayne aware of this exchange and, at Rayne’s request, have sent a second note to Ms. Sheehan making clear that the effort detailed on this diary is NOT the work of FDL staff or ownership. I mention this because as we reach out to potential nominees, we will want to be sure to include this caveat. Thanks, all.)
Last Friday I posted a diary calling for nominations of a primary challenger to President Barack Obama in 2012. In just over a day and a half, it drew more than 300 comments from at least 52 separate voices. It followed a pre-midterms diary by jeffroby which resulted in a long, initial list of potential challengers.
I know some here do not see the sense in primarying the president on the Democratic ticket. The time is now, they say, to take another step down the long road of building a true and lasting third party, one that will represent those of us on the Left without compromise – let alone by starting in the center and moving right, the modus operandi of the Democratic Party for the past 30 years.
Besides, they argue, Obama is sure to win the Democratic Party nomination, so why fight it? And if he doesn’t run, some other primed-for-compromise DINO will take his place. Since we no longer believe in the party, why waste time playing by their rules when losing is assured, before we even start?
Well for one thing, because we’re not playing by the party’s rules. We’re playing by the rules of our electoral system as it now functions.
Under that system, primary season is a candidate’s best opportunity to build a following and garner the support – and signatures, and votes – that will land him or her on the general election ballot as an independent. That the Greens and other parties haven’t yet recognized this fact and used it to their advantage is beyond me. A full primary election campaign within an existing party which lasts, in all its contentious glory, right through the convention is by far the surest route to ballot access.
And then there’s messaging.
A Lefty candidate can most easily distinguish her or himself as being to the left of the president – and the presently captive Democratic Party – by running head-to-head against that president and party. An independent primary campaign beginning with an announcement that so-and-so will run will garner about as much attention in our duopoly-advancing media as does a needle in the average haystack, regardless of who the challenger may be – and that’s before you start to even think about messaging. Conversely, an early announcement that the sitting president will be challenged for his own party’s nomination will be many things – derided, laughed at, called unpatriotic (and these just from Democrats…) – but ignored will not be one of those things.
We will face the oft-repeated criticism that primary challenges always result in a loss for the incumbent and his party. As if this incumbent and party has been the least bit concerned with giving its base even one win, let alone the fact that “always” (i.e., conventional wisdom) is a fast-disappearing cactus in the rearview mirror of the Internet age.
We will be chastised as trying to split – or worse, destroy – the Democratic Party; as if FDR would even the recognize the Democratic Party as it exists today, and would not himself applaud its replacement with a party that truly represents the Left. Even the “split” argument holds no water, for after every instance of Democratic Party “leadership” gone awry, more registered Democrats wonder what the hell their national leaders are thinking. The party is already split. It’s time to make it official, and to cut that argument off at the knees.
We will be threatened by those who call themselves staunch party loyalists but who, like those leading the teabaggers, are merely playing the party faithful with demagoguery and false promises in order to enrich themselves and the others who actually control the national party: Its corporate benefactors.
Each of these is, to me, simply one more great reason to primary this president, and more importantly, this party. Doing so is the logical first step in our struggle against the pervasive thinking of Democratic Party leaders who refuse to stand up for the things for which Democrats are supposed to stand. After our candidate has lost the party’s nomination, as he or she surely will, we will be properly positioned to take the next step: the Independent candidacy of the same person, though not just of one man or woman. The candidacy of a movement.
No rallying ‘round the victor at the Democratic National Convention this time, kids. This time, whomever the Democrats put up, the victor will be an enemy to true progressive principles, because that’s what the Democrats themselves have proved to be.
The Process Going Forward
This diary is your last chance to add nominees before we open the process to preferential voting.
I had originally intended to close the nominations this Thursday (11/11), but very frankly, as I linked these names to their Wikipedia entries, it made clear how much research there is to do, and prompted more possible nominees in my mind (Jon Turley, Van Jones, and Geoffrey Canada) so I figure it might for you as well. So, let’s give ourselves through Saturday midnight (Pacific time). Now is not the time to rush things unnecessarily.
I’ll spend Sunday compiling a final list with any additions that will go up Monday (11/15) titled, “Here Are Your Nominees.” Commenters will be encouraged to make whatever arguments they like for their favored nominee(s).
I’ll then post the final list next Wednesday (11/17) titled, “Time to Vote: Pick Your Top Ten Primary Challengers.” It will include brief instructions asking readers to follow a specific voting format, free of additional comment, in order to make tabulation as easy and error-free as possible. Voting will close Thursday 11/18 at 11:59 p.m. Pacific. (If folks want to try to sway the votes of others that’s fine, but I’d ask you do so on a separate diary of your own. With everyone listing 10 preferences, additional/superfluous comments on the “Time To Vote” diary will only complicate the tabulation process.)
A Few Important Notes
Throughout this process, please bookmark these diaries for easy access, and to aid in your research. Please also recommend this and each upcoming diary, so they’ll stay prominently linked in both MyFDL and on the site’s main page. This will help ensure maximum participation by the entire FDL community, including those who don’t necessarily frequent MyFDL.
Some have said it’s time for a separate website for this effort. I disagree. Transacting our business here at FDL is a win-win for both FDL and the effort. For one thing, I don’t want to be seen as driving traffic away from Jane’s site. The political process in this country is ripe for change, and I think FDL is in the vanguard of that change. I’m not willing to essentially “close” this effort off at a separate site. The more transparent, the more public, and the more open we can show it as being from the very start, the less attention will be paid to the inevitable attacks from Democratic Party robots.
The nominee list as it now stands is below. Each nominee’s name is linked to their Wikipedia entry for your convenience, but don’t take that as the final word. Use the Internet for all its worth. (Nominees whose names are struck are not eligible due to their place of birth, and those whose birthplaces were not clear via a quick Internet search are so noted.)
Please comment with any additional nominees(s) you like that are not already listed, and PLEASE NOTE that LINKS to information ABOUT people WILL NOT CONSTITUTE a nomination. You must actually place the name in nomination within your comment.
Again, nominations close Saturday midnight, Pacific time. Please remember to recommend this post so it remains prominent! Thanks, all.
The List
Al Franken
Al Gore
Alan Grayson
Alexander Cockburn
Amy Klobuchar
Andrew Bacevich
Andrew Cuomo
Andrew Romanoff
Arianna Huffington
Brian Schweitzer
Ben Affleck
Bernie Sanders
William K. Black
Bill McKibben
Bill Moyers
Bill Richardson
Brad Birkenfeld (Information on Birkenfeld’s place of birth is not readily accessible)
Cenk Uygar
Cindy Sheehan
Cynthia McKinney
Dahr Jamail
David Corn
David Sirota
Dawn Johnsen
Dean Baker (Information on Baker’s place of birth is not readily accessible)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Dennis Kucinich
Dick Durbin
Don Siegelman
Donna Edwards
Dylan Ratigan
Eliot Spitzer
Elizabeth Edwards
Elizabeth Warren
Geoffrey Canada
George Clooney
George Miller
George J. Mitchell
Glenn Greenwald
Henry Waxman
Howard Dean
James Galbraith (Information on Galbraith’s place of birth is not readily accessible)
Jim Hightower
Jan Schakowsky
Jane Hamsher
Jeff Merkley
Jerrold Nadler
Jerry Brown
Jesse Ventura
Jill Stein
Joe Wilson
John Aravosis (Confirmation of Aravosis’s place of birth, listed in several places online as “America,” is not readily available)
John R. Talbott (Information on Talbott’s place of birth is not readily accessible)
Jon Stewart
Jon Hamm
Jonathan Turley (Information on Turley’s place of birth is not readily accessible)
Joseph Stiglitz
Keith Olbermann
Lewis Black
Madonna
Matt Taibbi (Information on Galbraith’s place of birth is not readily accessible)
Maurice Hinchey
Michael Moore
Mike Gravel
Nancy Pelosi
Patrick Fitzgerald
Paul Craig Roberts
Paul Krugman
Peter DeFazio
Rachel Maddow
Ralph Nader
Raul Grijalva
Richard Trumka
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Robert Reich
Ron Paul
Russ Feingold
Sheldon Whitehouse
Sherrod Brown
Shirley Sherrod
Stephen Colbert
Susan Sarandon
Tammy Baldwin
Tom Udall
Valerie Plame
Van Jones
Warren Mosler (no Wikipedia entry)
Yves Smith (no Wikipedia entry)
Once more: Don’t forget to “recommend” this post! Thanks again.
194 Comments
Danny Glover, Tim Robbins, Whoopie Goldberg, Lawrence Fishburne, Warren Beatty, Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, Eddie Vedder, Henry Rollins, Janeane Garafalo, Joan Jett (was a huge Dean supporter, very politically active) Jello Biafra, Jon Bon Jovi, Billie Joe Armstrong
If you’re snarking on any or all of these, you need to tell me – ‘cuz if you don’t, they’re goin’ on the list! (BTW, Affleck’s already there.)
Billie Joe would be amazing! Quite possibly the best songwriter of his generation, and by the time he was done, politics in this country would NEVER be the same!!
Anyone from a whole parade of Disney characters would be just dandy, imo.
And you would distinguish them from the current administration – uh, how??
Live Disney characters don’t talk. They just gesture.
One of them is gonna never shut his mouth. That’s Joe Biden.
Just watch who Joe goes to talk to.
I am simply not buying the premise that a multigenerational project (you first have to wean the body politic off of corporate percs before any of what you suggest will yield the results we seek.)
This, imo, is the first step:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/11/how-to-save-america-in-one-week.html
The link tells me little to nothing about what you think is the first step.
(Digression: I like Dylan’s interview with Ted Rall, but the links preceding it are mainly a compendium of ultra-rightist thought, which is, IMO, a bag of shit. No to mention the fact that “washington’s blog” is highly secretive about its ownership and even its writers. In other words: They’re pussies.)
Whatever you or I or anyone else may think is the first step doesn’t matter. What does is that we take ALL those steps and more, so our assault on the ruling elite is unrelenting and coming at them from whatever direction they might turn.
FYI: According to a news report dated Nov. 7, 2010 by Peter Knight in the Morning Star Online (UK – NOTE: source of announcement needs to be confirmed/verified):
“US anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in the Iraq war, declared her intention to run for US president. And she drew loud applause when she argued for the need to build an alternative to the rotten parties of capitalism.”
That’s all the information I could find at this time — it’s a short article and I haven’t searched extensively yet. But Cindy stated in a blog entry that she was going to London to meet with Socialist Alternative…I suspect the Europeans are getting pretty fed up with forced austerity and the fight’s not over yet…
Speaking of Socialism — with U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (VT) on the list, etc., perhaps this thread will eventually need to work through an “S-word” discussion yet again, as I’m seeing it pop up more often now (more than the Green Party, anyway).
OT — re: Obama — I’d like to see a movement to “encourage” him to renounce his Nobel Peace award — he said himself that he didn’t deserve the honor and for once he’s correct.
I’m also considering the pros and cons of demanding that the Democratic Party insist that Obama switches parties from Dem. to Repub. before the next presidential primary, so as not to be potentially held liable for “deceptive party practices”. We all know about Joe Lieberman switching parties; moreover, that’s what long-time U.S. Rep. Ralph Hall (TX) finally did…
Because if it walks like a Republican, and it talks like…
Thanks timestickingaway. I found this link.
If true, this is great news. I’ve e-mailed Cindy Sheehan through her blog asking for confirmation (or refutation).
But the ‘assault’ needs to be direct, not a plan for a 100 year war.
There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that governments cannot suppress.
As for ultra-rightist thought:
- Howard Zinn, historian
The power of an aroused public is unbeatable.
- Dr. Helen Caldicott
In times of danger large groups rise to the highest pitch of enthusiasm, courage and sacrifice . . . Mankind will be refashioned and history rewritten when this law is understood and obeyed.
-Helen Keller
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.
- Margaret Mead
???
The aforementioned still isn’t an official announcement yet, however. BTW, Jim Hightower has stated on the record several times over that he wouldn’t run for office; that he’s just not keen on being directly involved…of course it wouldn’t hurt to ask him again.
what’s so discreditable about this, and moreover, this is about ideas, not sources! – you can think for yourself, no?
“we have choices that are lawful and peaceful, and we will exercise them in full.
“We will not do business with banksters who caused this or any merchant who does.”
“We WILL picket, protest, and show up in front of banksters and politicians homes – not just offices.”
“We WILL intentionally ostracize both banksters and politicians.”
“If 3 million Americans all peacefully surrounded the White House and Capitol Hill, holding signs saying “We’re Not Leaving Until the Too Big to Fails which Caused the Economic Crisis are Reined In”, things would change pretty fast.
3 million might sound like a lot of people. But many millions of people read popular alternative financial and economic news sites. You are probably one of millions of people who will read this essay (by the time it is published by some of the larger sites).
In other words, it’s not even a question of convincing other people to go. We – those who read alternative financial websites – could do it ourselves.
If millions of us don’t go protest in D.C., it’s because we are choosing not to sacrifice a tiny bit in order to change things.
The bad guys are only winning because we – the American people – aren’t making enough noise.”
I’ll leave that to you. As far as I’m concerned he’s a hopeless Clintonite.
Nah, I changed my mind — I’m voting for Jello Biafra for Prez — anyone remember Jello?
Christ fuckno, are you even reading my replies? All options are on the table. At the moment, I’m working on ONE of them.
As for the ultra-rightist comment, I was referring to the sites linked above the video, at least three of which impress me as half (or more) crazy. My opinion, and I’m entitled to it. And here’s another: Any “revolution” resulting in the embrace or predominiance of Righty thought will be a colossal waste of time. We’re there now, and don’t delude yourself into believing there are not forces on the right seeking to co-opt the progressive movement for their own devices (Ron Paul being a prime case in point).
Jello just posted at the Lake last week!
themalcontent November 9th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Christ tm, what’s so hard about understanding this one fucking basic reality:
- a hungry man is an angry man, regardless of ideology, or Party affiliation, and that, my friend, is the key to change.
Before lauding ‘long live the king’, make sure the king and his court are ~~~Edited by Moderator~~~.
Good times — I’m reading Jello’s “Open Letter to Obama” now. Methinks that if TYT, “the Daily Show”, etc. want me to start taking them seriously, they should have Jello on as a guest now and then…
Agree 100 percent. But if you think many of the so-called “angry” on the Right OR Left truly are angry – let alone hungry, you’re fooling yourself. The chattering class is largely joining in on the “anger” purely to see how much $$ it makes them. That’s why I ALWAYS check, and care about, sources.
If you are judging the growing anger and despair by what the chattering class has to say, instead of by the deteriorating employment, poverty, health and living conditions which will only and quickly become exacerbated with the passage of time – you are, imo, living in a bubble.
I’m banned from commenting on the FDL Family of sites, but emptywheel has a interesting post up about Issa:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/11/09/darrell-issa-needs-a-new-baby-sitter/
Stop making assumptions, fuckno. My interest in sources comes from a lifetime of activism and freelance reporting. The reality of the conditions to which you refer doesn’t diminish my interest in how people, who lack the deep interest in politics that we share, are being influenced by what they see, read and hear – and in who’s trying to influence them.
The problem with sources in an environment of Straussian left/right wing parity, is that none can or should be trusted out of hand.
If there is scathing info about, say: Barney Frank/Wall Street/ Fannie and Freddie, including videos of Barney talking out of both sides of his ass, – who am I to dismiss it because it is only available on the right wing sites?
Again, you assume too much. I don’t trust any, let alone trust them out of hand. But that doesn’t diminish my interest in knowing who they are and what they’re peddling – and when a site deliberately take steps to remain completely anonymous, it’s further confirmation for me that (1) they are pussies and (2) they have something to hide.
But we digress. Nominations, please, from those with some to add!
Sheehan if she’d run in the primaries.
Jello’s open letter is amazing. Thanks for pointing me toward it.
Klobuchar’s a no-go. She’s too much of a conservadem at heart and would never buck the party leadership that way.
As for Franken, he’s settled into a Teddy-Kennedy-post-1980-style policy grind, but he might — might — be interested, mainly because he’s not getting any younger: His sixtieth birthday is in the rearview mirror and he may well decide to go for the gusto.
Thanks PW. Anyone not on the list that you’d like to suggest?
I know that in future threads we can explain why we want certain candidates, but I am mystified by a number of folks on your list (or rather, your choice of them). Jon Bon Jovi? Because he threw some fundraisers and performed at some political rallies? Why?
Madonna? Are you guys nuts? :)
Sorry, as a Guy Ritchie fan, I just had to say something.
Dylan Ratigan and Elizabeth Warren
until we recognize wall street is enemy number 1 of the middle class
Bill Moyers would be ideal, in my opinion. Although he’s 76, so he might not be up to it.
Ron Paul? He’s exactly right on 50% of the issues, but he’s exactly wrong on the other 50.
Great choices.
the issues that he’s right on are far more important than the other 50%.
hmmm … not so sure about that.
He believes corporate interests are identical to the public interest — and therefore government regulation (interference) is unnecessary. He sees government as the problem. I see unregulated corporations who have absolute control over our politicians as the problem. That’s a HUGE difference.
Most of our problems today stem from the ideology that unbridled capitalism works.
What are the criteria that will be used to narrow down the list? What will be done with the remaining names on the narrowed list?
Why isn’t Hillary on the list. Is she so hated that no one considers her. As far as anyone who could take down Obama I think she’s the only one with that ability and could defeat any Republican.
the first one is worth the whole enchilada,imo.
…we could stop all wars
Cut the Defense budget 75%
Dismantle Homeland Security, CIA, and all attendant police state institutions
Shred the Patriot Act
Dismantle the FED
Move Bankers from Penthouse to Penitentiary
Investigate all Fraud wherever it may lead
Get a chance to prosecute war crimes
Shut down Guantanamo
Stop Torture
Resuscitate Habeas corpus
Stop support for Israel
Get rid of DADT
And allow same sex marriage
http://my.firedoglake.com/fuckno/2010/11/05/would-you-give-up-your-party-if/
I’m suggesting Winona LaDuke, former running-mate of Ralph Nader, even though I bet she’s accomplishing more good doing what she’s doing than she would in the White House. I suggest her because I believe her name adds strength to your list. It reminds us to dream of leaders who transcend the current caliber of candidates for high office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winona_LaDuke
No, they’re not. Ron Paul would leave us all in poverty.
I don’t think people hate Hil. I just think she’s to the right of Obama. And after a triangulating Bill Clinton, and then Obama — who duped us all (and he actually ran to the Left of Hillary) — I think Hillary is in a bad place for actually convincing the Left she would deliver meaningful change.
Most people associate the Clinton name with NAFTA, neo-liberalism, neo-con foreign policy, etc. Bill make $100 million dollars influence peddling in 8 years. That speaks volumes.
Howard Dean and Jimmy Carter (because nothing says he can’t run again, and he was at least honest and believed in accountability)
And this present lot we have won’t?
Hmmm … Anthony K. “Van” Jones (President) + Anuradha K. Bhagwati (Vice President; see short bio at “Executive Director of Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN)” , link: http://www.servicewomen.org/SwanPage.asp?PLink=1027&Hding=About )
Jon Stewart
Glenn Greenwald
Elizabeth Warren
Robert Reich
Al Franken
William K. Black
Paul Craig Roberts
Rachel Maddow
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Ben Affleck
yes, i’m voting early ;-> … i may get distracted later…
Because we’ve been waiting for YOU to put her on. That’s what this post is for.
Mal let’s just be sure who and why and how lefty’s or anyone are gonna primary the dem ticket in ’12.
Cus Obama will not run and the challenge is gonna be HRC & A Genersl.
N THAT my fellow Pup Of Purpose is a most decidedly DIFFERENT dog to worry about than challenging Obama . . .
When you gonna catch up?
*G*
There is a lot of time between now and then, and a lot of shit will happen that may well reconfigure the whole electoral landscape.
As for the general as VP, – she’s got her pantsuits, and the American public (esp. Dems) is becoming sick of trumped up wars…
Dylan Ratigan today: “Are things in our country so bad that it might actually be time for a revolution?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=namL_pIqsVo&feature=player_embedded#!
If you could put Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in bold, that would be very nice.
I would like to nominate Leonard Peltier. Because I want a Native American on the list, and I want someone who knows American injustice to his bones and might provide the leadership to do something about it. Someone who might say: Fuck the FBI, fuck the CIA, fuck secret provocateur murder cabals. Someone who might actually see, revere and take care of the earth and its children, especially those with no dollars or words. I truly want a combination of Chief Seattle (“Everything you do to the web of life, you do to yourself”), Chief Joseph (“I will fight no more forever”), Crazy Horse (Neil Young :-) and Sitting Bull (“Their love of possession is a disease with them.”). I’m just sick of us and– isn’t it time?
Maybe Buffy Sainte Marie? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKmAb1gNN74
Oh hell yes! Rachel Maddow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUKlhKG0leI
Best fake presidential BP crisis manager yet! Biting my knuckles, coulda woulda shoulda!
One word: War
Finally, someone speaking to the heart of the problems. Not a chance, but we can dream, and should such happen I would cast my vote for him in no time flat. He cannot vote but he can be voted in. – sweet!
Second! And he’s not on TV now, so his calendar’s free
Joseph P Kennedy II
By ending wars and empire and restoring the Constitution, which I assume means no favors to TBTFs? Paul was the best Republican by far in the debates. I loved it when he schooled Romney on the Constitution. If you’re looking for the overlap zone and consensus between left and right, he looks good to me.
Hey thanks! btw, I love your name
and I love your visionthing.
I’m nominating Cory Booker, Mayor of Newark, and Darcy Burner, liberal activist and former Congressional candidate.
Ha!
If you’re talking socialism, you might want to think Lawrence O’Donnell
Remember the 2 weeks before and after Obama took office? News broke that Hillary Clinton wasn’t fit for office because of shady [Oil] dealings between Bill Clinton and China, Colombia and elsewhere. The news voices demanded full disclosure. Instead what we got was Obama meeting with the Clinton’s and them sharing their secret money deal info with him but not the people. The Clinton’s cut Obama in on their dishonest dealings, but never came clean about it to the American people. If Hillary Clinton is a crook, she should not be on the list. If she is not a crook, she will make those Clinton dealings with China and Colombia and the others public info.
I’m nominating Robert Scheer, but I still like Jesse Ventura, and I hope Ron Paul runs again.
Sainte-Marie is Canadian; born in Saskatchewan.
Peltier is in prison, and will die there, as his projected release date is 2040, and his health is deteriorating rapidly. A person can run for federal office from prison (and some have), but I can’t think that Peltier was a serious suggestion.
I’d have to say the same about many people on the list, though: just because you admire what a person has done in one field or other, simply doesn’t qualify them as potential Presidents.
Last Call, you promise?
Thanks for telling me to recommend.
“I don’t think people hate Hil.”
Some of us dislike her intensely, though. She’s a belligerent, everything-for-Israel, warkawk, a la Madeleine Albright, her mentor.
A better question is: How do we grow a nascent Dump Obama movement? Practicing “blogging to the choir” will all but guarantee that Dump Obama remains a curiosity. For Dump Obama not to end up being completely marginal (or even a joke), thinking and effort needs to go into organizing for growth. *
I think we should be thinking in terms of pre-existing groups that can be approached at their local chapters, so that we can pitch Dump Obama to a potentially large audience, without the need for spending lots of $$ and/or time that would be required to reach large numbers of people individually.
I can easily think of 2 such groups – local chapters of college fraternities, and local chapters of labor unions. (If a Dump Obama candidate adopts an agenda that is entirely consistent with a religious body, I’d say approack local religious groups, also. However, I’m doubtful of this premise.)
To encourage FDL followers, who may have no experience with making direct political appeals or public speaking, to take the plunge to be an evangelist, I think a kit of some sort should be make up, including a DVD and slide show, which go into some political and economic history, (including Dump Johnson) and show how the Dems and Repubs have tag-teamed America’s decay. A complete lecture should also be written out to go with each slide show. Evangelists should basically memorize the details of the script, so that they can talk naturally just from notes, while showing the slideshow.
Ideally, two versions of the above should be produced, one targetting union members and the other students.
Approaching student fraternities may be particularly easy – you can offer to make the presentation once or twice during their normal dinner time. They wouldn’t have to set aside any special time to give a listen. I’ve a friend who recently landed a job checking tickets for a dinner club at Princeton, and he’s had the opportunity to meet a great many students this way. People are relaxed when they’re eating amongst friends and colleagues. I don’t think it’s a big step to get them to listen to something critical to their future, and that the response will be at least friendly.
Probably the most successful outcome of such a presentation is not getting converts to a Dump Obama movement (and it should be emphasized, of course, that Dump Obama is merely a spark for a movement that persists well beyond a single election cycle). Rather, the most successful out of such a presentation is getting evangelist-converts, who will take it upon themselves to repeat the evangelization process to other students (at least).
When I was in college, there were lots of fraternities….
:-)
* related to this issue were some points made by activist physicist Denis Rancourt in a recent interview by Kevin Barret (more info here), about propagating knowledge not necessarily being a threat to the PTB. It’s more important to get people on the same page organizationally than informationally.
Robert Scheer would be an excellent choice.
Now THAT’S funny!!
If Lawrence O’Donnell is a Socialist, I’m BETTY FREAKIN’ CROCKER.
Just watched Rock ‘N Rolla over the weekend. What a great ride!
Exactly… where “us” does not include him.
Don’t know if you’ve been following this, metamars, but this is the beginning of a movement getting rid of Obama. Please read the diaries referenced at the top and this one.
Nathan, my belief is that all names will be saved. I am of the belief that we on the Left generally understand what we are looking for on an almost instinctual level. So I’ll ask in the voting diary for people to choose their top ten preferentially, i.e., to list them 1 thru 10 in their comment, most favored to least. From there I think work must begin on a very simple 10-point platform, with brevity being the key. The Dems have been systematically trounced for 30 years due to really poor, overly complex messaging, for example saying, “Open service by gays in the military does not threaten national security nor morale and therefore we as a nation (zzzzz…) must undertake to do this as the light of freedom (snore…) around the world.” When simply saying, “x percent of every population is gay and the military is no different – get over it,” would have done the job.
Is this a nomination, doggid? If so, I’ll be glad to add her to the final list.
A small distinction, normanb. She can be on the nomination list. Whether she makes it to the nominATED list will be determined when everybody votes.
Robert Kennedy, Jr.
Name recognition, long-time service to a Progressive cause, born into America’s aristocracy (so no need to pander, bow and scrape, like Obama).
In any case, we need to find someone high-profile enough to attract the attention and support of Soros, and the other Democratic/Progressive deep pockets. We need to get some money backers, or this is all just wasted typing. Perhaps they are looking on their own. Who knows.
Paired with Sherrod Brown.
Sorry, Grey Wolf. To avoid potential duplicate voting, and to allow for the full slate of nominees to be listed, AND because I have a “real” job and can’t be on this 24/7, I’m asking that voting occurs only on the voting thread. It will be put up next Wednesday (11/17) and votes will be accepted til Thursday midnight (11/18) Pacific time.
If I let this in, the process will potentially get out of hand real quick. Your understanding and cooperation is appreciated.
I acknowledged this possibility in the diary, Larue:
“And if he doesn’t run, some other primed-for-compromise DINO will take his place.”
I’m sensing that it’s pointless to try and come up with a primary challenger to Obama. Every time a list of potential candidates gets posted, the same pointless, flights-of-fancy-driven, think-it’ll-be-cool-to-see-them-run names keep cropping up. Enough, people. If you keep tossing out the likes of Ben Affleck and Jane Hamsher, do you know what’s going to happen? Nothing. The people you’d like to see run just because you think it’ll be awesome will refuse to run for president on any ticket, let alone against Obama in a Democrat Party primary, and you’ll waste the next two years. That’s all you’ll accomplish is wasting time and energy better spent on candidates who are not only inclined but capable of mounting a challenge.
For the last time, because it really is not worth trying to set you people straight if you insist on going this route:
Al Franken
Andrew Cuomo
Andrew Romanoff
Bernie Sanders
Cindy Sheehan
Cynthia McKinney
Dennis Kucinich
Donna Edwards
Elizabeth Warren
George Miller
Howard Dean
Jerry Brown
Jesse Ventura
Jill Stein
Mike Gravel
Peter DeFazio
Ralph Nader
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Russ Feingold
The above-listed politicians are arguably the ONLY people you’ll have more than a snowball’s chance in hell of convincing to run for president. Seriously, are you kidding me when you keep bringing up Arianna Huffington? She wasn’t even born in this country! She’s automatically disqualified from running for president by way of the fucking Constitution! So unless you think you can get an amendment allowing foreign-born persons to run for president passed before the deadline for getting on the 2012 ballot arrives, forget about it. And why even bother adding DLCer Bill Richardson to the list of candidates to run against DLCer Obama? Did you learn absolutely nothing from 2008? Running one corporate-owned candidate against another still only gets you a corporate-owned candidate. And as for Grayson, his position on Israel-Palestine and Iran marks him as someone who’d be more likely to continue the horrendous policies currently in place regarding those three entities. Elizabeth Edwards is suffering from breast cancer and is too sick to run for anything. Campaigning would literally kill her.
Finally, if you think FDL alone is going to help you get your mission accomplished, think again. The moderators here all support the status quo and will work tirelessly against any and every effort you make here to promote your chosen candidates. They will not hesitate to ban you if you step too far out of line. I’m not saying not to use FDL as one of several web-based recruiting resources, but you can’t place all your eggs in one basket like this and expect to succeed.
Tis effort is doomed from the start because it’s not being taken seriously by the people promoting it.
Yep. Stop the wars and a whole lot of better stuff will follow, beginning with any further expansion of presidential powers. No more of that Commander in Chief crap.
Cindy Sheehan is a good choice to run for president, though she will not run as a Democrat (too much bad blood between her and the party). She ran against Pelosi in 2008, I believe, and did so on an unapologetically left-wing platform.
Whether you realize it or not, Mike, with all your “for the last time” bluster, some of the names on your current list were NOT on your LAST “for the last time” list. This latest list adds Franken, Cuomo, Sheehan, Miller, Dean, Brown, Stein, and Kennedy. These were all added to the full list by virtue of last week’s diary, on which you posted a similarly impatient comment. So despite your complaints, it seems this process is working even for you.
Had you read this diary in full, you’d understand the goal: To ensure that the entire FDL community is aware of the effort and has the chance to participate. Just because Richardson or Hillary get on the list doesn’t mean they’ll make (anything approaching) the final cut.
You don’t like the mods at FDL, we all GET that. So what’s stopping you from gathering nominations at your own site, or from others in the lefty blogosphere, and adding them to the list here? If you have that kind of time, GO FOR IT! I personally don’t, and I’ve found the environs here quite welcoming, provided I keep things civil – which, call me crazy, I don’t consider an unreasonable requirement. With all due respect, that seems your greatest challenge. If you could drop the righteously pissed stance for 20 seconds, you might see that nobody’s trying to limit this effort an any way, shape or form.
Try spending a little less time seeing red and a little more seeing the whole picture, Mike. Doing so might open your eyes to the difference between brainstorming (the phase we’re now in) and narrowing the field (which we’ll do next week).
Yes remembering LaDuke is a good exercise in think expansively about leadership. And I think you’re right, she would probably be the first to tell you she’s a bit busy running the tribal government, HonorTheEarth.Org and everything else she’s doing (link: http://www.honorearth.org/news/winona039s-earth-day-2010-commentary-published-nationwide) to keep back the BP-sized, people-made eco-disasters threatening her community.
Excellent link – I’m not sure what kind of problem themalcontent has with it (save that his comments may suggest that he’s uncomfortable with anything that conservatives might also be able to embrace – if that’s doing him an injustice, he can feel free to explain why it is one).
Tom Cruise! Save us Tom Cruise! Use your magic to get the fire off me!
seriously, Tom Hanks is our only real shot.
First we should start by disbanding the DNC though.
Wow. Thanks for the link.
Given that we can at least try to get someone who’ll support all that PLUS at least most of the rest of what we want, why settle for Paul?
If it were a choice of Paul or nothing, my attitude would change. But I just see no reason to assume that it is.
Besides, would Paul run in the Democratic primaries? Because that’s part of the strategy being advanced here.
Don’t be discouraged, Michael. I’m mentally compiling (with the help of notes) a list of folk that don’t need to be taken seriously in these discussions – you’re always gonna get them. The serious ones make good sense.
I’d like to add to your list, Tom Udall – I know he’s not as well known as the others, but his record is pretty good here in the west, and I would savor a Robert Kennedy Jr./Tom Udall ticket for certain sure. (Udall started as Attorney General here in New Mexico.
I’d also like to comment on the following from malcontent’s diary:
“…we’re not playing by the party’s rules. We’re playing by the rules of our electoral system as it now functions.
Under that system, primary season is a candidate’s best opportunity to build a following and garner the support – and signatures, and votes – that will land him or her on the general election ballot as an independent. That the Greens and other parties haven’t yet recognized this fact and used it to their advantage is beyond me. A full primary election campaign within an existing party which lasts, in all its contentious glory, right through the convention is by far the surest route to ballot access.”
Here in New Mexico at least, the Greens had a rude awakening this time around. At the very last minute the Powers That Be found an extra hoop for them to jump through with the one candidate who had laboriously attempted to put himself on the ballot. He was refused. I think if folk present them with the alternative you are suggesting and the example of Tea Party success we would achieve some results. Certainly if we can get traction on the primary challenge idea, many who have voted Green will come on over.
It’s clear the primaries are where it is at currently. I had no choice in New Mexico, couldn’t even do a write-in for a Green.
You may be confusing this effort with jeffroby’s. While a natural consequence of the effort described here would be for Obama to be evicted from the White House, the focus here is on using a primary opponent to gain attention and credibility that can be carried over into a third-party challenge (and continuing growth) in the likely event that Obama wins the nomination.
Besides, giving something for people to support tends to offer more motivation than just trying to get them to oppose something (which in many cases they appear to oppose already but not be all that interested in opposing actively).
Given the crap that Obama has pulled over the past two years I’m no longer at all certain that he’s to the left of Hillary.
But Hillary is most certainly far to the right of anyone whom I would support to challenge him: while I ‘hate’ neither of them personally, I despise their positions and hypocrisy.
Thanks julianna. BTW, I was a big booster of Mo Udall, one of three political Udall brothers from that generation, way back (way, waaaaaay back) in our high school’s “mock” convention in 1976. Tom’s is just the latest generation of a very active political family. The American West’s answer to the Kennedys, some would say.
And let me just reiterate the first ‘graph of this diary. Those suggested on jeffroby’s diary from before the election are included here. A merged list, if you will.
Brian Schweitzer, Governor of Montana.
Z
~ lot of good people on that list ~
Bad blood works for me! Perhaps Cindy might see that things are reaching critical mass and the party is ours for the taking.
Great work, TC!
As long as comedians are in the mix, what happenned to Bill Maher and if actors are in (Ronald Reagan, hmmm) then what about George Clooney?
Just some random quick and dirty observations: (1)if the lack of action on the issue of torture was the only criteria, then Obama is henceforth totally insupportable, an accomplice after the fact, (2) these batshit Tea Partiers and their somewhat more rational traditional GOPthuggers like Darrell Issa may actually be a significant part of Dumping Obama,to wit: a populist anti-Wall Street, anti-Federal Reserve attitude (Ron Paul) combined with investigations that more fully explore the Obama administrations unseemly and too cozy relationships with the big banks, backdoor bailouts, and the like may have the perverse effect of weakening Obama to our alternative benefit. “The enemy of my enemy, ugh, hold your noses, could be my friend?!”
A start is a start, and nobody here thinks “FDL alone” is going to get this done. What mal has set up is a process for weeding out the flights of fancy, so you should be applauding him rather than spreading gloom (and you KNOW I’m no Pollyanna).
(replying to arctor, above) At the risk of driving Michael Kwiatkowski completely around the bend, let me point out that you musta missed Clooney. He’s on the list. Mahar hasn’t been nominated, but he’s Canadian born, if memory serves. EDIT: My bad, his Wiki says he’s New York born. I’da swore different…
I nominate Bruce Springsteen and Governor Jerry Brown. I’m trying to think practically here: I don’t get the point, at this stage of things, of nominating candidates we can be 100% certain will never get elected. Bruce is extraordinarily popular, and with the working class too and not just the MSNBC-viewing college-educated middle classes; Jerry has a mostly Quixote, rebellious independent image that might fit what the country is dying for in 2012.
Jerry’s already on the list. That said, I can’t see him leaving CA in two years and essentially being a guv in absentia in the meantime order to run, after the election he just won and how badly his expertise is needed.
I like that pairing or Sherrod Brown with Bill Moyers.
I like a lot of the people on that list. But you’re looking at people who will never have the broad appeal to win a general election. The question for me – and what I’ve been trying to do with my writing recently – is how to run a campaign t undergirded by progressive values that can draw in people who are not progressive. You don’t seem to be thinking along those lines.
Jerry might stay in California and run a presidential campaign mostly from his living room or bedroom, and make that work for him. You never know, but he has a knack for doing things very differently and thereby drawing publicity to himself and his ideas.
I agree! We already know we’ll have fine protest votes to make in 2012, and at this point I encourage everyone to make those. But structurally there is a two-party system, and that means pulling _at_ _least_ 40% of the vote. Anyway, that’s why I suggested Bruce Springsteen and Jerry Brown above. What’s needed is a working class or ‘independent’ candidate that acceptable enough to the ‘progressive’ middle classes, rather than somebody ‘pwoggieland’ finds perfect that we hope the working class and poor will like enough to vote for.
exactly!
On Dylan Ratigan today: The Democrat Jonathan Alter sounded like a fucking wingnut, and the ‘Centrist’ Matt Miller stood far to the left of Obama.
Fiscal conservatives are the ones who want Wall Street perp walked, the Fed reigned in, and I doubt that they would much object to organizing a wake for Corporate Personhood.
As the National Lampoon pointed out way back then, they wouldn’t have take Mo Udall’s campaign so seriously if his friends Larry and Curly were still around.
That “for the last time” bit refers to my trying to get this effort on track. If people decide to ignore what I’m saying and keep floating names of people who aren’t going to run for president, then we may as well give up and meekly ask for some lube in 2012 — because the royal ass f***ing we’re going to be getting will be a whole lot worse than what we’ve already gotten.
I’ll tell you what. Add Mickey Mouse, Daffy Duck, and Andy Panda to the list. There’s about as much chance of cartoon characters running for president as Ben Affleck, and the fun factor is just as high.
It’s not that I don’t like the moderators. It’s that the moderators don’t like us. I can pretty much guarantee you that if you step too far out of line, if they perceive your efforts as being associated with FDL in any way, shape, or form, you’ll be banned from posting. Gatekeeper blogs encourage dissent, but only so far as it goes no farther. Dare to try and overthrow the Democrat Party leadership using their web sites, and you’ll be gone. I’ve seen it happen on far too many occasions.
I am seeing the bigger picture. As long as we keep focusing on people who either aren’t going to run for president or who can’t for Constitutional reasons, we’re just wasting time and energy. I don’t want this movement dying on the vine just because some want to indulge in flights of fancy.
Oh nooooo??? That’s exactly what he did back in his 1st term as governor and I screamed in frustration about it at the time and sat back and watched as he squandered all of his political capital and made a fool of himself on the national stage. At the time he had an approval rating in the 80+% in California. It started to drop precipitously after that.
In retrospect an argument can easily be made that Brown’s decision to run for Prez was the beginning of the end for him. Afterward, he made a series of fumbles and has shown time and again that he has no great political instincts. I doubt he has learned much over the years.
“But you’re looking at people who will never have the broad appeal to win a general election. The question for me – and what I’ve been trying to do with my writing recently – is how to run a campaign t undergirded by progressive values that can draw in people who are not progressive. You don’t seem to be thinking along those lines.”
Guilty as charged – well, 60 percent guilty. I don’t necessarily agree that no one on the list could win a general. Everybody was saying the same thing about Barack Obama four years ago.
That being said, winning the nomination or even the general is not the goal. The goal is to supercharge the effort to either (1) establish a viable third party and/or (2) take back Lefty control of the Democratic Party. Under the current electoral realities, one or both of these happens a lot sooner by educating Lefty third parties that the quickest way onto the national ballot – and to the prominence that will allow their membership to really grow – under the rules as they stand, is by becoming “temporary” Democrats, in order to oppose the party, cop its audience, and then stand as Independents – or Greens, or Working Families, or Socialists, or whatever.
Jim, I truly admire your belief that there is common ground. I’ve been reading your recent work and it sounds a lot like I once did, no offense intended. I would, in a heartbeat, try to build a bridge to the “other side” if I honestly believed they wouldn’t blow up their half of it just prior to meeting in the middle. But after thirty years of watching them do so, I just don’t share your optimism.
In the introduction to your upcoming book, you say you “…write passionately about poverty, the plight of the middle class, the environment, health care, and the scourge of corporatism…” and state your belief that “[these] five core issues [...] are shared by both groups [small-town conservative Christians and progressives].”
I live in a small town too, and I just don’t see that – which is not to suggest you don’t, but I wonder if the conservatives’ normally rigid stands are not made somewhat pliable in your presence, out of deference to your position as their minister, and the air of goodwill that surrounds a religious congregation?
My experience is that small-town conservatives, Christian and otherwise, think pretty much like Glenn Beck tells them to: Global warming (i.e., threats to the environment) is a myth; poverty is the result of the poor refusing to work harder; health care is the responsibility of each individual and those who can’t afford it can use the emergency room; “middle class” is a statistic and statistics can be molded to say whatever people want them to say; and business, in all its forms – conglomerate or otherwise – is a sign of human progress, and hats off to those who have figured out how to be successful.
So if you’re saying that with this effort I am trying help the Left organize against this kind of bullshit, you are absolutely correct. I don’t care to draw in folks who are not progressive ENOUGH to at least separate fact from fiction, and I firmly believe that by building an unapologetically Lefty movement that clearly states Lefty goals, it will bring in progressives of all kinds – including the vast majority of “today’s” Democratic Party, whose registration numbers leave the other party in their dust. The party’s faithful have been so consistently disappointed by the party’s performance – for a generation – that they are finally ready, I believe, to go back to the party’s progressive roots.
As for bringing in those who are not progressive, they will come along, when they see how much better government works as a social democracy. (Or if they’d just travel to Canada or Europe once or twice!) But trying to build a movement inclusive of those who have already decided that “progressive” and “communist” are synonymous will lead only to more of the kind of compromise that our Democratic Party leaders have practiced for the past 30 years.
Okay, Udall sounds like a good pick to go on the list. I’m curious as to why you think the Greens have not recognized the value in running in Democrat Party primaries. I can only guess, seeing as how I’m in no position to speak for the Green Party as a whole, but I think it has to do with the recognition that most if not all Democrat Party primaries inevitably end up with the progressive loser throwing his or her support behind the corporate-backed winner, because at the end of the day they are party politicians. Progressivism has become dominated by the Democrat Party, the agenda of which is to further its own power. David Sirota wrote more eloquently about it than I can, but he also pointed out an exception to the rule.
it’s the Dylan Ratigan/Matt Miller types that need to be part of the movement.
it will be the Independents, the libertarians and the left of the left who will mount a broad peoples movement. Your Democrat left ideals, given the perfidy of this criminal institution will attract none of them. When both Republicans and Democrats cough up 15% each of their members, then, and only then, imo, will the mass be sufficient to beat back empire and neofeudalism.
It’s not about left right, its about them and us, and I promise you that your little exercise there, however noble, is not for these times.
I just read this post by Jane Hamsher and it dawned on my that Trumka would be the perfect person to nominate.
I realize he is already on the list, but I would like to second his nomination and make a case for why he is a better choice that other people on that list. I know all the people on the list have been outstanding advocates for progressive values, but Trumka is the only one on the list that already has a solid enough infrastructure to put up a serious fight. He has been a solid voice for progressive values, and a serious campaign would force the media to cover his statements (which would do wonders in pushing the narrative to the left–people would see how far right BOTH the democrats and republicans are). Finally, I once heard Chomsky argue that the US is unique in the world in that it doesn’t have a Labor party (he says we have “two factions of the business party”), Trumka could help us start a labor party.
This last point makes it seem like it would be better to have him run a third party campaign than a democratic primary, it may very well be. The contrast between him and Obama will lead many to realize just how far right the Democrats really are.
Trumka would loose like nobody’s business.
1. He’s a proven buckler, sold out labor interests for pie in the sky.
2. His Union ‘creds’ would prevent him from gaining a majority, because the last thing those that a successful cross ideological movement needs is, to be led by a Union Boss.
We don’t get to choose the battlefield we want fight on. That has, and continues to be defined by our rogue government. We need coalitions to win this one.
My ex-Navy/farmer dad in Kentucky (not rich) donated $100 to Jerry Brown’s presidential campaign back in the day. I wish he’d won. I’d support him again if he ran for president, I think. But I also think he may be able to do more to lead the nation, as governor of California, than he could in the White House. I think of the White House as the clown house or the corporate pet pen now. Worthless president faces in a box of fail. Truly, right now, my eyes are on what Jerry Brown does in California. I think that’s where it’s at in terms of leadership and innovating our way out of a box of fail.
“I live in a small town too, and I just don’t see that – which is not to suggest you don’t, but I wonder if the conservatives’ normally rigid stands are not made somewhat pliable in your presence, out of deference to your position as their minister, and the air of goodwill that surrounds a religious congregation?
My experience is that small-town conservatives, Christian and otherwise, think pretty much like Glenn Beck tells them to: Global warming (i.e., threats to the environment) is a myth; poverty is the result of the poor refusing to work harder; health care is the responsibility of each individual and those who can’t afford it can use the emergency room; “middle class” is a statistic and statistics can be molded to say whatever people want them to say; and business, in all its forms – conglomerate or otherwise – is a sign of human progress, and hats off to those who have figured out how to be successful.
So if you’re saying that with this effort I am trying help the Left organize against this kind of bullshit, you are absolutely correct. I don’t care to draw in folks who are not progressive ENOUGH to at least separate fact from fiction”
———————————-
– I agree, TheMalcontent. Well said.
I wonder if some of those who think Progressives and small-town, small-minded, religious conservatives share common values have ever actually had discussions with these types you often find in the Glenn Beck districts.
They believe government is THE PROBLEM. They believe Obamacare is a takeover of health care, not a giveaway to corporations. They can’t even begin to wrap their head around that idea. They believe taxes should be eradicated, and that government should just stay entirely out of business. They watch Fox News night after night, and they are like ditto heads.
We may all grow hungry and homeless together, but we will continue to disagree on the cause of the problem. So many of them cannot distinguish between fact and fiction, news and propaganda.
They are driven by fear mongering in a predictable reactive way, whether it’s: some secular retailer is “stealing their Christmas” by having their employees say “happy holidays” VS. “Merry Christmas”, or that gay marriage is gonna ruin their small town values, or that Obama is gonna take away their guns.
They believe America is the best country in the world, mostly because the farthest they’ve ever traveled is to the Wal-Mart ten miles down the street. The rest of the world is a scary place to them that lacks “freedom” and they want no part of it.
John Hickenlooper?
Jon Tester?
Jim Webb?
Wow, fuckno, it must be sooo nice to be all-knowing!
But you are right about this; it IS about them and us – and “we” are far more clearly and consciously supported by the Left, while “they” are much more aligned with the Right. You can try to tease out the two and pretend that government policies don’t really matter, but when you look at the success of social democracies in terms of people – their quality of life, their satisfaction with their lives, the existence of social safety nets, policies of non-intervention, mortality rates, financial regulation, product safety, and on and on – and the world’s more conservative/totalitarian states can’t hold a candle to them.
The Libertarians live in a dream world of “No government is necessary – oh yeah, except for that little LAW AND ORDER thing… oh, and the ROADS we want to drive on… and, oh yeah, emergency services…”
And please don’t try to lecture me about independents, fuckno, because I’m a lifelong one. I can assure you, there are two kinds in this country: Those who are independents because the Democratic Party is nowhere near LEFT enough for them, and those who are independents because the GOP is nowhere near RIGHT enough. Have you checked this out? The Political Compass
I’d be real interested to see where you fall.
Ehren Watada, at 32 years old, is still too young to qualify, but I would like to put his name in the list for the future (if that’s allowed). He has name recognition and great charisma, he has the immense distinction of being a military man of conscience and integrity, he demonstrates there is no reason progressives need to be anti-military nor that military folks need be conservative, his candidacy would be welcomed by many Asia Americans, who have not had the presence on the national stage they deserve – perhaps most important, his status as a peace movement hero.
Isn’t that something. He’d be on my short list if only I had some faith that he wouldn’t say something completely off the hook, like he did in the SF Mayor’s race. From Wikipedia:
“His platform included unconventional points such as forcing businessmen to wear clown suits within city limits, erecting statues of Dan White (who assassinated Mayor George Moscone and City Supervisor Harvey Milk in 1978) all over town and allowing the parks department to sell eggs and tomatoes with which people could pelt them, and a citywide ban on cars (although the latter point was not considered completely outlandish by many voters at the time, as the city was suffering from serious pollution problems).[27] Biafra has expressed irritation that these parts of his platform attained such notoriety, preferring instead to be remembered for serious proposals such as legalizing squatting in vacant, tax-delinquent buildings and requiring police officers to keep their jobs by running for election voted on by the people of the neighborhoods they patrol.[29]
‘For those of them who have seen my candidacy as a publicity stunt or a joke, they should keep in mind that it is no more of a joke, and no less of a joke, than anyone else they care to name.’
He finished third out of a field of nine, receiving 3.79% of the vote (6,591 votes); the election ended in a runoff that did not involve him (Feinstein was declared the winner).”
That said, he was drafted by NY Greens and got 10 votes for the Green Party presidential nomination in 2000…
This is a reply to wendydavis — I guess after a certain level of nesting you can’t reply directly anymore?
As his first act as President, Peltier could pardon himself. Problem solved.
Sainte Marie’s citizenship is actually an interesting ponder. I know there are issues regarding Native Americans and sovereignity and citizenship. Think LaCrosse passports. I don’t know what Sainte Marie considers as the boundaries of her country. In fact, I’d love to hear that conversation. So because of that, and because I desperately want my president to say “No No Keshagesh” to all the keshageshes, I’ll keep her on my list.
Finally, as to Peltier’s health. I didn’t know he was so ill, and I’m sorry to hear it. Still, I wouldn’t mind an ill president if s/he felt up to it for as long as possible. I would have voted for John Edwards just to get Elizabeth in the White House, able to reason and influence. I want someone who knows, really knows, how precious life is, your own and your children’s, who will say no — no no NO — when it comes to decisions to kill and target and stalk. I want someone who sees the futility of possessions and for whom a lot of useless chatter has fallen away, someone whose bucket list is loving and wanting. That clarity. I want it.
btw, I am totally making up Peltier and what I think he might be as a candidate. But wouldn’t it be nice if we knew more?
Michael K wrote:
“Progressivism has become dominated by the Democrat Party…”
Yes, although I might choose the word co-opted. But as to the rest of your comment it’s spot on, and that’s why any primary challenger we might draft will have to vow to run as an Independent (or Green, or Working Families, or whatever) and NOT throw their support to the Dems.
Well said. When I’m in CA (several times a year) on business, I’m always stunned at how much more seriously and thoughtfully politics is transacted there, in spite of the serious problems the state is facing.
I agree that Trumka is clay-footed bluster merchant, but tell me this, fuckno: Is this a rogue government because of its support of corporatism? Or would you consider it MORE of a rogue government if, say, the new health care law eliminated pirvate insurance and instituted universal care run by the government.
I’m asking in all seriousness, to try to get a better idea of where your “lines” are.
Why didn’t you add Robert Scheer to the list?
The dismal science being, well, dismal in safeguarding our economy. The more likely prognosis of a dismal future come to us from the markets.
QE II and it’s future clones, arguably will end up debasing the dollar, in a global currency crisis to the bottom. The effects on commodity prices could well leave the US population choosing between heating oil, food or meds. (“The National Inflation Association today announced the release of its report about NIA’s projections of future U.S. food price increases due to the massive monetary inflation being created by the Federal Reserve’s $600 billion quantitative easing. This report was written by NIA’s President Gerard Adams, who believes food inflation will take over in 2011 as America’s greatest crisis.”) http://www.zerohedge.com/article/nia-releases-food-price-estimates-
“A lot of commentators have been discussing what QE2 will mean for equities and the various bond markets. People are talking about the Treauries’ yield curve—but not much about what QE2 will mean for the rest of the American population: The middle class, the working poor, the poor, and even the upper-middle class.” –Gonzago Lira
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/gonzalo-lira-and-boiling-frog-effects-qe2-bottom-80-us-population
A chart based on some correlations of BLS data:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SSUbVSG_KVY/TNbMo4o-xII/AAAAAAAAAR0/6w2-pHPm5pA/s1600/Data+chartiv.jpg
Those that would be affected by such an interpretation of the current state of Fraudonomics, are not to be measured or divided by Party affiliations. Any attempt at movement building that would favor ideology, over the recognition and identification of a cross partisan wave of discontent, will fail miserably in harnessing the populist momentum and will doom itself to failure.
I fall on the side of my personal experience of The Solidarnosc movement in Poland.
oh, come on,TM…
First and foremost, I am a pacifist. I’d be willing to make a lot of dreams to stop the horrific blood baths which we all tacitly endorse.
As to the choice you offer to a self proclaimed libertarian socialist, it would be Corporate Personhood and Fascism that I object the most to.
“Or would you consider it MORE of a rogue government if, say, the new health care law eliminated pirvate insurance and instituted universal care run by the government.”
I prostrated myself in front of you and a few others with this entry:
http://my.firedoglake.com/fuckno/2010/11/05/would-you-give-up-your-party-if/
to see the rejection of Peace, in favor of petulant personal preferences, leaves me still in a state of shock.
Hi lefttown, thanks for the question.
The list will be updated after nominations close, at 11:59 p.m. Pacific Saturday (11/13). Since the new format allows comments to be placed everywhere, trying to update the list while accepting nominations would be confusing at best. By waiting til a specific time, I can check the timestamps as I go thru the comments just once, top to bottom, which will expedite/simplify and help ensure the accuracy of the process.
The final, fully updated list (with Wiki links to each name) will be posted next Monday (11/15) for two days of commentary, debate and cajoling (no more nominees!).
That same list will then go up one last time next Wednesday (11/17) for preferential voting, which will continue through 11:59 p.m. Pacific Thursday (11/18).
I’ll tabulate results, and get them double-checked by a few VOLUNTEERS (I’ve got one so far, folks, throw me a friggin’ BONE here!), and the top ten will be posted either Friday or Saturday (11/19 or 11/20).
Well I just took that thing (The Political Compass). BTW, it’s 6 pages long. Might be something to consider adding in the future?? I dunno, just longer than I thought.
But the kicker is it just spits out a picture with a red dot on it.
No explanation, no nothing. A chart. With a red dot on it.
After reading and anwering 6 pages of questions I’ve got a pretty little chart I can print out. That has a red dot on it.
That was fun.
OK, I never commented on that thread.
But don’t you think it’s a little over the top to say those who did “rejected” peace? I don’t read it that way. I read it as people who recognize that your boy Ron has a split personality: there’s the fatherly, soft-spoken Ron that he trots out to the masses at election time; and then there’s the hardline, isolationist Ron who sponsors bills trying to undercut labor unions, delay increases in the minimum wage, get us out of the UN, and make the Bush tax cuts permanent.
If preventing workers from organizing, stealing from the working class, making the U.S. a pariah, and further enriching the rich, are the “price” that Ron Paul is asking us to pay for a “peace” that may prove to be just an illusion perpetuated by fatherly Ron in order to get elected, can you really be surprised that people feel as they do?
Ok, I guess there is some confusion about what the goals of this are. While I agree that beating Obama in a primary (or via third party) would undoubtably be a win, I wasn’t thinking we have to move the goal post that far to be be able to declare victory.
I was thinking a more practical goal would be to simply have a serious progressive challenger that can defend progressive values. Against such challenger, Obama will not be able to show his usual disdain for progressive ideals-rather he’ll have to embrace them. That I think would be a win, to push Obama to the left, rather than allowing the hippie punching status quo to continue.
The reason I suggested Trumka is because he already has a giant megaphone that would make a challenge from him HAVE to be taken seriously (even if he doesn’t win, Obama will at least have to engage in a fight).
I don’t know his record well enough to know when he has sold out, all i know are the few times I’ve seen him in the news, he’s been taking stances I’ve agreed with. Can you give examples of when he’s sold out?
I haven’t taken it in some time, OFG, but it should give you pages to click on (left margin?) that show where your red dot puts you in terms of recent candidates in recent elections??
EDIT: Yeah, about midway down, click on any (or all) of the “Region Specific” elections.
themalcontent November 10th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
His Randian utopia is about as far from mine as the North pole is from the South.
(The Democrat Party is a Straussian/Randian coalition, in spite of the Socialist label being attached to it by the MSM)
…we could Stop All Wars
Kill Corporate Personhood
Cut the Defense budget 75%
Dismantle Homeland Security, CIA, and all attendant police state institutions
Shred the Patriot Act
Dismantle the FED
Move Bankers from Penthouse to Penitentiary
Investigate all Fraud wherever it may lead
Get a chance to prosecute war crimes
Shut down Guantanamo
Stop Torture
Resuscitate Habeas corpus
Stop support for Israel
Get rid of DADT
And allow same sex marriage
Universal Healthcare would become a State’s issue.
Everybody acts so righteously upset that the dollar is being debased, when (1) it hasn’t been worth the paper on which it is printed since Nixon took us off the gold standard, (2) our captains of finance are proven crooks; and (3) China and India own us.
The dollar’s fall as the global reserve currency was ensured the day Euro was introduced, and every economist worth his salt knew it.
Yet still we act surprised.
In response to Themalcontent.
For some reason there was no Reply under your post, so I replied to my own.
Well, I’ve long left the site now, and don’t want to take it again. All I’ve got left is that little graph. With the red dot on it.
Wish means diddly squat to me.
You forget… I’m not a Democrat, never have been, and never will be, until it is again the party of FDR…
Health care reform. He promised to back ALL working families to get a public option, said he unions would not support a bill that didn’t, and then tried to negotiate one just for unions.
Plus, he LIKES Ed Schultz :)
While I was looking at Van Jones as a candidate for President, I looked at Watada for Vice President but discovered he would not meet the age requirement *yet*. There are many fine folks as well as Anthony Woods and, possibly, Rob Smith ( link: http://www.robsmithonline.com) who I’m still researching. Meanwhile, I discovered Anuradha Bhagwati who is the right age and has a wow background ( link: http ://www.servicewomen.org/SwanPage.asp?PLink=1027&Hding=About ). I think Aravosis is best in his speak-truth-to-power role as is Jane. These suggestions have not made it to the list yet.
Oh, and that’s ok btw.
I wasn’t bitching at you. It’s the test site I don’t get. Usually you answer stuff like that and it calculates your results and spits out something you can read, and understand. This one just spits out a chart. With a red dot.
And how the hell did you do an edit?????
themalcontent November 10th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Surprised? Is that what you thought my comment addressed?, or is this just a manner by which you dispense with inconvenient realities?
I’m pointing out to you wherever I can that the zeitgeist fueled by corruption and economic destitution of the people does neither conform to the reality on which you are building your drive, nor confirm your assessment of the battlefield lines.
So, I’m with Ratigan, Glennzilla, and possibly Cenk on the state of the state of the union.
Is the Red dot in the top left, top right, bottom left or bottom right of the page? Diarists get an edit option in comments.
For some reason I can’t reply to the post above, so i’ll reply here.
Trumka was a major, if not THE major, reason that the house didn’t roll over and accept the Senate version. He helped make the bill better, even though he did fail in getting the public option through just like the rest of us.
I don’t remember him trying to negotiate a public option just for unions. I do remember him opposing the cadillac tax, and when he couldn’t get it removed for everyone, he was willing to accept a deal to remove the cadillac tax for just union members. But you have to remember, that is HIS JOB, he is paid, first and foremost, to serve the interests of union members. I think he does that well. He also makes very good speeches defending progressive values–the media just won’t cover them.
Warren Mosler?
I’m not following you… surprised by what?
Nominated by letsgetitdone on last Friday’s diary.
themalcontent November 10th, 2010 at 4:22 pm «
“Everybody acts so righteously upset that the dollar is being debased, when (1) it hasn’t been worth the paper on which it is printed since Nixon took us off the gold standard, (2) our captains of finance are proven crooks; and (3) China and India own us.
The dollar’s fall as the global reserve currency was ensured the day Euro was introduced, and every economist worth his salt knew it.
Yet still we act surprised.”
I don’t need to remind you that the crookedness of the captains of finance, is a direct outcome of a captured and quisling Government. Who then should bear the brunt of the blame: the unsupervised kids or their wardens?
Please see this comment/explanation mzchief…
____________________
| | |
| | |
| | |
|________|_________|
| | |
| | |
| X | |
|________|_________|
Well that didn’t work.
It’s got little squares on it. Bottom left quadrant, 4 squares from the left side and 4 squares from the bottom.
Maybe I’m four?
Sorry about that … I was trying to write this clearly but it wasn’t meant as complaint as I know you’ve doing the clearing house thing.
Thanks for being johnny-on-the-spot.
Tim Robbins
This oversimplifies the situation, suggesting the “brunt” must fall to one group or the other. Loans were written that were clearly outside existing law. In those cases, the “kids” must be prosecuted. Where the government colluded or led the wrongdoing, it must be held accountable.
If I’m understanding you, you’re concluding that it’s best to burn down the entire prison. I’m saying let’s permanently exile all offenders – administrators and perps alike – and institute real reform in every phase of the system. It’s not the basic structure that’s flawed. It’s the ongoing practice of mid-20th century business in a 21st century world.
He does make good speeches, and he is beholden first to unions. But when he promises union support to “regular folks” he becomes beholden to them, too, and here’s Jane’s piece on his classic fold on the P.O.
You’re right there with me!
OK, the top of the chart is “Authoritarian.”
The bottom is “Libertarian.”
The Left is “Left” and the Right is (go figure!) “Right.”
You (and I) are farther left than Nader and more libertarian, too. The only “mainstream” candidate that was even our quadrant in 2008 was Kucinich.
Socialist Party candidate Brian Moore is as Left as us, but still not as Libertarian.
Thanks for the link, i somehow missed that one back in march.
ok, he did sellout on the public option, but in all fairness, he didn’t sellout for personal gain–as far as we know–he soldout for an end to the cadillac tax. I still think he would be one of the more serious challengers we could put forth.
I thought this was a serious effort until I saw Madonna and Ben Affleck on the list and others of the Hollywood type. It’s just silly.
I really appreciate all your thoughtful and meaningful reply’s. I’m as disappointed as anyone as how Obama has turned out and have been looking at the issue as simply a win loose and am ready to move beyond this and will not be the one to nominate her and will now put efforts into changing the Paradigm. It does seem that one of two things will happen. She get a VP nom and sits and waits or Obama becomes so weak that she make a move to run against him. For the purpose of this post I will forget her and look to those on the current list as those I can think of are already there.
I think that as a nomination effort begins another effort needs to start to identify and communicate with Democrat multi-millionaires and Billionaires to fund this effort.
No, it’s just brainstorming. Preferential voting will weed out the outliers. Have a little faith in people.
I nominate Russ Feingold – among the most ready to be President obviously and a great progressive of integrity.
And since you’re with Glennzilla, you might want to read/view this. He says what I do: Democrats CAN stand up for what they believe in and be successful. The problem is, they’re not, not for the past 30 years, and we need to either chasten them back to their roots or be willing to create something that WILL stand on progressive ideals and REPLACE them.
GDC707, I guess I’ll just have to hope that your reading of what he’s learned is way off!
that’s what he said within a confines of a specific discussion. I saw it and there was no place for him to go out and suggest an alternative approach.
You cannot, imo, promote a leftie for leadership and expect the conservatives, and other non Dem groups to join you, and without them your numbers will just not cut it, – that much, I’m certain of.
It’s been a few years since I took The Political Compass – thanks for reminding me.
My -4.38 Economic score is just about where it always was, but my -7.95 Social score is considerably lower (on the chart) than ever before (perhaps because government has been so disgusting over the past few years).
It’s still a bit discouraging to see ALL the represented major candidates of both parties in the opposite quadrant (upper right). Nader, Kucinich, and McKinney are all far less socially libertarian than I am now (though at least in the same quadrant) – and given that I often consider Dennis to be noticeably more economically left than I am I was surprised to see that he’s apparently somewhat to my right (I’m sandwiched tightly between McKinney and Nader, which does not surprise me).
Didn’t even know who Brian Moore was (blush). Finding SOME candidate noticeably to the left of me was sufficiently novel that I checked him out and liked his history (even though I’m not inclined to become a Socialist). Still, even he seems to be too authoritarian for my liking (though given where the major candidates sit I’d be willing to compromise quite a lot just to get someone in the same quadrant). Ditto for Walt Brown (another name I did not know but should have).
An interesting exercise, as it always has been for me. I visited the ‘iconochasms’ page for the first time and found that interesting as well, though it ran on a bit long.
FN, there’s nothing in your list there I disagree with.
Add’s:
Break up mass media corporate ownership
Public finance of all candidates (no corporate support)
Reinstate Glass/Steagall (or similar)
Ban derivitives, CDS, and the trADING OF SUCH
Reinstate Fairness Doctrine/Equal Time Provosions
Return National Debates to control of Lge. Of Wmn. V.
End private contracting to military
Dismantle all overseas bases and use business and diplomacy to compete abroad
I’m sure there’s more WRT Civil, Women’s and LGBT Rights . . .
Oh, weed out from Judiciary (DOJ) and all cabinet positions from top to bottom of those who demonstrated actionability based on political or religious preferences . . . or racial, gender or sexual preferences.
Hey Mal, tell me sumptin:
Just who is it that decides to mount a primary challenge, and just how is that done?
And how does that effort get over the Party’s Ability to squash all opposition all along the way, given MSM acces and control . . . given absolute control of the Convention and Delegate Process?
Cuz, I’m pretty sure we the people have NOTHING to do with getting candidates to consider running, much less being competitive . . .
You DO recall how the national debate process was totally corrupted when League Of Women Voters was ousted from that control, dontcha?
I gotta admit, you are a bulldog for furthering this thang of yers, and FDL hasn’t booted ya yet . . . ya got THAT goin’ for ya! *G*
And with all sincerity, good on ya for doin all ya do, it’s ACTIVISM at it’s highest calling . . . . best of luck and thanks for your efforts . . . I’ll try and be a bit less negative from here on out . . . yer climbin a huge mountain none of the rest of us have set foot on . . .
I admire that . . . a lot.
“A full primary election campaign within an existing party which lasts, in all its contentious glory, right through the convention is by far the surest route to ballot access.”
A tactical note: While a full season campaign is the goal, concentrating on New Hampshire is critical. It’s an early election where a good showing, as Sen. McCarthy’s campaign showed, would garner substantial media attention and generate momentum. It’s a small state where the the cost of campaigning is not beyond the means of progressives. If many progressives each contributed a little money or time or contacted someone in that state, the effect would be substantial.
“Just who is it that decides to mount a primary challenge, and just how is that done?”
Once a person is willing to run, the key is to get that person on the ballot. That is usually a question of signatures on a petition. the party is irrelevant if the petitions are legit.
While I agree that NH is as important as you say, I continue to imagine that the numbers of town hall meat pressers will dwindle as the economic situation deteriorates. Too much contempt, disdain, anger, frustration, suspicion, will not exactly be the fare the PTB will want to give coverage to.
I do believe we’re entering unchartered waters.
as a personal favor could you put “Impeach Obama” as an option? IMHO, it should be on the table.
No, because unless you know someone whose legal name is “Impeach Obama,” they can neither solicit petition signatures nor run.
Thanks Larue, a bunch.
I’ll stand on mytwocents reply and add that OF COURSE I remember when the LWV was ousted; a dark day, the beginning of The End. Well, OK, the continuation of The End. Er, maybe, Part Nine in the 10-part drama “The End.” Well, you get my drift.
NH is one of those places to which the PTB can’t dictate, and that’s the glory of it. In NH, campaigns are literally conducted door to door and town hall to town hall, and are not pressers a la the “health care town halls” witnessed in the summer of 2009. Let Teabaggers – or anyone else – try to pull those kinds of theatrics in NH and the intensely knowledgable and intolerant-of-bullshit locals will toss them out on their asses so quick they won’t know what hit them.
Here ya go: Chuck Hagel
He may be replacing Bob Gates, but he might run. Chuck Hagel, ambassador explore changing U.S.-Chinese relationship
One of the most moderate Republicans, A Vietnam vet, the rabid right hates him. He told congress that the road to peace in the middle east didn’t run through Baghdad.
Good one, shekissesfrogs.
Obama considered Hagel for VP, and he served as a Republican in the senate, self-limiting his term. From his Wikipedia entry:
“In Senator Hagel’s new book, America: Our Next Chapter, he suggests that the United States should adopt independent leadership and possibly another political party. He also believes that the Iraq War is one of the five biggest blunders in history. Hagel is critical of George W. Bush’s foreign policy, calling it ‘reckless.’ He has been a major critic of the war since it started, and has stated that the United States should learn from its mistakes in the Vietnam War. He considers Bush’s foreign policy a ‘ping pong game with American lives’.”
“Within the confines of a specific discussion??” Huh? Greenwald is one of our most eloquent and able commentators and believe me, he can take any conversation wherever he wants to.
As for the idea that the Left is too narrow to cut it, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But you might want to look at party affiliation numbers, not to mention the broader world, where (as I’ve already said) the existence of social democracies is directly proportional to the the success of states and their people.
As I mentioned here, I don’t expect conservatives to join us. Generally speaking, conservatives are lunatics. Lunacy has been in charge long enough. It’s time reality ruled.
themalcontent,
Could you ask Cindy Sheehan if she’d consider creating a post outlining her opinions here at FDL?
I’d be curious to hear her perspective on all of this.
Outside of her admirable anti-war stance during the Bush years, I don’t really know too much about her. Also it might be nice to get some high profile posters — outside of the usual establishment ‘sell out’ Democratic pols, begging for our money — to weigh in around here.
Cindy is incorrect about sore loser laws. According to Richard Winger, who is America’s foremost expert on ballot access laws, only four states maintain that their “sore loser” laws apply to president: South Dakota, Mississippi, Ohio and Texas. He also points out that these laws would have difficulty surviving a legal challenge.
I agree and will encourage her to do so, but don’t let that stop you. Cindy can be e-mailed from her website. Note that she is still overseas through next Thursday, with varying degrees of Internet access. It’d be great to fill her e-mail queue with such requests.
In fact, if anybody wants any nominee’s take or input here, try searching, e-mailing them, and asking for it. Please show respect to them of course, and to Jane – by making clear in your message that, though this effort is coalescing among diarists, readers and commenters at MyFDL, the FDL family of sites and its owners are not involved in the initiative and are remaining neutral.
That’s good news, vagreen, thanks. You wouldn’t happen to have a link, wouldya?
mytwocents November 10th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
“A tactical note: While a full season campaign is the goal, concentrating on New Hampshire is critical. ”
If we had a strong union person, like Trumka, we can be competitive in the Iowa caucus, and maybe even win the thing. The iowa democratic electorate is largely union people. Just saying….
The arguments here against focusing on a third party challenge to Obama are just shameful, basically nothing but a regurgitated form of the argument against challenging Obama at all, which is that it is just too darn HARD to work outside The System.
So the question is, would Cindy run in the Dem primaries?
And your point is?
Yes, that’s the question, and she’s pretty preoccupied at the moment with her travel schedule. Another question is whether she might head up a steering committee (or prefer to?).
Right here:
http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/01/12/sore-loser-laws-dont-generally-apply-to-presidential-candidates/
“UPDATE 2: Thursday, 11/11, 5:15 a.m. Eastern Cindy Sheehan replied to the e-mail mentioned in Update 1 below (clarifying FDL policy) with the following, which briefly answered another mail I’d sent sounding her out on the possibility of running:
“Many states (including California) have ‘sore losers’ rules where one has to be registered the party he/she wants to run in at least 13 months before elections and I totally agree that we need a left party (worker’s) that would be the goal of a campaign.”
This is good information, of course, which I see not as a deterrent to our effort but quite the opposite: A unifying factor, helping make this a true “peoples’” movement.”
Speaking as an absolute idiot as far as strategies are concerned, I really appreciate this information from Cindy and the ramifications. It can only be a win-win situation to have the discussion ongoing. As I remember (and I could be far wrong) Ted Kennedy’s challenge to President Carter, whatever we may think of the adviseability of doing that then, came at such a late point in the campaign that all it could be perceived as was subversion.
Whereas, the conversation beginning now as many places as we have opportunity to do so puts pressure on Obama longterm. It is far better than doing nothing. He’s simply not electable, and seems to be deliberately making himself the rotten apple at the bottom of the barrel.
If he’s the one left standing at the end of a primary challenge, there has to be a third party option. If he’s not, we might still question who has replaced him, but if anyone has been bold enough to do so, that in my mind gives that person points along with the necessary scrutiny.
I think Obama is a one of a kind chameleon that would be hard to replicate given the education we’ve had about him in the past two years. Due diligence might have made that clear before we elected him, and due diligence is what we’ll need for anyone in future.
As far as I’m concerned, Cindy Sheehan has most definitely walked the walk. Personally speaking, she would win my vote over any other candidate.
Wednesday (11/17) — will mark my calendar… ;-)
Great, vagreen, thanks.
As an aside:
I see a pattern developing here with our elections:
Vote, court.
Vote, court.
Vote, court.
What a sad statement in a land where so many actually believe they are free….
Hey mal,
Here’s a free thinking exchange between G’zilla and Ratigan, that mirrors my long held (and disparaged by FDL’s PTB) views on the state of the state of this Union.
http://www.dylanratigan.com/glenn-greenwald-on-radio-free-dylan/
Thanks fuckno. No audio here at work but will listen tonight.
Edit: I’d say “right back atcha” underneath your comment below, but I’m not getting a reply option. Anyway… right back atcha!
you know I love’ya, don’t you?
and, I too, admire your doggedness!