>> If she is their nominee, hatred of her will motivate Republican conservatives to vote and work to elect the Republican candidate, whoever he is.
>> At the same time, Clinton is the most likely to drive a third party candidate from her left to enter the race. The growing number of independent voters includes disaffected Republicans and they, too, would be more inclined to vote Republican if Clinton is the Democratic candidate.
>> Even though I strongly feel that the U.S. will be best served if a Democrat, not a Republican, is elected President in 2008, I will vote for a third-party candidate, even if it means the Republican candidate is elected. I won't be alone in doing so.
>> JIM DICARLO San Francisco (9/23/07)
THE WOULD-BE NOMINEES
The candidates vying for the Dem presidential nomination are nothing like the embarrassing lot the Republicans are putting up -- virtually every one of the Democrats in the running would make a far better President than any of the GOP hopefuls. Just look at these guys: Giuliani (a shameless, authoritarian, monomanical liar), Thompson (a bumbling, would-be Reagan), McCain (a total sell-out on the war), Romney (a thoroughgoing, flip-floppping hypocrite trying to buy his way to the presidency), etc. etc. But the fact that Hillary Clinton, Karl Rove's preferred candidate, is running away with the nomination race is not necessarily good news for the Democrats.
We now know that the Republicans have been preparing their smear campaigns against Hillary, and John Edwards, for years. (Indeed, a recent story ( http://harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001405 ) revealed how illegal actions were taken to smear Edwards in 2004.) Poll after poll has demonstrated that there has been and will continue to be a 40% block of American voters who loathe Clinton and would never vote for her. So in order for Clinton to win, she has to hold on to the 40% who reliably vote the Democratic ticket, and then win the moderates and independents in the middle. This might be possible if she could hold onto that firm 40%. But there is a huge swatch of the Democratic Party, mainly from the dedicated activist base, who do not wish to support Hillary because of her generally hawkish, wishy washy positions on the war, her more-macho-than-you attitude on Iran, her lining up with institutional forces such as with big pharma on the health-care issue, and so on.
So, even though she may be highly intelligent, and has run an impressive primary campaign to date, she simply may not be electable -- conceivably putting Rudy Giuliani or another GOP neanderthal in the White House -- and her selection could diminish any coattail influence she might have on other races.
The general take on Barack Obama is that he's an exciting candidate, bright, energetic, charismatic -- filled with good ideas and, on occasion, not afraid to express them -- but not quite mature enough as a national politician, with not much of an experiential record to run on. He's certainly a positive, fresh new face, and will be a force to be reckoned with in 2112 and beyond, but probably not this time out, unless as the vice presidential nominee on someone else's ticket (Richardson/Obama?)
John Edwards has a long history as an effective anti-corporate individual of conscience, and he's been quite effective staking out his progressive opinions during this primary stretch. The Rove wing of the GOP wants to take out Edwards early, as he's an effective populist campaigner. It looks as if he might score big in the Iowa caucuses, coming in first or second, and gain some momentum. But the media, echoing the White House spin, has been largely ignoring his campaign or treating him roughly.
As you can see, Obama and Edwards are battling for the same block of voters -- the liberal-to-progressive, anti-war, anti-Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. By splitting the energy, money and support, they almost guarantee that Hillary will be the nominee of the party.
I haven't mentioned Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Gravel because, as intelligent and courageous as some of them have been -- especially Richardson on the war and Kucinich in a number of areas -- they've gone nowhere in the polls and probably stand little chance of capturing the nomination.
THE FLUIDITY OF POLITICS
Things are fairly fluid politically right now. As I've written previously, there is a potential opening for a third-party run, drawing from the disenchanted wings of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Is there a charismatic crossover candidate willing to take advantage of that momentary opening to help mount a viable run for the White House in 2008? If a strong third party candidacy emerged, which major party would be most helped, the Republicans or the Democrats? Could the Republican candidate slide by into the White House if too many Democrats deserted their party to vote for this third-party candidate? Might the chances for popular approval soar if that third-party were to create a bi-partian "Unity" ticket, made up of a leading Democrat and a leading, anti-war Republican. (Gore/Hagel?)
Finally, a longer-range thought. Even if a viable third party doesn't get born this time out, the Democrats are ripe, as are the Republicans, for a good, long, soul-searching debate about the future of the party. Redefining the mission. Coming up with some philosophies of governance, and foreign policies, we all can agree on. Developing policy statements in various areas that are not just reactions to what the Republicans are doing. Etc. Etc.
In short, the 2008 election may well turn out to be a watershed in modern American politics, re-aligning the electorate in ways they feel more comfortable with. We shall see.
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked for two decades as a writer-editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
i found your article very interesting. indeed, the majority of expats are Democrats or Democratic-leaning. According to Mark Crispin Miller in his "Fooled Again", absentee voters living abroad actually receiving their ballots in time and having them counted was no sure thing. in Florida 2000, for instance, military ballots were counted even if they missed the deadline. If they were missing information, obliging party operatives and officials, state-wide. Harris and Co. looked for any excuse to throw out absentee ballots; they were counted last or discarded altogether. (p. 241).
A legitimate question to ask is how Democrats living abroad can assure that their ballots will arrive and that their votes will be counted. We're talking about literally millions (MCM says up to seven million) of votes, often concentrated in key swing states. The importance of this can not be minimized.
Any ideas?
joan brunwasser, voting integrity ed., OpEdNews
by
Joan Brunwasser (132 articles, 3335 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 588 comments)
on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 3:30:18 PM
Dear Joan: I've raised this question several times with Democrats Abroad officials in Munich. A year or two ago, they complained about the same problems you raise, and indicated that they have never received totally satisfactory answers about late ballots, receipt of ballots in their home districts, accurate tabulation of ballots, etc. In short, the absentee system of voting abroad seems to be just as screwed-up as the voting system in the States. More justification for a thorough examination of the entire electoral structure, so that U.S. citizens, at home or abroad, can feel certain that their votes are received and honestly and accurately recorded. -- All best, Bernie
by
Bernard Weiner (141 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 4:58:42 PM
One can only pray that the Dems do indeed commit suicide.
It couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch.
The author writes in his closing paragraph, "Clearly, there are significant differences between the two parties. The question is: Will there be enough of a difference between our candidates and those put forward by the Republicans to justify yet again holding our noses and voting for the lesser of two evils?..."
- There's way too much focus on whether the 2 parties are "different." That's not the real issue. (Of COURSE they are different, because only the Dems are wolves in sheep's clothing, while the R's are more or less out-front about being vicious wolves.)
The real issue is whether or not the Dems can reasonably be counted on to vigorously oppose what Republicans do (& to undo what Republicans have done). And the answer is obvious -- they can't at all be counted on to do that. When the likes of Cheney rattle sabers loudly, the Dems' response is to be quietly supportive, while rattling the same sabers somewhat less loudly. That's not good enough. The Democrats are not even on the correct side of the big issues, let alone being passionately committed to fighting the necessary battles.
The author casts the main issue as whether there will be "enough of a difference" between the parties to justify once again "holding our noses and voting for the lesser of two evils." This is the same tired old thinking that has gotten us to where we are today.
Supporting Democrats brings only the victory of Republican policies. Even if the D's win the White House next year, they're committed to "The War on Terror" -- a Republican concept, & a Republican policy. Everyone sees by now that precisely nothing was gained by the Dems' victory in Nov '06 -- the Dems won the seats, yet Bush's policies have prevailed on every front. Not a single BushCo criminal has been held accountable for anything -- despite the Dems' newly-won "subpoena powers" that Dem voters wrongly expected to be put to serious use.
Look at the Bill Clinton admin, too -- the whole 2 terms were really a period of intense corporatization of US society, as well as a great deal of warmaking (though admittedly, Clinton was a lot smoother than Bush Jr as a warmaker). Bill Clinton did to welfare what Republican presidents would have loved to do, but were unable to. And he enacted an entirely Republican agenda with the Telecom giveaway of 1996, the shipping away of jobs under NAFTA, a few nice little wars, and a defense budget no smaller than the Cold War budgets -- despite the fact that the USSR had ceased to exist. Essentially, though a Democrat sat in the White House, we still had a president politically to the right of Richard Nixon.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1104 comments)
on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 6:04:55 PM
in that I must spend more time with you and Earnest Partridge at crisispapers.com.
So many good points, where to begin:
Hillary Clinton...assuredly the nominee. Far too much money, far too many favors to call in, far too much political savvy and far too weak an opposition to be defeated. I wouldnt vote for her myself but I do believe that, despite the torrent of mud the right will rain down upon her ( perhaps the single most vicious campaign in American history is impending) she will surprise any number of folks. Make no mistake, Mrs. Clinton is every bit as smart as President Clinton and has a great deal of political know how. I think she will handle herself rather well in the campaign.
The Democratic Party...Inept, incompetent, poorly led, avaricious and unable to outhink GOP strategists ever. Just look at this latest bungle in the jungle from Pelosi over the proposed Armenian declaration of genocide. She couldnt see the really poor timing? She couldnt see the backlash from Turkey coming, and by the by, Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire for crying out loud. She couldnt keep her own party from defecting from the vote! What a maroon!
The decision to keep the war alive and funded in order to have it as a campaign issue, and make no mistake about it that is why we have seen no defunding in Congress, serves only to further alienate decent moderates and liberals from the Party. Condemning many of our young men and women to death, and countless Iraqis as well, in order to make political capital is cruel, heartless and the truth of it.
I believe we are at the cusp of a great change in American politics, one that, as this article touched upon, will see a realignment of the two parties and the emergence of one or more third party forces upon the current Duopoly. I say its about time!
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 8:01:50 PM
