What followed those prepared remarks was a wide-ranging discussion of U.S. domestic and foreign politics, everything from: whether Gore (now Nobel Laureate Gore) will jump into the presidential ring -- there was much enthusiasm among the DA crowd for the idea; the intricacies of vote-tabulation and the likelihood of electoral fraud again; the insanity of attacking Iran and why CheneyBush would take that route; the possible genesis of Democratic wimpiness these days; the punishment the Party leadership is preparing for several state Dem organizations such as in Florida and Michigan for pushing their primaries way forward, etc. But a good share of the conversation involved the frustration and puzzlement they feel toward their wimpy Party leadership. And about the Democratic contenders, especially whether anyone can stop Hillary.
And, of course, these DA members wanted to know my preferred candidate(s). I told them that, for a wide variety of pragmatic and policy reasons, I would prefer the Dem nominee not be Hillary Clinton; of the potentially electable candidates, I am more favorably inclined to John Edwards, with much to admire also about Bill Richardson and Barack Obama. Despite their elitist ties and tendencies, any of these three would be somewhat more progressive, anti-war, civil libertarian and more sympatico than is Hillary.
But, if Hillary Clinton turns out to be the Dem standard-bearer in 2008, then all we progressive, anti-imperialist Democrats will face the usual moral dilemma next November. 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? I suspect the answer is yes, but we shall see how the political drama plays out in the next six months. #
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked as a writer/editor with the San Francisco Chronicle for two decades, and currently co-edits The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org). To comment: crisispapers@comcast.net .
First published by The Crisis Papers and Democratic Underground 10/16/07. www.crisispapers.org/essays7w/suicide.htm
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
