One message was clear from the first two battles of the primary season: The economy, healthcare and the war in Iraq may be big issues for voters, but the determination of many Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire to defeat Bush profoundly shaped the results. With that focus, voters lifted Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts out of a self-created slump… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (9)Page 1 of 1 pages“Edwards, for example, claims he can run well in the South, but that may be largely a dead end for Democrats except in Florida..”
I disagree. I’ve not seen what the turnout was for yesterday’s primaries, but if Iowa and NH are any indication it appears that democratic voters are finally moving their asses to the polls.
Illegal elimination of voters by the repuglicans (via the phony felon tag) aside, had ten percent more dem voters turned out in states like FL Gore would’ve won.
If we don’t see some solid job growth in the first and second quarter (January’s number looks weak) then I think southern voters will turn out to a larger degree-- against bush.
The “electability” issue-- it’s more than a little curious that now in hindsight we can see that the media falsely hyped Dean’s “lead” early on while continually hamerring him on “electability”.
get real. has anyone at any point considered Joe Loserman, Kucinich, Braun, Sharpton to be electable? why were they not hammered by the media on this issue?
c ‘mon, how totally phony and smarmy was the Diane Sawyer interview of Mr. and Mrs. Dean a couple of days after “the scream”?
let’s remember that not long ago Dean made a rather explicit comment about “corporate media” and that he was going to do something about it.
looks like they just exercised their own form of “preemption”!!
Posted by Anthony on Feb 4, 2004 at 8:18 PM Rather than continue to chronicle the campaign of the big media corporations, the DLC and the DNC to “Stop Dean”, please point out that Howard Dean is electable, and give him credit for his accomplishments . Someone needs to say that military service not only is not a requirement for the presidency, but that service in the military confers no special knowledge or skills making a veteral any more adept at foreign relations than a former Governor. I’ve been saying and writing it, but nobody knows me. Doesn’t anyone tell the truth once they have a media job?
Posted by Jackie Giles on Feb 4, 2004 at 11:57 PM JG: I’m a Dean supporter; he’s the only candidate I’ve ever given money to for his campaign. Why? because he’s a governor that has demonstrated fiscal responsibility and success on the health care issue-- among other things.
In spite of that, I’m not so sure he is electable. The result of the NH primary (NH allegedly being a state chock-full of “radicals and independents") indicated rather succinctly that democratic voters do not want the realistic, hard nosed approach of Dean-- instead they prefer the empty and archaic slogans of Kerry: “I’ve only just begun to fight”.... “Bring it on”..????
Kerry, and by the way Edwards as well both sound more or less exactly like Gore in 1999-2000.
Gore’s namby-pamby middle of the road “strategy” no doubt encouraged/demanded by the DLC/DNC led directly to his loss.
I don’t see the same strategy working for democrats this time-- unless 5-10 precent additional democratic voters decide to show up on election day.
Posted by Anthony on Feb 5, 2004 at 7:48 AM If electability is what the democrats want then why has the leadership of that party alienated the working class base of their party? Healthcare, education, living wage, the general welfare of the working class. In the ‘60 and ‘70 democrats lead on these issues and the country was going forward. Since 1980 this country has swung so far to the right that democrats are appologizing for their left wing roots. New Democrat Clinton gave us NAFTA and Welfare Reform, a hundred thousand new cops on the street, and other right wing polocies the republicans could not even get in. Gore picked a far right wing VP running mate, which cost him many more votes than Nader ever could have. If the democrats want to win in 2004 then they had better start courting the working class again. This time in history is an opportune time for the democrats to turn left again and bring in some of the 100,000,000 Americans who have given up on the electiorial process in the US. It’s the economy stupid, and whoever the media spin puts up front for the Democrats he needs to pick a real democrat as a running mate and let the right wing democrats hold their noses and vote this time because i for one won’t do it again. It’s time for the democrats to stand their ground and let the right wing compromise for a change.
Posted by Jim on Feb 5, 2004 at 8:24 AM Terry Macaullife (sp?) and his Cadillac Escalade crowd (plate reads “DNC") can’t bear to see anyone outside their circle heading the Democratic ticket. Molly Ivins said as much ans she is right.
The “in crowd” painted Dean as a new McGovern (as if McGovern is not a honerable man!) and rounded up the usual suspects.
Posted by ATS on Feb 5, 2004 at 8:32 AM The fact of the matter is, the DNC and DLC are still bogged down in the old ėSmoke-filled
roomî ėTammany Hallî style of politics. Anyone who tries to run without ėTheirî
approval, is branded a far left radical and systematically bashed. Problem is that the
public will not put up with it anymore and if they do not change and let some real new
blood in, the Democrats will become as irrelevant as the old Federalist Party became
and fade away just like they did.
Posted by Chris Maukonen on Feb 5, 2004 at 9:10 AM Anthony, the idea is to run close to the center because the dems will support kerry over bush no matter what. The dlc hopes that 5% that either voted for bush/didn’t vote end up voting for kerry.
That’s why Bush and Gore were so close last election. Once nominated, they ran as centrists (Bush farther right than Gore was left)
Posted by brad on Feb 5, 2004 at 1:31 PM Brad, Gore’s centrist stance is what got him beat in 2000. The idea is to drop the republican lite bit, it’s not necessary, dems will vote for Kerry anyway. Stand up for your principals and bring in the Nader supporters and some of the nonvoters.
Posted by Jim on Feb 5, 2004 at 6:12 PM Jim: “If the democrats want to win in 2004 then they had better start courting the working class again. “
I totally agree-- but again, DOES the “working class” vote?
Brad: “Anthony, the idea is to run close to the center because the dems will support kerry over bush no matter what. The dlc hopes that 5% that either voted for bush/didn’t vote end up voting for kerry.”
I get that-- believe me. however, who said “Hope is not a strategy”? This is another reason I support Dean-- he made it clear he was going to do something about the idiotic/non-democratic DNC-- and that’s why he’s not going to be the nominee.
“That’s why Bush and Gore were so close last election. Once nominated, they ran as centrists (Bush farther right than Gore was left).”
right-- but let’s recall the pundits all over the Web at the time who were laughing at bushit and predicting a “landslide” victory for Gorf. In the particular forum I was posting in at the time I was THE only person predicting a Gore loss and I was regularly verbally lynched for doing so.
What happened? It’s obvious: A.) Gorf is no Clinton and numerous people just didn’t like Gorf, B.) People stayed away from the polls in droves-- why? because they again bought into the hype-- the baseless notion of the landslide win for Gorf-- and because Nader was right-- there was little to no significant difference between Gorf and bushit.
Posted by Anthony on Feb 5, 2004 at 9:42 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Moberg
- Obama and the Union Vote
Polls suggest mandate for reform surpasses support for Obama - The View From Ohio
Will voters in the economically ravaged Buckeye State 'get over' race and support Obama? - Back for the Future
Progressives at the Democratic National Convention look to FDR as a model for an Obama presidency - Dixie Turning Blue
- Moving Obama Left
- Let Them Eat Free Markets
How deregulation fuels the global food crisis
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
