> URL:
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
> bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/08/05/MN108088.DTL
>
> Joes' right of course: Dean is a sure prescription for another McGovern-
> style donnybrook, even though Dean the political personality is superior
> to that of George. Too bad Joe doesn't cut the personality/charisma
> grade, either, while the other DLC-type "centrist" (translation: moderate
> right of center conservative), Edwards, appears to be less desirous of
> winning the nomination than he is of plowing the field for a 2008 run. As
> is the most winning possibility, Hillary, whose noncandidacy is a sure
> sign that the bipartisan system would rather give Bush a second term.
> Short of a really massive screwup by Rove that is, which is highly
> unlikely.
I know I'm passig the three-message quota here, but since this isn't a flamewar, maybe it's OK.
Tonight, in my neighborhood, there's a meeting of a group calling itself the West Philly Dems, which is intended to try to organize the local liberals into something of a unified force-- or, at the very least, establish a nice social circle among like-minded people. Philly's weird for the Democrats this fall. The Mayor, Democrat John Street, is a long-time pol whose track record in City Council has been, well, colorful, to say the least; there's been more than the usual share of patronage and nepotism, but on the other hand, there's the fact that most of Ed Rendell's successes couldn't have happened without his running City Council. He hasn't been a disaster (heck, Wilson Goode established the low point as mayors go), so that's in his favor. But there are people who still think of Street as the Afro'd street fighter he was in the 1970s.
The Republicans are offering Sam Katz for what might be the last time. Katz has run for Mayor before, but this is a Democratic party city, so his chances are hard to gauge. He did come very close to beating Street last time around. And Katz has a lot of pluses in certain areas of the city; while people see Street as a slightly addled black pol willing to featherbed his relatives and contributors, Katz is white, affable, and doesn't seem to have the reputation of corruption. (Another odd plus: Philly Republicans also tend to be far more likeable and sane than their national versions. At worst, they're white ethnic brawlers, like Fran Rafferty was.)
To get back to the point of this post... I voted Green in 2000, mainly as a protest vote against the Democrats, but also because Nader had just too many _good_ accomplishments for me to _not_ vote for him. In short: look at what the guy's done, and ask yourself, "How often do i get to vote for someone like this?"
But I got no end of shit from friends who were Democrats. I'm sure many people on this list know the sort of stuff I heard: accusations that I was misusing my vote, that my decision was just a childish "indulgence," lots of weird personal shit about Nader that, amazingly, liberals were dredging up out of _Forbes_ magazine (always fun to see ostensibly gay-friendly people smearing Nader as a closet case, even when denouncing his alleged dislike of gays). I tried to be polite, and avoided discussing politics with them... but they'd do out of their way to start arguments with me, sending me reams of emails with the latest DLC-instigated denunications of the Greens. You know-- the appalling tribalism that turns up among liberals as much as fundamentalist-maniac Republicans, without the humor. Some of them haven't spoken to me since December of 2000, which is nice, because I'd probably be hearing why Nader's responsible for Ashcroft and the Patriot Act and every other evil since September 11th, 2001.
As we all know, Bush turned out to be _far_ worse than we'd imagined. I wouldn't change my vote for 2000 even if I could. But I'm wondering if maybe I ought to cast my lot in with the Democrats to get Bush out of office.
Which is what makes statements like Leiberman's so revolting. I still think those former friends of mine weren't making a rational argument; they were reacting on the basis of tribal limits and a deep, authoritarian outlook, and I _hate_ that in people. If the Greens were the reason why the Democrats lost, then why, _why_, would the DLC spend so much time _denouncing_ them and keeping them _out_ of the party? Even if they wanted to recapture their support, but still pursue goals laughably called "centrist," couldn't they have the good sense to say something like "Look, we can't do what you want, but we all want Bush out, so join us and try to work with us?" Even though it'd be a fuckin' lie, using it'd would show good judgement, at least.
And they're not even stopping at the Greens, which are another political party, at least. They're going after _other Democrats_, like Dean. This isn't just party strategy; this reveals a deeply authoritarian and, dare I say, Stalinist attitude on the part of the party's leaders? If Dean does capture the nomination, can we count on these people to stay with the party and support him? Or, will they choose their "principles" over the party loyalty they demand of others, and jump ship and run to the Republicans?
So I'll be going to this meeting tonight, wondering if this small local group might make getting involved worthwhile. I'm not committed to Dean, not just yet: while the DLC's comparing him to the maligned George McGovern, I'm wary of his being another Eugene McCarthy phony. And if I hear one snide comment about Nader and the Greens, they'll get an earful.