-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kerry had his weaknesses but he also had his strengths. He ran on a very progressive platform-- pro-union, anti-death penalty, pro-choice, pro-education-- with concrete goals to improve the lives of people we all care about. And he never pulled a Sister Souljah maneuver or screwed welfare moms as a political ploy, as Clinton-- a far better politician admittedly -- did to gain moderate support. -----------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said, given things as they are (which Doug imagines I can't "face") the Dems have to appeal to a fraction of the reactionary vote in order to remain nationally competitive. This have been true for the New Deal Dems since the beginning. Given that this is a state party apparatus that will die without the oxygen of public office, they must proceed in the Clinton manner in order to have a chance, not merely to look "very progressive" (won't start into this ridiculous claim), but instead to win. But even Clinton required Ross Perot in 1992.
The sudden ABB concern with reactionary "values" proves the truth of what I am saying here. The ABB crowd knows it has to rub shoulders with rightwing ideological currents in order to "win". Wasn't that what Clintonism was all about?Chip Berlet should look into this scandalous situation.
Newman is entirely hypocritical when he opportunistically bashes Clinton, conveniently off the stage at present. In fact, were Clinton the candidate now, Newman would be mindlessly pumping for him full bore.
That's the real Left meets Right. It's been going on ever since the 1930's.
-Brad Mayer