The 2004 Us Democratic Primary Campaign, donkeys and yellow dogs. Options

[Jeff-1]

Instead of cluttering up the BBgB w. US politix talk I'm setting up a thread here to talk about the only US primary race that matters...the one for the Democratic presidential candidate to go up against Bush in 2004.

As this is a British board I'll preface this with a brief discussion of the primary process.

In the US both partys run a candidate nomination process consisting of state primary elections or caucuses (depends on the state).

Caucuses:
Whats a caucus? While some would think a Caucus is a mountain range somewhere in eastern Turkey in the US its sort of a nominating meeting. Registered Democrats gather at their local voting precinct voting place (or, in some cases at caucus sites based on state legislative districts) to nominate & select delegates from among themselves. There usually is a cut-off point so if there aren't enough Democrats showing up for a candidate they dont get a delegate. These delegates go on to a state nominating convention and then nominate the states delegates. (personal aside: my state, Kentucky, had caucuses in 1984, and I was nominated as a Jesse Jackson delegate from my legistlative district). The big deal w. caucuses is that you actually have to make an effort to show up at a caucus meeting to have say in who gets delegates, which benefits more activist folks or very organized campaigns or interest groups.

Primary Elections:
Two kinds of primary elections..open and closed. Open primarys allow crossover voting from the Republicans and independents, while in closed primarys only registered Democrats can vote. Democratic primarys allocate candidates based on the % of the vote the candidates get.

The Primary Season:
The primary season traditionally starts with the Iowa Caucuses, on 19 January and the New Hampshire Primary, on 27 January, and will end with the New Jersey primary on 7 June. The Iowa and New Hampshire events are key as they often are the ones that weed out the weaker candidates.

Cold weather face-to-face campaigning in Iowa & NH by ringing doorbells and meeting people in diners and cafes (this is called "retail politics") as well as meeting w. various local media outlets and influential local interest groups (like unions) are part of US political folklore, as are the first primary returns from some remote New Hampshire precicnt, with maybe five votes reported...these returns sort of traditionally begin the Presidential campaign season.

The next primarys vary in date, but there is usually some big cluster of primarys (called "Super Tuesday") that really cull the field to a front runner and a challenger).

By the time the primarys are over we should know the nomineed. Then there is the formality of the nominating convention...great political theatre and an occasion for oratory, but not all that relevant anymore.

[Jeff-1]

And now, a brief political lexicon of terms you are likely to hear in the context of the US Democratic politics:

Yellow Dog Democrat.
Someone who will always "pull the lever" (or vote the straight Democratic ticket---term comes from the old mechanical voting machines which had levers which permitted u to vote straight ticket) no matter whos on it. "I'd vote for a yellow dog, if he was a Democrat". True-blue party loyalists.

Blue Dog Democrat.
A group of Congressional Democrats who are more moderate to conservative. Comes from the work of a cajun folk artist who paints these blue dogs...painting was on the wall of one of the blue dog organizers..also a pun on the Yellow Dog Democrats. Now broadened to include any Democrat who identifies w. a more moderate to conservative policy. The Blue Dogs even have a website
http://www.house.gov/tanner/blue.htm

Populist
It was a late 19th century movement and political party of agrarian radicals and reformers, big in the South and Midwest/Plains States, which merged w. the Democrats. Nowdays it is just a term describing a political and rhetorical style (not necessarily substance) of "being for the little guy"in a very emphatic way. Of todays field of Democrats I'd say Edwards, Kucinich and Sharpton are sort of populists in style.

Progressive
It was a political reform movement of the early 20th century that sort of morphed into the New Deal set of programs of the 1930s and 40s and then into modern liberalism. Nowadays it sort of means liberal, or could mean even furher left than liberal, as some with more marxist or socialist tendancys also claim the label.

Liberal.
The dreaded "L Word". Basically it means something similar to European social democracy, but maybe not as interventionist or that much for nationalization as the Euro SDs have historically been. The term has been pretty much been demonized by the right wing in the USA, so few politicians want this label.

New Deal Democrat
Basically this is an attempt to claim the "New Deal" activist/inteventionist government legacy of Roosevelt and Truman without being called a liberal. Its sort of a code word for supporting unions, social security, and basically all that was good and sucessfull from the New Deal era.

[Jeff-1]

oh..and i forgot to add..

The DLC..Democratic Leadership Council, aka The New Democrats.
This is the bete noir of the left wing of the Democratic party. This is an interest group within the party that has pushed to moderate the Democratic message away from liberalism so as to appeal to independent and moderate voters. Probably equivilant to the "New Labour" movement in Britian.
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=86

AND NOW....MEET THE CANDIDATES:

The Democrats have a very full field this primary season. In no particular order:

John Edwards
US Senator from North Carolina. The son of a textile millhand, he is a former trial lawyer, and is running what appears to be a fairly populist campaign. He is considered perhaps too inexperienced to be running for president. Possibly the most Clitonesque of the candidates.
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/index.asp

Howard Dean, MD.
Governor of Vermont. The heir to the Dean-Whittier investment house fortune, Dean is a doctor, and was a sucessfull small state governor with a generally moderate & fiscal conservative policies who faced down the religous right in a battle over gay domestic parnternship. Dean cemented his credentials with progressives by opposing the war in Iraq, and is generating enthusiasm amoung progressives and the more liberal party activists with his slogan that he represents the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party".
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer

Dennis Kucinich.
Member, US House of Representatives, from the east side of Cleveland, Ohio and famously the ex 'boy mayor of Cleveland'. Kucinich was from a poor working class backround and has been in Cleveland poltiics since the late 1960s. Kucinch is probably the most liberal or progressive Democrat in the race, and probably, next to Edwards and Al Sharpton, the most impassioned orator. The ony candidate advocating national health care on the Canadian or British model. His past anti-abortion voting record has hurt him with progressives, and he is considered too "left" and too strident to be 'electable. Yet his "Department of Peace" is a novel proposal. (personal aiside..I'm supporting Kucinch & have contributed to his campaign).
http://www.kucinich.net/

The Rev. Al Sharpton.
Well, the Rev might be more liberal than Dennis Kucinich. Rev Sharpton was a longtime civil rights and community activist in New York City, and has been an excellent speaker in the televised debates and forums that I've seen him at. However, as the US still has "issues" with race (let alone with liberal politics in general) its unlikely he will get much support outside the African American community. His views mirror Kucinches alot, it seems.

Carol Mosley-Braun
Former US Senator from Illinois, Mosley-Braun made political history as he first African-American senator since Reconstruction,the first African -American woman senator ever, and the first African American senator from a northern state. Carols dad was a cop and ma a med-tech, so she comes from a fairly working class backround too...since she lost her senate seat she was ambassador to New Zealand and then a teacher. From what I've seen on TV she is quite well spoken, a bit of a policy wonk, and also a solid liberal (also supports single payer health care). The thought is that she and Sharpton are going to split the black vote. She is also considered unelectable due to being a black and a woman, and she was defeated for the senate re-election due to some sort of ethics issue.
http://www.carolforpresident.com/

Dick Gephart.
US Represenative from the south side of St Louis, Missouri.
"Gep" has been around for a LONG time (in the House of Representaives since the mid 70s)... got his start in urban politics like Kunich, and he is also from a blue collar union household, like Kucinch. Gephart is failry liberal in his views on economic issues, but his long stint in the House (as the House Democratic leader)made him pretty much a practioner of legisliative realpolitik. Gep was pretty passionate last night at the Iowa candidates forum,probably the best Ive seen him, but can he keep it up, does he have it in him to take on Bush..pretty much a personality thing there, i think. The best thing Gep is doing is putting health care back on the political agenda. Gep also has very strong labor union backing, which will help him in caucus states (unions are very good at turning out folks for caucuses).
http://www.dickgephardt2004.com/

Bob Graham
Former Governor of Florida, US Senator from Florida.
Bob Graham. The good old boy southern politician in the race. Seasoned mature politician and former governor of one of the largest states in the US, also former chairman and ranking memer of the Senate Intelligence Committee...eminently reasonable, classic southern moderate...so why is he saying that GW Bush and his gang have covered up stuff in re 9-11 and the war on terrorism? Wow! Graham is actually being thought of as potentially a good "ticke balancing" vice presidential candidate...and that he might actually be running for vice president. Considered a minor candidate, he had a great comeback to Howard Dean..."Im Bob Graham and im from the electable wing of the Democratic Party". We'll see.
http://www.grahamforpresident.com/

Joe Lieberman
US Senator from Connecticut.
Nicknamed "Holy Joe" (becuase he is an observant orthodox Jew who won't campaign on the Sabbath, I guess), Lieberman was Al Gores vice presidential running mate. Conidered 'Bush Lite" becuase of his support of the Iraq War, Lieberman actually has a fairly liberal voting record in the Senate, even compared to moderate Republicans. Lieberman is considered the favorite of some of thE DLC leadership.
He is also considered, at this time, to be the front runner in the field. He is not liked by the progressive antiwar activits. I dont like him because of his lethargic "sad sack" campaigning style. But I'd vote for him.
http://www.joe2004.com/index.jsp

finally (whew), John Kerry
US Senator from Massachusetts.
Kerry is a Vietnam Vet, which is a plus, and is married to the Heinz Foods heiiress, which is even better (when it comes to campaign $$$$). Politically he is a "Massachusetts Liberal", which is a big negative. He also has some sort of connection to the Kennedy family by marriage or something...so the distant glow of "Camelot" & "The New Frontier" is out there on the horizon behind him. Kerry is also considered a front runner, along w. Lieberman.
http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer

So there you have it. The very crowded yet interesting field, representing the left to moderate side of the Democratic spectrum.

Ill be posting obersvations on the ongoing campaigns of these guys (and gal) through the primary season...

[Carol]

My man's Dennis the Menace, but I don't think he has a rat's chance in hell.

I haven't decided if there is anyone else worthy voting for. I may vote Green, but I hate throwing away my vote, because all in all, Gore would have been far kinder to the environment than Bush is now. Bush as a disasterous environmental record. In fact, Bush is scary on so many levels--he wants to defund the states and the public sector, I think because the public sector is heavily unionized. There is no evidence that the private sector is more efficient or costs less, but conservatives don't care because that's their mantra and they just keep chanting it over and over. Just as there is no empirical evidence that tax cuts create jobs. It doesn't matter to ideologues. Just say it over and over and perhaps the public will be stupid enough to believe it.

The Republicans want to also invest social security funds in the stock market despite the fact that the market is very unstable. Does it matter that private and government pensions have lost billions in unstable investments ever since that crappy Republican stole the presidency? Not in the least. If I sound bitter, it's because my pension fund lost tons of money to Enron and World Com. There was nothing I could do about it. It's a long story, but it was a few Republicansappointed by the then governor (Republican Pete Wilson) who got control of the pension fund.

I think it is up to the Democrats to aggressively attack these lies, but I doubt they will. The cowards.

[Jeff-1]

Well, from what ive seen the candidates I like are Dennis, of course, but aslo Sharpton and Mosley-Braun and, believe it or not, Edwards. And even Gephardt.

I saw most of them (Lieberman and Kerry didnt show) on C-Span last night, speaking at a candidates forum at the AFSCME convention in Iowa.

This was a friendly union crowd, which might have drawn out the candidates more, but I was very impressed with these folks wanting to take the battle right to Bush. Edwards & Gephardt, especially, where really impassioned in their statements about how dangerous Bush is and how important this election is.

This was not a circular firing squad kind of debate or forum...they where all on-message about taking on Bush.

I hope they can keep this up, but beware the media...they will emphaisise divisions and personality confilcts to portray the party as "dividided". I saw this when media whore George Stephanopolous moderated the Democratic forum in South Carolina last week, i think. Stephy just was trying to stir shit between Dean and Kerry, but Graham, Edwards, and Sharpton called him on it.

but, then again, I am a yellow dog Democrat, so I will be seeing the good in the party. Will the nominee take the fight to Bush? I hope so & I hope we get a fighter as a nominee.

This post has been edited by Jeff-1: May 19 2003, 12:21 AM

[Jeff-1]

The latest flap in the race was the DLC May 15 "memo" attacking party "activists" and Dean...

"What activists like Dean call the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is an aberration: the McGovern-Mondale wing, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home. That's the wing that lost 49 states in two elections...."

(reference here to the losing-by-a-landslide campaigns of George McGovern in 1972 and Walter Mondale in 1984).

My take: This is really off-the-wall as Dean governed as a moderate, not a traditional Democratic liberal, so I think this attack on Dean is really unfounded. However the memo does have some good points about the divergence between party activists who become delegated and the views of "regular people".

"Democratic delegates were nearly five times more likely than Democratic rank-and-file to have incomes over $75,000, three times more likely to have a college degree, and over four times more likely to have done postgraduate work. No wonder that when the New Yorker recently asked Karl Rove to describe the Democratic base, he said,"somebody with a doctorate."

On most of the issues in the 1996 Post survey, Democratic activists and rank-and-file might as well have come from different parties. On every social and economic issue, registered Democrats' views were closer to those of all registered voters than to those of Democratic delegates. "

And I do agree with this...
"... most Democrats are doers, not ideologues. They don't vote to make a statement; they vote in hopes of getting things done. They want social progress, but they're not on a social crusade..." I probably would consider myself a pramatist, too.

Yet the DLC does seem to be really doing a dumb thing, as who is going to get out the vote if not these comitted activists who are involved enough in the party to become delegates and show up at caucuses. Activists are key at the retail politics level...ringing doorbells, putting out yard signs, driving old folks to the polls, working phone banks, etc. I guess the DLC sees "getting out the vote" as big massive corporate-funded media campaigns.

Heres the controversial memo:
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&s...ontentid=251690

[Bingalls]

This is the bitter proof for a lifelong Democrat, now ex Democrat, like me and many people like me. The Democratic party does not want me except to write a check and get out the big labor, big corporate vote. They don't even care about individual voters at all.

People voted for Ralph Nader for two simple reasons, his basic policies and the DLC.

Something better be done about Terry MacAuliffe, Americans will not exchange George Bush for Joe Liberman. What was Jon Stewart's (of the Daily Show) joke? Joe Liberman, for Americans who like George Bush, but don't think he's Jewish enough?

[Jeff-1]

Well, as a lifelong yellow dog Democrat (who used to be an "activist" precinct worker when I was younger) I think the DLC is just one aspect of the party..not the whole party. I've been pretty happy with the Democrats who represented me in Congress..Romano Mazzoli of Louisville, Matsui of Sacramento, and Tony Hall, from here in Dayton...and also senators like Wendell Ford of KY and Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio, and a host of local officials. So I really havn't felt the need to go third party if a Democrat is running.

The DLC has some good points, but they shouldnt try to demonize the folks who get out the vote for Democrats.

As for Joe Lieberman I would not have any problem voting for him.

The canard that he is just another version of Bush is just that, a canard.

Liebermans voting record as rated by the liberal Americans for Democratic Action says he votes their way 80% of the time, which is pretty good. So I would have no problem voting for him....and this record proves he really isnt a Republican masquerading as a Democrat. The conservatives rate him pretty liberal too.

[uawfinn]

Hi, Finn from Mpls. here,


I, like you Jeff, am a life long Dem(although Up here Its DFL) I am a party activist, Labor organizer, and family man. definitively, not in that order. I think your analysis of the candidates is thoughtful and informative.

I'd like to see the left( meaning everyone left of center) find a way to get behind one candidate. I am not of the belief that we can blame the third party movement for our failings. It used to be enough to be simply, the good party in a 2 party race, But the third partys have merit. I live in astate that has proven in recent elections that anything is possible. From the election of Jesse Ventura to the campaign of Paul Wellstone...his death and subsequent election of the republican Norm Coleman to his seat have all left me a little miffed by everything. the one thing i can say is that we had better not take a single vote for granted, especially when the country is devided, apparently 50/50.

Now as for the 3rd party movement, Greens you don't have to run a candidate in every race...I will never understand the logic that gets the greens to run a candidate against P. Wellstone, the most progressive Senator at the time in Washington. On the other hand We the democrats need to field strong candidates that have credibility with people, not just apparent electibility.

this is why I hate politics, I've ranted for too long and have said nothing.


well peace,
Finn

[Jeff-1]

Hi Finn...
...thanks a bunch for your post and comments!

Im not too familiar with Minnesota politics, but it does seem to be one state that had a strong third party tradition..the "FL" in "DFL". It also has elected some fairly liberal folks to statewide office, like Hubert Humphery and, of course, Paul Wellstone. And Jesse Ventura...a phenomenon that might be understandable only in a Minnesota context.

If you are still active in Democratic party politics and such perhaps you can share yr opinions on how the Democratic field is playing in Minnesota.? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Jeff-1]

Specualtion that Carol Mosely-Braun will be the first one to drop out of the race:

RAUN MAY QUIT RACE. In remarks Tuesday before the feminist EMILY's List group in DC, former US Senator Carol Moseley Braun (D-IL) conceded Tuesday that she may have to "fold my tent" unless she can raise the money needed to sustain her candidacy for the months until the primary voting process starts next year. Some critics have recently suggested her nearly stealth candidacy may have an ulterior motive devised by DNC leaders -- such as distracting attention away from Al Sharpton's candidacy. They note that her campaign appearances appear largely limited to joint candidate forums and that her website has not been updated in months. Braun says her campaign is a legitimate effort to "advance the cause of women in higher office, paving the way for a woman president."

(EMILYS List is a political action committee, or PAC, that raises funds and funds women candidates...EMILY stands for Early Money is Like Yeast..a comment on the so called "money primary".

[Jeff-1]

The "Money Primary"

What is the money primary? Its the comeptition between candidates for money to fund their campaigns...for small and large contributions from individuals, PACS, buisnesses, unions, etc.

Its important as money is needed to fund campaings and campaign adverstising...tv & radio spots, bumper stickers, lawn signs, campaign volunteers, rent for offices, phone bills...all the operating stuff and well as the publicliity.

But the pattern of campaign contributions aslo indicates what candidates are getting support from what interest groups or individuals...for example John Edwards is getting alot of $$$ from the trial lawyers (he is one himself), and Howard Dean is raising alot of money from proffessionals, academics, and in some suprisingly wealthy areas like Beverly Hills and Pacific Palisades in California.

Here are the top fund raisers to-date (in $000, rounded):
Edwards: $7,418.6 K
Kerry: $7,011.2 K
Gephardt: $5,951.7 K
Lieberman:$3,013.8 K
Dean: $2,639.2 K
Graham: $1,124.2 K
Kucinich: $ 168.1K
Sharpton: $ 82.6K
Mosley-Braun $ 20.0K

source: the indispensible "open secrets" site:
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp
Edwards:

[Bingalls]

Remember Jeff, Howard Dean is a Yalie and those people tend to vote for their own kind.

[paulx]

The American two-party, one-party state is a joke. Whichever party is elected the USA will be run by Big Business: the banks, the armaments industry, the oil corporations, the pharmaceutical industry etc.

Members of the Congress and the senate owe their allegiance to the big corporations not to the people.

Working class people should have no illusions in the sham "democracy" of US capitalism. It's only by organising in our own organisations that we can defend ourselves, our families and our class from the attacks of the bosses.

Big Business and the US government have never been as integrated as they are today. It is almost impossible to seperate the two. The monster and its shadow have merged into one beast and it's there for anyone with eyes to see.

Workers need our own independant trade unions to defend ourselves in the workplace and we need our own political parties to defend ourselves.

The current recession will mean enormous attacks, by the bosses, on the living standards of workers with massive redundancies, cuts in the welfare state and attacks on civil liberties and democratic rights. Oh and of course, we will have to pay for the Oil wars in Iraq and elsewhere.

NO illusions in the bosses parties, either Democrat or Republican!

FOR an American Labor Party!

[Bingalls]

Paul, are you a yank? Do you belong to the Labor Party?

[paulx]

No Barbara, I'm not a "yank".
I am English.
When I use the word "our" I mean the world working class. Working people have no country. The nation state was created by Capitalism and will dissappear when we get rid of Capitalism.
The struggle of the American working class is my struggle as is the struggle of the Iraqi working class, the Afghani working class and all the rest of our brothers and sisters around the globe.

Capitalism is a global system and the fight against it for a better world for all is also a global struggle.

Workers of the world unite! We have nothing to loose but our chains! - Karl Marx.

http://www.socialistappeal.org

[Carol]

Paul, I thought you belonged to the Labour party.

Anyway, I think the two party system limits my choices, but there are some interesting candidates among the Democrats that are running, and I will have to see who to vote for. I might vote Green. Not voting is exactly what the Republicans want. That's why Bush won the election--too many people stayed home.

[Graham]

Sorry this is off topic Carol. But Socialist Appeal are a trotskyist organisation based around Ted Grant, the founder of the Militant Tendency. They organise as an entryist group, effectively trying to 'proletarianise' the labour party. They like street stalls a lot!

[keri]

but this sums it up best. god i love him...

http://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works...ks/1925/alp.htm

[Carol]

Thanks, Graham. I should have recognized the rhetoric. It is rather tiresome. But Paul did say he was a member of the Labour Party. Now I know why.

How's your cat, Debs, keri?

Eugene Debs is a special hero of mine--has been since I was about 13.

[keri]

he's getting his campaign in line so he can be the next mayor of this fine city...

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

and i'm making tshirts for him..

[Bingalls]

They're gonna have to be small shirts!

[Maria]

Wait a minute, Jeff--Sharpton?
How on earth can you support someone like that?

I also have a big problem with Carol Mosely Braun. She seemed very promising at first, but I think she's shown herself to be more concerned with self-promotion than anything else.

Of course I have a problem with a lot of them, but I usually don't get very hopeful about politicians and when Carol Mosely Braun was elected I did feel quite hopeful, so there was more room to feel let down.
And while I too am disappointed in so much of the democratic party I am sick and tired of that old cliche "both the parties are just alike." Excuse me, but no they aren't. There is no way Gore would have done the damage Bush has and will do. It doesn't get more obviously than that.

[paulx]

Thanks, Graham.  I should have recognized the rhetoric.  It is rather tiresome. But Paul did say he was a member of the Labour Party.  Now I know why.

Actually Carol, You don't know "why". Graham's simplistic comment is wrong. I am not a member of the Labour Party in order to "proletarianise" it, whatever that means!
His sarcasm and your snooty response are both dissappointing as both of you usually make considered and cogent points regarding politics.

Anyway, why should being a member of the LP be contrary to what I said in response to Barbara's comments? The LP was set up by a mixture of reformists and marxists specifically as a party to represent the working class. Despite the present leadership it is still the party that the working class look to for political representation and it is still largely funded by the working class through the trade unions, etc.

The Democrat and the Republican parties are openly parties of big business. The differences amount to nuances. Clinton has as much blood on his hands as Bush. Although individuals have an effect on the course of history it is the objective economic and political circumstances which determine overall policy.
Do you really think that Gore in charge during a recession rather than Bush, would mean that the bosses would pay for their own economic crisis rather than make the workers pay? (as they always do).
Political figure heads and leadership should not be confused. The ruling class only allow their figure heads a certain amount of rope. Once they step over the line they are replaced.

By the way you are also wrong when you say Bush won the election because people stayed at home. Bush did not win the election, he came second in the vote. He and his friends in the Supreme Court unconstitutionally stole the election. You are governed by a thief.

[Carol]

Over the years Al Sharpton has worked to repair his reputation. He is not the same man. might consider voting for him, too.