About fissures within the Democratic party. I found this thread (via dbsoxblog) over on Daily Kos that kind of reinforces that - though you've got to get down into the comments, and I realize that Kos isn't exactly a central Democratic site and certainly those on it aren't all Democratic leaders... though I did find the comment by the Iowa Green Party Secretary interesting as it points out the anger of a number of Democrats who saw Kerry as the lesser of two evils... but barely.
According to this rather interesting thread,
The word came down from Washington Democratic HQ...stop Dean. Pure and simple, and the Democratic leadership here did their level best.Um, yeah. And for an encore, they put him in as head of the DNC? All Rawb's commentary about having to pelase the grass roots aside, I think the Kos folks are about as far down in the roots as you get and they're reacting to Dean (and now Kerry) about the way grass reacts to Round-Up.Kerry was the handpicked candidate of the national party. Kerry/Edwards was the marriage made by McAwful.
Face it...the national party wanted Dean as much as they wanted Bush. They were afraid of the Deaniacs. He was a rule-breaker, and that is something that you didn't do in the Democratic party of 2004.
Of course, it's all political opinion and commentary over on Kos. The original post was about how Kerry hogged the limelight doing a quick rebuttal to Bush's speech. It'll be, um, interesting to see how it all plays out in 2006 and 2008.
Here's the top of the post.
Daily Kos: Kerry bogarts the limelight
Enjoy...
J.
Comments (4)
Me thinks not. I do not suffer fools lightly. Not all of them are fools, and perhaps none of them truly are. Politically, however, they are! lol. I'll pass.
Posted by Rosemary | December 8, 2005 3:28 PM
Posted on December 8, 2005 15:28
What you misunderstand is that hte party leadership did not put dean into the party chair position. The Deaniacs did. The party elites didn't want Dean for president, and they certainly didn't want Dean for party chair either. The only reason Dean even made it to party chair is because the Deaniacs, after the election, pretty much demanded it, and then made sure to stay involved.
Once the presidential election was over, most democrats went back to bed. Only the Deaniacs stayed awake and went to the convention and pretty much threw Dean up there.
And Kerry was a cheap suit. The whole electability thing was bullshit. Obviously Kerry wasn't electable, no matter how much they said he was. No matter how tall he is, or how much he looks like Lincoln, or no matter how he keeps his cool or stands, it doesnt mean shit if you dont stand for anything. I sseriously don't know anyone anywhere who would favor a second Kerry.
Posted by rawb | December 8, 2005 9:55 PM
Posted on December 8, 2005 21:55
NBC, "The Today Show", 8/30/04
MATT LAUER: You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war of ter--on terror? For example, in the next four years?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I have never said we can win it in four years.
MATT LAUER: No, I'm just saying, can we win it? Do you say that?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I don't--I don't think we can win it.
Posted by rawb | December 8, 2005 10:13 PM
Posted on December 8, 2005 22:13
Let's try for the full quote, shall we?
Pres. BUSH: I don't--I don't think we can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the--those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in part of the world, let's put it that way."
Win. If you're looking for formal negotiations and a signed peace treaty as an end state to the war on terror, you're going to wait a long time. In that respect, we're never going to 'win', and I never expected it. But we're getting to a point in Iraq where terrorist tactics aren't acceptable to the population, and the more things stabilize in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other emerging democracies over there, the LESS acceptable such tactics will be.
Until, eventually, we look around and go "Damn. It's been six months since the last car bomb. Did we win?" And at that point, we still won't have 'won' the war - not until we change the conditions that breed the emnity needed to keep it going. And those conditions aren't going to be be remedied by keeping dictators in place and throwing money at them as we have in the past.
I don't expect the WoT to be won in my lifetime, Rawb. I figure I've got a good 25-35 years left, and I figure I'll see progress (Saudi giving women the vote and letting them dump their burqas would be a real milestone) But maybe my son will see a time when terrorism will be looked on as the natural result of dictatorships turning the hatred of their people for the system against an outside enemy.
Rawb, refresh me on something here - weren't you a Deaniac?
Re Kerry - we're in full agreement there.
J.
Posted by JLawson | December 8, 2005 11:50 PM
Posted on December 8, 2005 23:50