Reply #36: not sure why folks think it is an either/or... I see short-term & long-

[salin]

term strategies that we should pursue simultaneously.

Short term - get bush out.

However, without congress, it will be hard for any democratic President to do much except stave off attacks/assualts on our system that today's GOP seems so fond of mounting.

Short term and on - take back congress.

For the reason stated above.

Long-term - understand why ideas such as those suggested by Kucinich, which would have seemed a bit to the left 20 years ago but not fringe, now seem so fringe to the point of being unsellable to the general public. For example, when first pushed most folks viewed Trickle Down economics (aka Supply Side) as simplistic and not able to deliver its promise... Changes were made during Reagan's years but nowhere as drastically as the changes in policy made under Bush. But the language has been used so frequently that now, in the public discourse, the underlying ideas of supply-side economics seem to be accepted as ... fact (?!?!) To change this back requires a heck of a lot of work, on a heck of a lot of levels... media... getting better at moving ideas/studies/reports out of more progressive thinktanks into both the media (how is it that the right got so much media time on so many issues in the 90s?... very smart and intentional PR efforts including proactively shopping their 'intellects' as "news resources/experts" to the media) AND to testify before each and every committee hearing before congress (another part of the proactive PR efforts of the right.)

The long-term strategy also should focus on promoting more progressive candidates up and down the line (local, state, and federal elections). More prominance to these politicians - even in local media coverage ... will help reshape public discourse.

Tying that back to the original poster's thoughts:

Another reason to encourage folks to vote their "heart" in the primaries... to increase commitment to the whole election. If I believe that voting for, say, Kucinich helps bring more delegates to the party convention (and that there is a place at the convention)... I get more tuned in and committed to the long-haul election. If I opt out too soon, I get less committed - I may or may not vote in the primary and will probably vote in the general... but I won't work for the general election. However, those who are committed, even if to another candidate, are likely to increase their commitment to getting Bush out and working towards long-term changes. Often voters (if not so turned off by the process) switch their allegiance to the eventual front runner. If we can capture that commitment then we capture the energy and willingness to work for the democratic candidate in the fall.

Folks seem to overlook what the funding disparity in the general election will mean. Bush outspent Gore and lost - but closely enough to steal. Bush will probably double the outspending ratio in this coming election. In order to combat the advantage which will be gained, the democratic candidate's campaign will have to engage in the battle (so to speak) on different levels - and one of the biggest levels will be person to person contact to combat whatever spew comes from Rove etal. In order to mount successfully that kind of response... we need as many people, progressive, centrist, the whole range, not just willing to go "vote while holding my nose"... but willing to give hours a week volunteering for the effort.

In sum, I believe that there is more for us to cometogether around if we start looking at complementary short and long term strategies.