We must support all of the Democratic antiwar candidates!

[IndianaGreen]

I am addressing myself to those DUers that support the following Democratic candidates, listed in alphabetical order: Clark, Dean, Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, Sharpton.

The corrupt, Beltway based, Democratic Establishment is trying to prevent the nomination of an antiwar candidate. At the present time they are concentrating their fire on Howard Dean, but they could easily be doing the same to your candidate. The Beltway cabal is hell-bound to get one of their Capitol Hill professional politicians as the nominee.

They have plenty of help. The media has already written off as "vanity" the campaigns of Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, and Sharpton. ABC News has pulled their embedded reporters from those campaigns despite the fact that a single caucus or primary has yet to be held.

The media claim they do this because of the candidates low poll numbers, yet it is media exposure that is currently driving those poll numbers, as evidence by the bounce that Al Sharpton got from Saturday Night Live. The media's hypocrisy is further in evidence by the media's coverage of John Kerry's "troubled" campaign despite the fact that Al Sharpton is polling higher than him in a nationwide poll. Apparently the media feels that covering a moribund Kerry campaign is more "news worthy" than covering Sharpton's resurgent campaign. Dare I suggest that race and economic class is a factor here?

The media's hypocrisy is also revealed by their exploitation of the "issue" of whether Clark was offered the VP slot by Dean. Under normal conditions this would be a sound bite. The media is fueling a controversy where none really is because they want to fracture a potential alliance between two of our antiwar candidates. They are doing this in order to get us to get angry with each other!

Remember the anti-Dean ad that used a picture of Osama bin Laden? Some of you fell in the trap that the ad addressed Dean's foreign policy background. The truth is that the ad smeared all of us by equating opposition to the war in Iraq to support for terrorism. This smear has been repeated by candidates such as Gephardt and Lieberman.

The extremes to which the Democratic Establishment is willing to go to prevent the nomination of an antiwar candidate, as evidenced by the bin Laden ad, leads me to believe that they will use subterfuge and dirty tricks to cheat at the 2004 Democratic Convention in order to get one their candidates nominated. This cannot be allowed!

Unlike the Democratic Establishment, we don't look at polls to see what our stand on the issues ought to be. We don't sacrifice our hard-won liberties on the altar of political expediency. They hate us because of what we believe in!

Bush's Imperial War: Al Gore spoke about this before he chose not to run in 2004 when he said that "President Bush has allowed his political team to use this war as a political wedge issue to score political points and divide this nation." (1)

Bush's response to 9/11 was disproportionate! Instead of tracking down the terrorists in the same way Israel did the people responsible for the 1972 Munich massacre, Bush decided to destroy an entire nation for the sake of a handful of people.

Bush is also using 9/11 as an excuse to expand American hegemony and oppression throughout the world.

As Wes Clark has said, the invasion of Iraq has taken valuable resources away from seeking the perpetrators of 9/11 and strengthened the radical Islamists. As Dean as said, Saddam's capture has not made us safer. As Kucinich as said, America must renounce Bush's doctrine of preemptive wars and nuclear first-strike.

If we allow the Democratic Establishment to steal the nomination from the antiwar candidates (two of which are clearly in the lead), nothing will change! The war in Iraq will go on for years. The PATRIOT Act will be joined by more egregious infringements of our liberties. Halliburton will keep its lucrative contracts.

This is why we must support all of the Democratic antiwar candidates. Constructive criticism is fine. Positive discussion about our preferred candidates is also fine. We can do that without attacking another antiwar candidate. We cannot go around insulting those that are on the same side of the barricades as we are. The politics of destruction that we have witnessed on this board and elsewhere must cease!

I will keep my powder dry and save it for the pro-war candidates.

I will be particularly vicious and relentless in attacking the so-called "Bush Democrats," those Zell Miller clones that are saying they would rather vote for Bush than for the Democratic nominee if it is Howard Dean (they will say the same if Kucinich were the nominee).

Citations:

(1) http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/gore.bush.criticism/index.html

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Wonderful post!

Although I am a Dean supporter, I've been going to Clark threads and posting positive comments (when there isn't a flame war going on). The mere fact that the only place I've been able to read Clark's comments on Shrub is here at DU shows that the establishment doesn't want his message to be spread any more than the real message of Dean (I don't call the 'left-wing liberal' garbage they spew out as being anything other than propaganda). The fact that ABC took its reporter off DK's campaign is a crime. Kucinich is the heart of the party and has many great ideas that only we political junkies even know about. And I get really mad when Sharpton and Mosely-Braun are discounted as 'fringe candidates'. Rev. Al can really zing Bush, but does the media give him a chance?

I think that if the establishment Dems win the nomination, we have lost a big chance to wrest this country away from Big Business.

[Scott Lee]

4. "I think that if the establishment Dems win the nomination,....

.....we have lost a big chance to wrest this country away from Big Business."

Applause. I am now one of your biggest fans.

[IndianaGreen]

12. The worse thing that could happen is if they "steal" the nomination

and pull a Ted Koppel by disrespecting the antiwar candidates.

[Scott Lee]

15. I highly doubt they could pull that stunt about now

I think it's been too publicized.

[mikehiggins]

23. It all depends on Dean

If Dean doesn't have a clear majority of votes going into the Convention I'm pretty certain he won't get the nomination. That's where it could be "stolen" from him and here's why.

There is no longer a winner-take-all rule in the primaries. If Clark, for example, comes in second or third in many of the votes he'll have delegates going into the convention. So will Kerry and Gephart and probably even Lieberman (I expect Edwards to drop out quickly and go back to the race for the Senate).

If Dean has enough designated delegate votes to win outright at the convention he's home free. If not, he's in a lot of trouble.

The "super delegate" support he has is worth the air its written on. A super delegate endorsement is not the same thing as a delegate obligated to support him as a result of a primary. If he cannot show that a majority of the Democrats voting IN THE PRIMARY are willing to support him, the establishment can easily make the argument that he is unlikely to get the number of electoral votes needed to win the GE.

Now, this claim may or may not be true. That is essentially irrelevant. What does matter is how serious the opposition to Dean from the Clintons and the DLC and other factions turns out to be. If they adopt a scorched earth policy, where things become truly "ABD", then Dean can be denied the nomination handily.

So, if he doesn't have a clear majority of pledged delegate votes when he walks into the convention, political experience tells me he won't leave with the nomination. Simple as that.

What happens then is the big question.

[polpilot]

2. Great post. The Sheperd Bombing Resolution & subsequent murder &

destruction of Iraq SHOULD be the defining line between The New World Murderers and The Decent People of This Earth. The democrats lost an incredible opportunity to attack the repub warmongers.

Kucinich deserves forever credit for his bold stance against this murderous bombing...loud and vocal in the Congressional Hall of Whores

[mmm]

3. I like it

and I agree 100%

[sleipnir]

5. Here, Here!! (But, CMB is Pro-War...)

Way to go IndianaGreen!!!

I hear you loud and clear, time to get rid of those who vote for unending war and support GWB's goals of global conquest.

Though, CMB is pro-war, she's said that she'd have supported the Iraq War. Not to mention, if you read a lot of her policy statements, she's more Right Wing than Lieberman. I'd get you an acutal quote off the net, but the press ignores her, so I doubt I'll be able to find anything. I do know that Michael Moore lists her as Pro-War, and that's enough evidence in my book.

[jjmalonejr]

9. My understanding of CMB was that she opposed the war...

...but does not support a pull out of US troops at this point unless we fulfill our responsibility to stabilize the country since we were the ones who destabilized it.

I like Kucinich, but an immediate pull-out of US troops without the appropriate political steps to ensure the security of Iraq is a bad idea. I know he has a plan for this, but he shouldn't promise pull-out of American troops in 90 days because he can't predict whether or not diplomatic efforts to transfer authority while maintaining security will be successful.

[sleipnir]

14. I may have mistated CMB's position, she was not for the war, but for IWR

I'm still not able to find many of her speechs and comments (her "website" doesn't have much of anything) but I'm almost positive she was for IWR, but not the idea of total pre-emptive war.

Anyway, the full pull out is the best idea. As a funny analogy, the condom broke a long time ago and we'd better pull out or risk long term implications. This is exactly what led to the Vietman debacle, the Dems didn't want to pull out and leave S.V. to itself, but with hindsight, that would have been the best for all invovled. We can't solve Iraq, it's broken, but we can't fix it, get the UN in and the US out. Or Iraq "re-building" will become the Dems new albatross...

[mouse7]

6. ABB

The more progressive the nominee is, the happier I would be. However, at the end of it all, we've got to support whatever the option is to defeat Dumbya.

Getting rid of Dumbya and breaking up the corporate media monopolies is priority one now. We can fix everything else after that. We have no chance of anything getting done until we accomplish those two goals.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. With you.

I will vote for any anti-war candidate that is nominated. Which, at this stage looks to be a pretty good bet.

As for the infamous four who voted for the war, I will still vote for the anti-war candidate, he or she just won't be a Democrat.

[jjmalonejr]

8. I understand and respect your preference of an anti-war candidate...

...but do you mean a candidate who is anti-war in general, or anti-Iraq-war specifically?

And if, at the end of the day, you aren't ABB...well, I just don't know what to say to you.

Support your candidate in the primaries (he or she just might win the nomination), but if come November you empower Bush with 4 more years simply because you disagree with a candidate's vote on the Iraq resolution (c'mon, folks, you may disagree with their vote, but NONE of the except Lieberman is pro-Iraq war)...well, you're just not thinking about the horrible things that Bush will do with 4 more years.

Any one of the Democrats, while not ideal to you, is preferable to Bush. Even Michael Moore has said as much, and he's been as critical of the Democratic party as anyone.

There IS a difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.

[IndianaGreen]

10. ABB is a myth

just ask those Democrats that are going to vote for Bush if Dean is the nominee.

You don't see Tom Daschle removing Zell Miller from all of his committee assignments despite the fact that Miller is openly supporting Bush/Cheney '04.

Back in 1972, the Democratic Establishment sat on its can, refusing to support McGovern. They preferred 4 more years of Nixon than to let liberals in control of the party. This is the same crowd that is saying ABB today, provided it is a DLC-anointed candidate that wins the nomination.

[jjmalonejr]

11. The "Democrats" who are going to vote for Bush if Dean is the nominee...

...aren't Democrats, they're just regular people who have traditionally voted Democratic, but will be convinced to vote for Bush over Dean because of the smear campaign that Rove will launch against him.

If you think the Democratic Establishment would prefer Bush to Dean, you're crazy. They would prefer other nominees to Dean because they fear that Dean will get blown out of the water.

By the way, calling Dean a "liberal" is a myth, not ABB.

[Iverson]

13. an additional detail

The Democratic establishment did more than sit on its can in 1972, although I do agree that the McGovern candidacy is an lesson about how demands for loyalty seem only to apply to the left.

There was an organized group called Democrats for Nixon. They bought commercial air time. I am sure that you remember it. Therefore, the situation was not merely passive neglect but active opposition.

It is obvious that the left is being played for suckers by the center-right establishment at every step. As evidence, just consider that preventive war is now considered moderate.

The world is upside down, methinks.

[IndianaGreen]

24. The Left is always asked to be "loyal"

while the Establishment is the most disloyal.

The same thing happened in the GOP decades ago. The Right always got the shaft from the pragmatists, and then they were asked to be "loyal." Back in 1952, Ike was drafted in order to stop delegate-rich Senator Taft from winning the nomination. We saw what the Right did in order to take over the GOP. They formed think tanks. They created an entire media network from scratch. The organized down to the precinct level (and the school board level). They waited patiently for their turn and for the right candidate.

[JI7]

16. you mean just iraq war ?

i'm guessing you mean just the iraq war ?

[IndianaGreen]

17. Iraq war + PNAC

As Wes Clark has said, the invasion of Iraq has taken valuable resources away from seeking the perpetrators of 9/11 and strengthened the radical Islamists. As Dean as said, Saddam's capture has not made us safer. As Kucinich as said, America must renounce Bush's doctrine of preemptive wars and nuclear first-strike.

Iraq war was an illegal and criminal attack on a nation that did not attack America. However, our war on Iraq did not take place in a vacuum. It was part of the PNAC agenda for global domination and hegemony. This is why I also endorse Kucinich's denunciation of pre-emptive wars and nuclear first-strike. Clark has been very forceful on those issues as well, far more than Dean.

[FXDS]

18. I love it"

When someone Say's they will support any candidate that was against IWR! Bush didn't want weapons inspectors in either, did he?

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

19. Well, I'm personally ABBOL...

(anybody but bush or lieberman)... I just want Bush out of there. I'm willing to put up with the IWR if it means Bush getting his toosh out of the Oval Office. I am 100% pacifist and peace loving bleedingheart liberal, but if it means getting a conservative out of office, i'm 100% for whoever we can get to replace Shrub.

[goforit]

20. Gather are forces and march....Dean will be the next President!!!

Toast to Indianagreen!!!

:bounce:

[MoonRiver]

21. Thank you, thank you, thank you for this post!

[AWD]

22. So, do we.....

Do we support Kerry this week, or next week?

I know he's againstthe war on alternating weeks, but which position did he take for this week?

And has Clark high-fived anybody over the war recently, or is he against (wink wink) the war right now (wink wink)???

[blm]

25. Only Kucinich, Braun and Sharpton were anti Iraq war, IG.

Only Lieberman was prowar, IG. The others fall in the middleground to varying degrees.

Any honest person would acknowledge that and blow off the bullshit idea of antiwar and prowar extremes that are used to describe the candidates inaccurately just to score political PROCESS points.