Turn up the Heat.....On Who?

[Armstead]

It's a no-brainer that in the General Election the heat has to be turned up on the GOP.

But the question now is HOW and on What Basis will that heat be turned up?

Should Democrats simply say "It's all the GOP's fault"?

Or do we actually be honest -- and constructive -- and say it's the system that's broken?

Face it, if the 90's had not paved the way, GWB would not have been able to get away with the crap he's done. If there were not already a huge matrix of corporate special interests and Beltway Elites in place by 2000, GW and the far right would not have had such an easy time bamboozling the nation and dismantling civil society and democracy.

America could be at a turning point. Sick of the right-wing corporate dominance of the last 35 years, and ready to start moving in a more progressive, liberal direction.

But the only way that will happen is if the Democratic Party takes the lead with more than platitudes and finger-wagging. It means a real shift in the message and values of politics. Dennis the K gets it. Edwards seems to get it. Even Chris Dodd seems to get it. As for the rest of them, they are avoiding and skirting the core issues -- and a possible key to a constructive electoral victory -- in 08.

[DrFunkenstein]

1. I Wish Their Were a Candidate to Unite the Two Sides And Get Something Done

Instead of someone who talks about "turning up the heat" and then acting like a Republican, I'd like someone who cools down the divisiveness and then acts like a Democrat.

[Armstead]

2. It's going to be a pitched partisan battle

I agree with you in theory. But it's going to be very partisan no matter what happens.

I would not mind a good partisan race, if the two parties actually represent a choice in core philosophies.

But a muddled, blindly partisan spat merely to determine whether the winner is a D or an R would be very disheartening.

[blm]

6. Great point - I'd dare to believe Clinton if they showed up ONCE from 2001-2006

to even give back up to thoe Democrats who had been sticking their necks out to oppose BushInc.

In fact, both Clintons firmly supported Bush in 2002 and 2004 election cycles biggest issues - his terrorism and Iraq war decisions.

And did so PUBLICLY.

[FormerDittoHead]

12. What? Winning by 1 electoral vote without having a majority of voters isn't good enough? Go Hillary!

:sarcasm:

I agree. And there is but a single Democrat, not just running, who polarizes the American people the most - the one most likely to get the nomination.

BTW: I just heard that they're making a documentary about that ABC movie "path to 9/11" and how the Clintons and the "liberal media" have had the "truth" about 9/11 suppressed...

Oh, sure, they'd do that to ANY Democrat running. Riiiiight.

[BeyondGeography]

3. You describe the whole basis and practice of the Obama campaign

and then you leave out Obama from your list of people who "get it."

What campaign are you watching?

[Armstead]

4. I want to believe in Obama

But, quite honestly, I keep getting a feeling "Where's the Beef?"

Why is he supporting trade deals that follow the basic model of NAFTA, instead of calling out the whole corrupt con-game of "free trade" for example?

Unifying is a good thing. But if it's unifying us to continue to be a herd of sheep led to the slaughter, then that's only a superficial version of change.

I'm open to being convinced about him. But we don't need corporate conservatism with a kinder and gentler face.

[BeyondGeography]

5. Is this the way corporate conservatives speak to Wall Street?

"...We have not come this far because we practice survival of the fittest. America is America because we believe in creating a framework in which all can succeed. Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it. And so from time to time, we have put in place certain rules of the road to make competition fair, and open, and honest. We have done this not to stifle prosperity or liberty, but to foster those things and ensure that they are shared and spread as widely as possible.

In recent years, we have seen a dangerous erosion of the rules and principles that have allowed our market to work and our economy to thrive. Instead of thinking about what’s good for America or what’s good for business, a mentality has crept into certain corners of Washington and the business world that says, “what’s good for me is good enough.

In our government, we see campaign contributions and lobbyists used to cut corners and win favors that stack the deck against businesses and consumers who play by the rules. Massive tax cuts are shoved outside the budget window and accounting shenanigans are used to hide the full cost of this war.

In the business world, it’s a mentality that sees conflicts of interest as opportunities for profit. The quick kill is prized without regard to long-term consequences for the financial system and the economy. And while this may benefit the few who push the envelope as far as it will go, it’s doesn’t benefit America and it doesn’t benefit the market. Just because it makes money doesn’t mean it’s good for business.

It’s bad for business when boards allow their executives to set the price of their stock options to guarantee that they’ll get rich regardless of how they perform. It’s bad for the bottom line when CEOs receive massive severance packages after letting down shareholders, firing workers and dumping their pensions; or when they throw lavish birthday parties with company funds.

It’s bad for competition when you have an Administration that’s willing to approve merger after merger with barely any scrutiny. Such an approach stifles innovation, it robs consumers of choice, it means higher prices, and we have to guard against it.

And it’s bad for the market when there are over $1 trillion worth of loopholes in the corporate tax code, or when some companies get to set up a mailbox in a foreign country to avoid paying any taxes at all. This means a greater share of taxes for Americans and small businesses that are trying to compete but can’t afford to lobby their way to more loopholes.

It also means that investment goes to the companies that are best connected instead of the ones that are most productive. Economics 101 tells us special interest politics distorts the free market. After all, why would an oil company invest in research for alternative fuels that could save our environment when they can get billions of dollars in subsidies to keep drilling for oil and gas?"

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CWc4

[Armstead]

9. I agree but it's more systemic than he is acknowledging

It's not a few bad apples who have created this mess. It's a systemic shift that has infected all sectors of the economy and the political system.

With some rare and wonderful exceptions (including some Republicans) Congress has been looking the other way for decades as the competitive free-enterprise system has allowed to congeal and morph into the monopolistic corporate monsters we have today.

The biggest indictment of the Democratic Party has been the overwhelming silence that has greeted the step-by-step advance of monopolization.

What's even more sickening is that it continues today, and it is not being made a core issue in the campaigns.

[BeyondGeography]

11. What no Democrat can say, apparently, is that we need strong government in this country

A government that places the basic needs of its citizens before those of business and the wealthy. You'll hear certain candidates say that they'll do this, but never in the context of a broader "the era of weak government is over" message. Because that's what we have, a weak, bankrupted and discredited notion of government in this country, and this approach is taking us over a cliff.

Obama hints at the need for an activist government above, but we're in Year 27 of the Reagan Revolution and I'd like a stronger ideological critique of the opposition, and I don't hear it from anyone. The Democrats have universally concluded that using the "G" word is a risky thing; you hardly ever hear it used, which means they're still not confronting Reagan's "government is the problem" ideology. Until we win an election on philosophical, rather than stylistic, terms, we will be stuck in the same place.

[Armstead]

13. I totally agree with you on that

The whole terms of the debate have been so one-sided over the last 30 years.

[blm]

15. We really need strong government that is honest, OPEN and accountable

to the citizenry.

And no more Bushes and Clintons protecting the secrecy and privilege of the powerful.

That didn't work out well for this country or the world.

[Tellurian]

7. How can they "get it"..when Michelle isn't even on the same page with Obama?

Michelle gives an interview talking about how "race" is always holding them back from succeeding, here in this video:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/11/12/michelle-obama-inferiority-complex-blocks-blacks-backing-barack

In the same breath and on the same day, Barack says just the opposite here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/barackobama/story/0,,2208806,00.html

It seems they do not agree on what they actually believe or represent to the American people.

[BeyondGeography]

8. He was talking about white voters; Michelle about black voters

and that's a thread hijacker anyway.

[Tellurian]

10. There were racial comparisons by both of them in different ways..

Nevertheless, it amounts to one saying race is a factor that will contribute to her husband's undetectability and the other saying race is not an issue, policy is.

I vote for more pillow talk between them!

[Phunktified]

14. The whole slogan is a dig at Obama

It's brilliant in a way. Hillary first started saying it right after the debate. She referred to the fact that she has no problem with being under fire and first quoted Harry Truman then. But her use of it at the JJ Dinner was almost like a dig at Obama. It was as if she is suggesting his "kubaya" approach isn't going to cut it.

I think what people miss about some of this stuff, is that for the most part these elections are all about the tone, style and substance of the candidate as they go through the campaign, I.e. what they chose to say, how they say it and when they say it. And the most successful candidates put a lot of thought and planning in to how their campaigns are going to unfold. The moment Hillary brought up Americans "invisible" to thei administration in her JJ speech was very poignant. but it was a theme she introduced in Iowa television ads months ago and is likely part of her stump speech. Similarly with the introduction of "turn up the heat." Her campaign seems to unfold in a powerful, organic way unlike the near constant "resets" of Obama and the increasing edginess of the Edwards campaign.

[Armstead]

16. Organic like the pods in Invasion of the Body Snatchers

They've been planning it sincve Bill left office, so they're had plenty of time to think and plan. "Hillary as the inevitable candidate" was being talked about since at least 2000.

The problem is that what may be effective in getting elected can also be detremental in governing.