Ideal Candidates Never Win

[yeahwho]

I sort of feel like the one candidate that I've witnessed as being the most ideal since I've been here on this board would of been Bill Clinton and he was very flawed (check NAFTA/impeacment/Whitewater/Pardons/CampaignFinance) and I was still OK with him at times.

When Ford died many here felt he was a very fair man, except probably me, I feel like his pardon of the man that left office in complete and total disgrace (the start of the FISA program began then) to give him his job for 21/2 years has pretty much fucked us on any sort of ideal candidate. Then Michael Jackson became president, which pretty much summed up for me, no single fathers in the WHite House again.

I have no easy answer for this, we will forever have political debate over the very best candidates. In fact if a candidate actually is completely in line with your own way of thinking... guess what, he/she is targeted to be a looney fucker, (check Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich etc...)

So in the year 2008, all of a sudden some are surprised that candidates change positions? I mean really is that surprising?

Enlighten.

[saz]

i never felt that ford was a fair man. he should've ended up in prison, and kissinger, for arming and supporting the indonesian invasion of east timor, which resulted in a brutal genocide and occupation.

so, if your candidate is targeted to be "looney" you should what then, compromise and sell-out and shill for someone you don't believe in? or someone who has a chance of winning? oh and ideal candidates do win, don't fool or kid yourself. look at fdr. he was ridiculed and villanized by corporate america. or how about nelson mandela. or tommy douglas. hell, even pierre trudeau or jesse ventura.

i'm not sure that people are surprised, but rather disappointed regarding obama and his caving in on fisa. and they have every right to be angry and disappointed. what, should all obama supporters just bow down to him, kiss his ass non-stop and continually shill for him? you may be comfortable with that, but not everyone feels that way.

[yeahwho]

what, should all obama supporters just bow down to him, kiss his ass non-stop and continually shill for him? you may be comfortable with that, but not everyone feels that way.


I mean really. So fucking what. Obama is going to have to rape and kill baby puppies before most of his supporters, I count myself as one, will withdraw our vote for him. This (FISA vote/public finance..all of it) is certainly NOT going to tarnish his image in any way.

Look at McCain, how many times has that leopard changed his spots to fit the tree he climbed? And I don't hate John McCain, I still like him.

look at fdr. he was ridiculed and villanized by corporate america. or how about nelson mandela. or tommy douglas. hell, even pierre trudeau or jesse ventura.

The above are better examples of ideal candidates than mine, that is for sure... but where are these people today, who is the ideal candidate today?

[Documad]

I don't think that Obama has changed who he is or moved toward the center. I have always said that he's no liberal. I think Sazi has been saying it too. He is a professional politician. He did what professional politicians do. He played to the base of the party to distinguish himself from Clinton and get the nomination and now he's going to play to the independents so that he has a chance of winning. I don't object to that. I want a democrat to be president this time.

What surprises me is that people ever thought Obama was a liberal. I've never seen any evidence of that. I suspect that there is some racism at play -- people assume that the black guy is a liberal.

He's never been a liberal in my book. The FISA vote didn't surprise me. I am convinced that if Obama had been in the senate at the time he would have voted to support the president re Iraq. He is a consummate politician and that is what they do -- they vote in favor of things that 80 % of the american citizens support. I've never seen evidence that he would vote for something just because it's the right thing to do. That's why he voted "present" in Illinois all the time instead of voting yes or no for the record. Again, this is the stuff that makes him a good candidate so I'm not griping.

[Documad]

Sazi needs to explain the Jesse Ventura reference because it's making me lol. At least we got some funny postcards out of his tenure ("my governor can beat up your governor").

[DroppinScience]

oh and ideal candidates do win, don't fool or kid yourself. look at fdr. he was ridiculed and villanized by corporate america.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/30/9993/

Published on Monday, June 30, 2008 by the California Progress Report
Progressive Obama Critics Should Study FDR
by Randy Shaw

Last week, some progressives expressed betrayal at Barack Obama’s support for a “compromised” FISA bill. While FISA’s telecom immunity provision is not a front burner issue for many, it is a hot button issue among the netroots, a community that has strongly backed Obama. Meanwhile, recent stories in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and other traditional media describe Obama as moving to “the center,” further alarming some on the left. This early progressive criticism of Obama comes amidst celebrations of the 75th anniversary of the New Deal, created by our best and most progressive president, Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt is often held up as a model for Obama, but some on the left apparently do not realize that FDR was a pragmatist who made deals with the proverbial devil–in his case, Southern segregationists–to get his progressive economic plans enacted. Those expecting Obama to follow a consistently left-wing agenda misunderstand both the man and the nature of U.S. politics.

Roosevelt the Pragmatist

My grandmother loved Franklin Delano Roosevelt and seemed to own books about every key member of his Administration. So I grew up a Roosevelt fan, and believe he not only was our nation’s last progressive president, but that he created a model for using a progressive grassroots base to move willing presidents to the left.

Roosevelt is an icon on the U.S. left, as again became clear as the 75th anniversary of the New Deal was celebrated this year. And while Republicans have successfully rolled back many of the gains of the 1960’s and 1970’s, they have consistently failed to reverse the key building blocks of Roosevelt’s New Deal.

But some facts about Roosevelt rarely discussed in history classes include his alliance with the racist Southern Democratic Senators and Congressmembers who often controlled key committees. Many of these politicians backed FDR’s economic populism, but would have vetoed such an agenda had Roosevelt demanded that the Constitution be enforced to protect the civil rights of African-Americans.

So while African-Americans in the South were denied voting rights, and subjected to overt discrimination and even lynchings, the Roosevelt Administration largely looked the other way. And while some on the black left publicly criticized Roosevelt’s perceived hypocrisy–such as enacting a federal minimum wage law that exempted domestic workers and other heavily African-American jobs–the black community in the North overwhelming voted for FDR in every election.

Nor did Roosevelt’s alliance with racist Democrats cause the largely white American Communist Party to attack the President. These activists understood the political realities, and, rather than shun Roosevelt for not aggressively promoting racial justice, worked hard to enact his progressive social and economic agenda. The left even stayed loyal to Roosevelt through his Executive Order sending Japanese-American citizens to internment camps, and his sending troops to overthrow a democratic government in Nicaragua.

Today’s Congressional Reality

Obama’s FISA stance appears designed to both avoid giving McCain a campaign issue and to reassure moderate Democrats that he understands their concerns and seeks to be their ally. It is the type of political calculation that he believes will facilitate passage of Obama’s more progressive agenda next year.

With tens of millions of voters in tough economic times, Obama likely did not see a fight against FISA as a priority. While many see the FISA bill as a complete capitulation to an unpopular President, opinions differ on the actual impact of granting telecom immunity.

But some progressives concern over both FISA and other Obama reflects the more pragmatic nature of the Democratic nominee.

Many activists believe that if progressives simply “stand firm,” that they can enact a left legislative agenda without making “deals” with more moderate politicians.

I recall hearing an interview in the late 1990’s where Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn was criticizing environmental groups for making deals. Asked what they should do instead, Cockburn bellowed, “stand firm”! How “standing firm” would get key legislation passed when the votes were lacking was never made clear, and Cockburn was not asked to expand upon his analysis.

This notion of avoid political compromise, so prevalent around comprehensive immigration reform legislation, proposed universal health care measures, and Congressional efforts to limit the Iraq War, is alien to the mindset that brought the still revered New Deal.

Just imagine what some of today’s activists would say about a minimum wage bill that excluded several categories of workers, typically in jobs held by racial minorities. They would insist that nobody should back such a bill, and that it was better to fail so we could try to pass a stronger bill in the future.

That’s what happened to some health care reform efforts, some of which progressives have opposed due to their not implementing “single payer.” Although there is no prospect of Congress voting to go directly from our current system to single-payer, and enacting any meaningful universal health care reform will involve “deals” with insurance companies and political moderates, many activists oppose anything short of an ideal yet politically impossible, single payer plan.

That’s why one can almost guarantee some left anger with President Obama next year over his health care plan. Obama, like Roosevelt, is a pragmatist, and does not believe the perfect should be the enemy of the good.

Clinton vs. Roosevelt

Some have interpreted Obama’s election campaign move to the center as creeping “Clintonism.” But there is an important difference between Clinton, who was never a progressive and built his career attacking the left via the DLC, and Roosevelt, who consistently sought to achieve the most progressive legislation possible.

Barack Obama is in the Roosevelt camp. He is more of an incrementalist than FDR because the political space for more radical change has narrowed, but, unlike Clinton, he wants to build, not undermine, the progressive base.

Obama seeks to build a “working political majority” because he knows, unlike far too many activists, that creating change involves more than “standing firm” on principles. Rather, it means building the political base to support real change, and getting legislation through a Congress that progressives do not control.

The netroots outrage against Obama’s FISA stance sends an important message to the candidate that progressives will not be taken for granted. But let’s keep the Roosevelt model in mind before linking Obama’s pragmatism to a lack of commitment to progressive change.

Randy Shaw is the editor and publisher of Beyond Chron, an alternative online daily newspaper, with whose permission this article is republished.

[D_Raay]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the FISA bill actually only gives the telecomms immunity from civil cases not criminal prosecution.

[RobMoney$]

So in the year 2008, all of a sudden some are surprised that candidates change positions? I mean really is that surprising?

Enlighten.


Having the ability to admit you were wrong on an issue because of a lack of information is an admirable quality for a politician to have. It shows a certain humbleness and ability to make a decision on facts and not simply because it's the party line.

Changing your stance on an issue to appeal to the majority in order to win the most votes is what bothers most people. It's just blatantly being a whore, especially when you consider it's probably the main reason people supported Obama in the first place...because he was running on a platform of "Change".

[yeahwho]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the FISA bill actually only gives the telecomms immunity from civil cases not criminal prosecution.

Thats the ticket and part of the real issue here, the person most of us are concerned about here is George W Bush and having the ability to pursue criminal charges against those in the Bush Administration who pushed illegal wiretapping.

The argument on the internets I'm concerned with is that argument. Legally the Telecoms would not, have not and really it is not in their best interest to snoop on their paying clients, they basically want your money and no legal issues which cost them money and customers.

The 4th amendment proscribes governmental infringement of the constituional right.
Your boss, on the other hand is telling you to commit a crime.

The argument is FISA gives the government some sort of unlimited spying on anyone they deem terrorist suspects and then total immunity from whomever they spy on, the problem is this... if that were such and easy sell then If there is no judge in the country who would not throw them out, then why is the administration fighting tooth and nail for the retroactive immunity? It seems to me that the bad guys in this story are not nearly so confident as many of you are of the strength of their legal position.

The thing that I really see is this Bush and Co. are the only ones currently with any balls politically, the democratic congress has no balls, the political candidates have no balls and Obama specifically is not going to ball up at this point.

The seriousness of his speech to his campaign workers last month was real, there is now only one thing standing between him becoming the leader of the USA, that is laziness and poor perception, the real hard work begins now. The other option will be McCain.

Of course to many that is not ideal, it's just starting to get interesting.

[yeahwho]

Having the ability to admit you were wrong on an issue because of a lack of information is an admirable quality for a politician to have. It shows a certain humbleness and ability to make a decision on facts and not simply because it's the party line.

Changing your stance on an issue to appeal to the majority in order to win the most votes is what bothers most people. It's just blatantly being a whore, especially when you consider it's probably the main reason people supported Obama in the first place...because he was running on a platform of "Change".

You should actually just go to work on the McCain campaign now, he's a very principled man.

[saz]

i like jesse ventura, although he's a libertarian, he's not a very right-wing libertarian. i understand that ventura boosted funding for public schools while governor, as well as pushing for medicinal marijuana, and being very vocal about his support of women's and gay rights. his election certainly was refreshing, given that he did it on the cheap out of his own pocket and wasn't bankrolled by big corporate interests like republicans and democrats usually are. he's not or wasn't a career politician or someone who catered to the corporate agenda. i know that it is a great advantage to be crafty, a lawyer, and all that, but sometimes people like him who can handle the resposibilities are refreshing.

regarding fdr, he also imprisoned japanese-americans in internment camps during the second world war, as the column mentioned. i like fdr because he had the balls to steal progressive policies from the socialists and see them through, while standing up to corporate america and the republicans, unlike today's dems.

[RobMoney$]

You should actually just go to work on the McCain campaign now, he's a very principled man.

My voting record...Clinton in '92 and '96, Al Gore in '00, and Kerry in '04. I live in Pennsylvania and I've voted for Ed Rendell for Gov. twice and also for Mayor of Phila. when he held that office. I've met Rendell many times and Bill Clinton when he was on the campaign trail in '92 and I think both of them are simply outstanding when they enter a room. They command your attention without saying a word.


I guess what I'm trying to say is, just because I think Obama's a majorly flawed candidate doesn't mean I'd ever vote the other way.

[Documad]

You should actually just go to work on the McCain campaign now, he's a very principled man.

This is what is wrong with democrats! There's no reason to fight among ourselves! You shouldn't be pushing a long-time democrat like Rob out of the tent!

As for Ventura: He basically appointed people to run the government for him while he traveled the country doing talk shows. That's not all bad in my opinion but I doubt you will find many fans within his state.

He did get us the light rail though. Too bad it was just the one route but I like it.

[yeahwho]

I guess what I'm trying to say is, just because I think Obama's a majorly flawed candidate doesn't mean I'd ever vote the other way.

He is so flawed he's running to be the 44th President of the United States of America at the ripe old age of 46. Representing the Democratic Party and currently on the Front Page of every major publication in America. Currently the Gallup poll shows him to have a 2% lead over the Republican candidate John McCain.

Dude needs to tighten up his act, pull his head out of his ass and take a look around, his political ambitions are passing him by.

[Documad]

He is so flawed he's running to be the 44th President of the United States of America at the ripe old age of 46. Representing the Democratic Party and currently on the Front Page of every major publication in America. Currently the Gallup poll shows him to have a 2% lead over the Republican candidate John McCain.

George W. Bush won twice and he was still a deeply flawed candidate.

You know that I'm a big fan of yours. This isn't personal. I just don't like Obama as much as you do. I will happily vote for the guy but I don't think he's the second coming.

I can't believe you're making the popularity argument. You have good taste in music. You know that being popular doesn't mean something has merit. :rolleyes:

And now you're going to change your avatar on a daily basis just to mess with Rob, right? :p

[RobMoney$]

Yeahwho makes it hard for me to support Obama.

[yeahwho]

George W. Bush won twice and he was still a deeply flawed candidate.

You know that I'm a big fan of yours. This isn't personal. I just don't like Obama as much as you do. I will happily vote for the guy but I don't think he's the second coming.

I can't believe you're making the popularity argument. You have good taste in music. You know that being popular doesn't mean something has merit. :rolleyes:

And now you're going to change your avatar on a daily basis just to mess with Rob, right? :p

Yeahwho makes it hard for me to support Obama.

I may be a bit overboard, but only to make up for some complete and total bullshit accusations aimed at the Barack.

I'm supporting a candidate and I'm happy to do it, in fact way happier than I have been in years. Kerry was a very good man, his laid back style was admirable but it did not inspire me "to be" or "to do" better or to actually get involved. Kerry probably helped with this idea (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/) for the Obama camp.

My gut feeling is this, it will not be a cakewalk for Obama, he is going to get hit hard before November from many fronts, everything is at stake here.

So what I'm going to do for both RobMoney$ and Documad , not post anything Obama in reply to either of you again until after November. That should keep your gag reflexes in check. Your grown ups and can make your own judgments about this presidential race. So why should you need me to chime in with my 2 cents? I'm supporting Obama, that's that. No hard feelings and no problems, you can pounce on me over any perceived or actual blatant Obama sycophancy and I'll pretend I didn't read it.

[Documad]

No, yeahwho. You should enthusiastically support your guy and post about him all you want. I hope you will continue to reply to me. Just understand that people who aren't as enthusiastic as you might also be good, smart people. You can compliment Obama and criticize McCain all the time and I hope you do so.

I agree that this election is going to be much much harder than people currently believe. It's going to get really ugly. The more racist the anti-Obama comments become (and that stuff will be below the radar), the more firm my commitment to him will become. I'm already furious at the nonsense thrown at his wife.

We need to focus on how bad McCain would be as president. I have friends who are thinking about voting for McCain and all of these friends are pro choice, so I keep reminding them that the winner might get to replace three supreme court justices. Also, an elderly man with a bad temper would be a disaster in the white house.

I can't believe you're putting me on ignore. :(

[saz]

I mean really. So fucking what. Obama is going to have to rape and kill baby puppies before most of his supporters, I count myself as one, will withdraw our vote for him. This (FISA vote/public finance..all of it) is certainly NOT going to tarnish his image in any way.

Look at McCain, how many times has that leopard changed his spots to fit the tree he climbed? And I don't hate John McCain, I still like him.


but where are these people today, who is the ideal candidate today?


no, it's not going to tarnish his image, but it's a wake-up call to the realities of obama. "so fucking what"? caving into republican demands of granting immunity to telecommmunication corporations is just wrong. but anyways, if you want to support obama obviously that is your perogative and you have every right to do so. you know that i will occassionally point out some criticisms i have of him, but at least my criticisms are legitimate and aren't bullshit fluff criticisms, such as flag lapel pins, patriotism or reverend wright. obama's faults though don't come even nearly close to mccain's, who has clearly proven himself to be a total joke. you've pointed out that obama has slim leads over mccain, but how about the recent newsweek and other polls that show obama with a 15 point lead? obama is even leading mccain in many of the swing states. he's even leading mccain now in montana (http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/poll_shows_obama_beating_mccain_in_montana/C37/L37/), a really hard red state. i think that obama is going to kick the shit out of mccain in the general election come november, a total landslide. america loves him and after eight years of george bush and dick cheney, i think america has every right to.

and i couldn't agree with you more, as i've been adamantly posting about mccain's blatant flip-flopping and double-talk, hypocritical bullshit. i don't like john mccain at all. i think he's an idiot (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/01/mccain-hasnt-always-toute_n_110231.html). in 2003 he says that military service isn't crucial for a commander in chief, but in 2008 his campaign says that it is. and he had the audacity to participate in a campaign against tammy duckworth, an iraq war vet who lost both of her legs, a nasty campaign which accused her of wanting to cut and run.

and who is the ideal candidate today? well there's nader and mckinney. and you know that they have the best platforms for america. and to claim that ideal candidates never win is just flat-out wrong, especially when you consider what's been happening in central and south america. you've got luis inacio lula da silva in brazil, evo morales in bolivia, michelle bachelet in chile, fernando lugo in paraguay, rafael correa in ecuador, and although he's a bully and someone i'm not particularly crazy about, hugo chavez's agenda for the poor and working-class, and his social programs in venezuela are quite inspiring.

[D_Raay]

Well unfortunately someone who is extremely rich and has sound financial backing (special interests) are the only candidates with a legitimate shot here.
As a matter of fact, an ideal candidate would have to be crazy to even run for the office. It isn't even about leadership anymore it's about who can connect to the people, which isn't leadership it's acting.

[alien autopsy]

the ideal candidate wouldnever be allowed to get close to the whitehouse. the media would not allow him/her to enter a serious battle for the presidency.


the fact of the matter is, there will never be a man or woman elected into high office who stands for real change. its a threat to the entire system that supports the upper class of this country. the ruling elite are too powerful and too organized to let a mistake like this happen. the media is such a powerful tool.