I don't have any answers. I do have some questions for anyone willing to answer.

Clinton led the charge of the new democrats in the 90's. The thinking was that a democrat could never get elected by catering to the left wing of the party. So the party put the progressive issues that had defined the party on the back burner took a more centrist platform and, hey, Clinton was elected. Great, but is this kind of focus group politics what the party needs now?

Wouldn't it be better if the democrats took the high ground and just stuck to attacking Republicans on policy rather than calling everyone who disagrees with them a Nazi?

Is the South lost for the forseeable future?

Steve

it's sad that the only time you can have an interesting conversation on TV without yelling or name calling is two times a week when an author is on for the final 8 minutes of the Daily Show.

yeah i was surprised how civil it was with newt the other night.

he's great with people from the right. he's never condesending, always very respectfull and still has the courage to throw out the occasional hard question.

in fact, it almost seems like he has more respect for people from the far right.

Chad, you are getting the John Peter Zenger Award for the day. Well said, and dead on.

Agreed, but it's not a news show. As Stewart himself said on the infamous Crossfire appearance when he challenged Tucker and the other dumbshit to ask the hard questions they pushed back on Stewart. To which he responded something like "My show follows a show with puppets making prank phone calls". Stewart does ask good questions, but the Daily Show is not a news program. They do however perform an excellent community service by pointing out the steaming piles of hypcrisy and irony.

The real problem is the 24/7 news outlets providing little more than 20 second sound bites on even the biggest stories, unless of course it's another high speed chase from L.A. then we get the whole fucking thing, and right wing owners and editors in charge of nearly every major media outlet. Press, radio and TV are now totally dominated by a alf dozen like minded right-wing individuals. The whole left wing media bias is, and has been, a complete load of crap since The Telecommunications Act of 1996 gave the boys with the big money the opportunity to monopolize entire markets. They didn't waste any time doing it either.

The press needs some work, but my bigger concerns are the staged presidential press conferences and town hall appearances with rabid aupporters fawning over W. It's like the MTV Music Awards with fans screaming "I LOVE YOU" as W takes the stage. Blind faith.

When terms like "no child left behind" and "clear skies initiative" are bandied about, the mainstream media needs to have the chutzpa to illustrate the contradictions.

OK I'm going to take a nap now. This shit is tiring.

Question one is more complex, and I've got some work to finish, but I'll come back to it.

2. That's only part of the problem. Too many knee-jerk reactions on both sides, but when you are in the minority it is easily pointed out. The problem a lot of these Bush conspiracy hand jobs don't realize is that when they babble on and on about all the ties to the Bushes and House of Saud and the bin Ladens and this great Illuminati-inspired plan to rule the world, they sound just as credible and rooted in the real world as all the right-wing hand jobs who claimed Hillary shot Vince Foster and Ron Brown's plane was shot down.

The GOP doesn't cart around Pat Robertson on a rickshaw like the Dems do with Michael Moore, Al Franken, et. al. Sure, they take the money, but let them do their ranting from the 700 Club confines rather than on the big screen.

The other problem is too few Democrats are willing to propose real plans for real solutions to real problems. Instead they flail about and piss & moan on things like unfairness and lying. Boo hoo. You can only be bullied if you allow yourself to be bullied. Period.

3. I don't believe the South is lost at all, but Dean, H. Clinton or Kerry have no chance. The Democrats need to stop harping on how they are different than Republicans, but start showing how they are similar.

I'll be back, and you'll all be sorry.

Swiateck:
when i said "reform the shit out of the press", i was speking more figuratively, not in that i would trust the government to do that (see, NPR, PBS). But One thing that can certainly be reformed is the corporate ownership laws that allow weapons makers to help goad us into war or sell more fucking SUVs. Having the same retarded billionaire own half the radio stations in this country is FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG.
it's not like showing the negative connotations of this war would really be all that thought provoking. European press does it all the time. The picture of the Iraqi boy with his limbs all blown the fuck off didn't incite any riots over there, but it certainly was a slap in the face for a lot of people.
it really just comes down to american press being more or less dead. I don't trust anything i read in paper anymore because i'm tired of watching them half-assedly swallow everything they're fed. Why wasn't the Gannon incident reported until 3 weeks late, and on page 13 at that? People in this country are losing so much ground every fucking day because of whitewashing and retardization. Fucking 40% of people think Bill O'Reilly is a reporter! CNN hires anchors now more because of how they look than their integrity! Doesn't that scare the shit out of anyone else?I don't want people to be forced to read the news, but an independant media in this country (that isn't on the internet run by a dude in tightey whiteys in his mother's basement) that isn't obligated to cater to corporate ownership or how hot their anchor is.

But really, this isn't anything new. See William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Pulitzer and the Spanish-American War.

yeah, im not a big fan of news agencies being owned by corporations that own companies that make missles and bombs....

Preach on.

just because something is not new i should be okay with it? How are we supposed to make progress if we can't be indignant?

also, i just wanted to post this too. because it's awesome.

The short answer? Yes.

Name the full-on progressive Presidents of the 20th Century, or a President who would fit a current definition of the Progressive Democrat that the Naderheads think they need.

That list is full of guys like Hubert H. Humphrey, Estes Kefauver and Walter Mondale.

Paul Wellstone was a much needed voice in American political discourse, but he's not even a candidate, much less an actual President.

EDIT: HHH, Mondale and Wellstone. What the hell is in the water up there in Minnesota, eh?

I'm not arguing with that, I think people just tend to lose sight of how far we haven't come.

Hell, at any given time, half the people in the country are of below average intelligence. And more than that just don't care.

We seem to think that because that the prevalence and promptness provided by cable and internet news makes us somehow more educated or informed, but we aren't. 100 years ago, people were pre-occupied with making sure Johnny's iron lung was working and the corn was planted. These days it's making sure Johnny gets to soccer practice and the SUV is nice and clean for the other parents to see. People are naturally selfish. Since news usually doesn't pertain to them, they don't really care.

So this is what happens when I have to work outside all day....

Carry on soldiers.

Well, at least get your buddy over here! Starts shit and then disappears.

Steve

not sure how much shit is goin' on though. just' bullshit as usual. i try not to get too involved with the politics shouting matches that go on here, because it's just stupid and i get worked up way too easily.

yeah but it's fun.

I...oh, nevermind.

I think you could add FDR and Jimmy Carter to the list.

In reality, no president lives up to the progressive label people like Nader and Kucinich champion, but there were a few presidents who at least appeared to be left-of-center populists.

I'll give you FDR and Carter, but they are the exceptions. It could also wouldn't be hard to argue that they were also elected in response to rather serious national affairs. This is not to diminish FDR's legacy, programs or to kick him in the shins though (not that his atrophied sticks would have taken on much damange anyway).

Carter would fit your criteria, and he may be the most virtuous, nice and trustworthy politician on the planet, but that doesn't mean shit. He was a shitty president, which is why he only suffered through one term anyway. Hell, Franklin Pierce was trustworthy and honest, and he's mostly forgotten--as Carter should be.

okay....what if Joe Biden and McCain ran together on the reform ballot?

Only if they called it the Delawarizona Party.

yea, this one really jumped off the page at me too...great point

Damn, I think you just made a dream ticket. I love Biden.