"What the heck were they doing in the 60s and 70s not to get busted in some protest?"

Skiing.

I see a broken graphic here, as opposed to what should be a picture.

Why trust a fellow bonesman?

Maybe Dean would be doing better if the media supported him as much as they do Kerry.

Would be a real shame to end up with Bush Light. one who's beholden to the same people.

IXLNXS,

It's totally unfair to reduce Kerry's long record of voting and activism to a single vote and call him Bush-lite. Dean never had to cast that vote.

IXLNXS:

It does not matter. Dean came in 3rd in Iowa (not even in the South). ALL HIS MONEY AND HIS MACHINE. 3rd.

He may come in second in NH (but look at his fall there). It is all over for the good doctor.

3RD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look, none of these guys is progressive or a real Lefty, aside from Kucinich and Sharpton, who won't win the nomination. They're all pretty much cut from the same cloth. Whoever wins the presidency this year, the Left will have to do serious organizing to prevent further corporatization of our society. A Bush victory creates more awful conditions, but a simpler strategy: oppose EVERYTHING the President does, period. A Dem victory is strategically more of a challenge, one we never quite got a handle on when Clinton was in the White House. Either way, we'll still have the huge task of building a genuine Left in American politics.

This is one of the reasons why I sometimes emphasize with the Dean-haters, because although I have no problems (still) with the good Doctor against Bush, Kerry clenches up my guts but good.

Because we lose both coming and going with him:

That (broken) graphic of a "protesting 60's hippy-dippy radical" will be a major load to carry into the general election. Everybody from the lower middle classes on up don't see anything wrong with Starbucks, but Vietnam War protestors are now regarded as outside the pale in socially uptight America. You can bet the graphic sure won't be broken when Rove & Co. links to it.

But what makes it worse is that the present John Kerry seems to have none of the idealism, none of the true fire to change things that we (would) see in the picture. JFK 2004 is like the Washington DC Club remix of JFK 1971. That is, as lame and commercial as Limp Bizkit's Behind Blue Eyes.

PS: Isn't the blogworld just cool? Where else would you get an anonymous poster commenting on an invisible picture and actually have people read what he wrote?

John Kerry was a Vietnam Veteran Against the War though, and not just some sort of 'hippy-dippy radical'. Look it up and I think you'll understand that it won't be an issue. Especially given Bush's own war history.

is it this pic.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/k_arrest.jpg

the site, 'vietnam veterans against john kerry', has quite a few more:

http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm

Kerry is great.

Guess what? The world is not a perfect easy picture. Too bad for those who haven't figured this out.

Too bad for George Bush.

Thoreau was in jail for not paying the poll tax. When Emerson asked,"Henry, what are you doing in there?" Thoreaus supposedly answered,"Ralph, what are you doing out there?"

Joe

Is the cop in the foreground Bob Hope?

>Look it up and I think you'll understand that it won't be an issue

I do know the background.

Look up Max Cleland, former Senator from Georgia, and I think you'll understand why it will be an issue.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. It is also true that a properly spun picture can obviate a thousand words of truth.

PS: wait until Rush Limbaugh notices that the guy in front of Kerry looks like Alec Baldwin.

Jeebus.

First, let's hope that Lieberman brings it up as a campaign issue NOW. Then it will be old news by the nomination.

Second, there is a solid set of Americans who regard the 1960s activists as the greatest evil ever in the US. Maybe 25-35% of the country. Yes, these are the people who hated Clinton from the day they heard he held the anti-war event in the UK, and spent 8 years hounding Clinton every step of the way.

But this is Bush's base. You'll never get their votes anyway. Middle America will forget this issue if it is brought up early enough in the campaign.

Finally, for fun, see Doonesbury on Kerry back in 1971 (Atrios I think gave this link):

http://www.doonesbury.ucomics.com/strip/dailydose/index19711021.htm

http://www.doonesbury.ucomics.com/strip/dailydose/index19711022.htm

http://www.doonesbury.ucomics.com/strip/dailydose/index19711023.htm

If you want the scoop on Kerry check out "The New Soldier" by John Kerry and the Vietnam Vets Against the War. It is an older publication that are in his own words with and an excerpt from his statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (April 22, 1971).

(I was only 3 yrs/old, but I think for an old guy he rocks !!!!!)

Kerry is a consumate politician who went against 23 of his fellow Senators to vote for war in Iraq.

Period.

He's better than Bush. But he is a horrible Democratic nominee, and that's the fight we're waging now.

the mod squad!

Here is my response to Jimm over at Calpundit's as to Kerry and the coming election....

Jimm:

I have to agree with rachelrachel about Dean. I think he does his cause a great disservice when it comes to attacking "the party." The party is not in a struggle for its soul no matter what the big media headlines say. We Dems do NOT have an ideological fight with each other. Let's review:

1) pro-choice
2) anti-mess in Iraq
3) for closing corporate loopholes (anti-big corp power grab)
4) pro-environment
5) pro-civil and women's rights
6) pro-union/right to organize
and on it goes.

The fight is NOT within the party as you have and the mainstream media have suggested. The fight is with Bush. The notion that this is not about Bush is a misread.

But, here is my take on Dean (remember, I gave him early $):

Dean went out to the grassroots and found out low and behold that people were upset. Where the hell were the Democratic leaders in the last election and why were they so cowed when it came to the question of Iraq? (Something I will not go into here, but might later under a different topic.) Dean also discovered, low and behold, that the Democratic party has a vast number of people that it can attract when actually organizing (unlike the Republicans--which I will not go into under this topic). So, I don't think Dean is smart by any means, but I do think he was the first to tap what was already happening; which is to say someone else would have done so because it was/is there.

Further, as Dean saw his message would not carry beyond the angry and the young, he fired his campaign manager. Watch us get a clean mouthed, middle of the road, "I just want to give health care" doctor for this next leg. I think Dean is a consummate politician, but unlike others, I actually DO respect good political skills. I just don't think Dean is good. If he were, he would not be bleeding as he enters the South.

Okay on to the question of any Democrat (will talk Kerry below) defeating Bush. Can it be done? Yes. I have looked at both maps--the congressional map and the electoral map (assuming that Bush's-daddy's friends don't give him the job, once he looses the popular vote--again). I cannot go into it all here but...

Bush is far more vulnerable in key battle ground states and the South than he was in the last election (its again the stupid economy--the only kind Republicans run). Also, in the last election Bush had Nader's help. Nader will not do again what he did this last round (run in contested states) if he does, he should taken out for a drive in car with no seatbelts and no passenger side airbags. The last point on Bush and then on to Gore... Bush is a complete f&*k-up if you pardon my boldness. There are smart Republicans/conservatives and then there are stupid conservatives. Bush is the latter (as Nathan has said many times). Bush has managed to piss off all of his fiscal conservatives (look at the budget) and other wings of the Republican party. For example, if I were a true fiscal conservative, I would sit my ass home in this next election. I would never give Bush support because the Bush wing of the party has completely abandoned fiscal conservatism for corporate cronyism. I am not suggesting that they will sit home, but I sure as hell would.

Let's talk Gore now and why I read his endorsement as the death knoll for Dean. For all the Dems anger at Bush and Nader, the last election was Gore's to loose. And he lost it. (As Nathan has said.) Gore did not loose it because he lost the popular vote. And, he actually did NOT really loose it because Nader ran in Florida. Gore lost it because he was and is a wimp. All his political life Al Gore played it safe. He never once went out on a limb. Al Gore did not say to the Supreme Court, "You give this race to Bush and I will let loose social unrest." In fact, Al Gore said quite the contrary, "While I disagree with the ruling, I will respect the will of the Court."

What a wimp. In my opinion, Gore deserved to loose. Every DEM across the country should be prepared to march in the streets if this thing goes to any court after having won the popular vote. Period.

Here is why I respect Kerry so much. I think anyone who actually went to a war (unlike Clinton) and came back and said this is bullshit, and then continued to run for the rest of his life as a Dem deserves real respect. I would never run for office because I cannot think of a more brutal thing to do in life. How hard is it? Hard. Damn hard. I think Kerry is a politician but unlike the squeaky "I don't want to get my hands dirty--holier than thou--Democratic wing of the Democratic party--life should be a simple perfect picture" naive folks, I like that Kerry is a good politician. We need good. We need better than good. We have a fight, a HUGE BIG FIGHT, a $200 million fight, on our hands. I actually think we have a fight that calls for Kerry, which is why I supported him early on. We have a fight where we need someone who actually understands that to win the big chair, we have to have all wings of the party united.

Kerry, on the other hand, has tackled Vietnam, Iran-Contra, women's issues, the environment and so on. Kerry's health care plan is better than Dean's over the long run. Dean's health care plan is a calculated piece of shit--to be honest. Giving health care to all kids in a population the size of Brooklyn during a good economic run is just not that impressive. (Also: Dean's tax policy sucks the big one).

Politically, Kerry is great in that he can pull all wings. Again, we are not in ideological warfare with each other. We have differences but they are not as deep as they once were.

My read is that the Democratic party is making the transition from Clinton's BS to a real return to fighting and standing up for what is right. People relied TOO heavily on Clinton's political skills. It is great that he had them but WE gave him passes on things he never should have been given passes on.

Kerry has told Bush, "bring it on." And is up to us the people to not cow at this critical juncture. History is on our side (another discussion, another day).

So yes, Jimm, there really is a Santa Clause. He is the voice of democracy and he needs to give Bush a kick in the ass with his big boot. And he will.

Kerry will win. I will put my money where my mouth is. It is your call.

peace, Aimie

BTW:

I don't like Clark, because while Kerry was fighting Iran-Contra, Clark voted for Reagan. Not to mention Clark's early kissing of Bush II's ass.

Edwards. Great he looks good. But what kind of person would give up their one term Senate seat and then go for the Presidency? He must want to be VP badly.

Aimee,

Thank you for your very thoughtful post. I have to disagree with you, however, on your assessment of the Democratic party infighting. While the fight against Bush & Co. is more significant, your summary of standard Dem positions papers over some serious disagreements within the party. I've written on other threads that the DLC is a 5th column for capital and reactionism within the Dem party, and I absolutely believe it. In fact, the DLC themselves basically make no bones about it by attacking "big government liberalism" and blathering on about the "3rd way". Well, the 3rd way basically amounts to being Rockefeller Republicans. Here are some serious policy differences in the issues you summarized:

1)Pro choice: should government pay for abortions, or just not lock up rich women who have them?

2)Iraq: there has been tons of disagreement on this. Do you really think there's no infighting here between, say Kucinich on the Left and Lieberman on the Right?

3)Corporate loopholes: the DLC loves big corporations. Lieberman personally fought for looser rules on stock options. Look at the Telecommunications law passed by Clinton. "Deregulation" is a huge part of the DLC 5th column strategy.

4)Pro-environment. Sure, if you mean snowmobile regulations. I'm not an expert on enviro issues, but it didn't take much to get Gore (admittedly a wimp) to back off of criticizing the oil economy, and I don't see the DLC going after energy interests and big industry at all.

5) Civil rights...well, most of the Dem centrists supported PATRIOT and Clinton was responsible for anti-civil liberties "anti-Terrorism" legislation, as well as supporting the death penalty. The Dem Left opposes these.

6) Pro-union right to organize. Generally there's agreement here (everyone endorses Employee Free Choice Act), but the business lobbyists would be WAY more comfortable with President Lieberman or Clark or even Edwards or Kerry than President Kucinich or Kaptur or Jackson, Jr.

Two big issues you don't mention: health care, where the DLC has basically given in to corporate interests and forced the party to stop advocating Medicare for All (again, except for Kucinich), and the Pentagon, where the DLC has never seen a weapon system they want to cut. So they support massive military budgets, are terrified of supporting increasing taxes, and have made life much easier for corporations.

I agree that the fight against the GOP is the obvious priority, but there's a reason so many on the Left, myself included, supported Nader last time. The prospect of decades of "debate" between the DLC and the GOP was too sickening to support. This intraparty fight also explains how Gray Davis went from a 60+% victory in 1998 to abandonment by the Left in Cali. And as I mentioned upthread the Left will still have its work very much cut out for it to prevent the DLC from screwing everything up again even with a Dem presidential victory.

Nick:

There are party differences (even in the Greens) and there are ideological differences. The Dems are not having an idelogical fight. That will come once we get the White House back.

Aimee,

I think the DLC has been engaging in an ideological fight against what they see as "big government liberals". They themselves have said so, and continue to say so, on numerous occasions. On this, I take them at their word.

I definitely agree that the top Dem presidential candidates aren't having an ideological fight -- but they're only rarely having a fight over policies, either. It's mainly who's the most likely to beat Bush, which is actually a perfectly fine criterion for a party picking a candidate. But the fact that the top candidates all share the same, DLC-influenced ideology doesn't mean there's no ideological fight within the party. It just means that that fight isn't manifesting itself in the Presidential primaries.

Nick:

Ideology, policy and politics are not the same, as you suggested. How about this: I do think we should consider giving the party chair to another. (Just because Dean is wrong on many things does not mean he is wrong on everything.) Terry McAuliffe probably should be up for a job review soon. The grassroots in the party can then declare that "The Era of Clinton-Gore is over."

peace, ;) Aim

Amen re: McAuliffe. On the other hand, if 2002 wasn't enough to get McAuliffe that job review, Aimee, I shudder to think what has to happen for him to get it...

Nick:

Did we call for it? No. For example, I did not read one webblog that said, "Union representation or no union representation, this guy is should get a pink slip." Dean made the call, but again he made the wrong call, he should have left it to the grassroots.

If you want, I will work with you to go over a job review and we can post it around the Net.

Aim

Kerry, what a joke. He is for the little guy? Hell when was he ever in the position of a middle class person? The answer, "NEVER". His and other liberal Democrats idea of the "Rich" is anyone grossing, not netting, between $200 and $600k. Just remember when these liberal say tax the "rich", they mean these people, not the ones most people think about when the word "rich" is used, like Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, Gates, Bush, Forbes, Trump etc. As we all know taxes do not affect these folks because of all the tax shelters, foundation, trusts, tax free bonds etc. Plus Kerry is, and has always been a big liberal, a pretty boy riding his Viet Nam military questionable history, which if all you recall he didn't want that to become part of his political campaign, but now that is all he refers to. Can't wait to see the old photos of Kerry with Hanoi Jane get published. Then we will see how many Vets back him.

Kerry, what a joke. He is for the little guy? Hell when was he ever in the position of a middle class person? The answer, "NEVER". His and other liberal Democrats idea of the "Rich" is anyone grossing, not netting, between $200 and $600k. Just remember when these liberal say tax the "rich", they mean these people, not the ones most people think about when the word "rich" is used, like Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, Gates, Bush, Forbes, Trump etc. As we all know taxes do not affect these folks because of all the tax shelters, foundation, trusts, tax free bonds etc. Plus Kerry is, and has always been a big liberal, a pretty boy riding his Viet Nam military questionable history, which if all you recall he didn't want that to become part of his political campaign, but now that is all he refers to. Can't wait to see the old photos of Kerry with Hanoi Jane get published. Then we will see how many Vets back him.

Actually, I heard on NPR that Kerry played bass in a rock band in the early 60's at college. They actually played a track. He rocked. Reason enough. With Arsenio gone, who can Kerry go on and play bass, a-la Clinton's sax?