We're not losing a potential president...

The truth is, in my view, the left never embraced John Kerry, even though he is/was in fact a very good liberal. I remember February 2004, being at the very first general meeting of New Democratic Majority (NDM)over at cinema classics in the east village. This was weeks after the New Hampshire primary, and just after Howard Dean had formally dropped out. The room was full of Dean supporters, and some Kucinich supporters, enthusiastic to form a new group and keep the campaign energy going. We talked about a lot of things at that meeting, issues and such, but one thing barely even mentioned was the name "John Kerry" Someone (not me) stood up late in the meeting and said something like, "is anyone here going to mention John Kerry's name and working with the Kerry campaign?" It was obvious by then that Kerry was going to be the nominee and yet there was no enthusiasm, none, for him. Nobody wanted to talk about him. Part of the problem I think was even though Kerry was a good liberal, he was also DLC, he was establishment. Part of the problem was also there was lingering bitterness among many Dean followers for how his campaign got taken out in Iowa, and what role if any Kerry's camp had in it.

Many of the most active people I knew on the left, people in that room at the first NDM meeting, had a passion for defeating Bush, a passion for pushing the right issues, but no love at all for Kerry. Just as many on the left had no passion for Gore in 2000. It still amazes me that the guy (Gore) who would have been the most pro-environment president in our nation's history was shot down in part by those in the key states who voted for the GREEN party candidate! In the following months I went from being a very active Dean supporter to supporting Kerry. I went to Marjorie Gersten's Brooklyn for Kerry meetups wearing a Kerry button and expecting to find other Dean and Kucinich supporters lining up behind our nominee. At least certainly after Edwards dropped out and the primary season was effectively over. I saw very few. I went to the NDM meetings every month that first year and was often the only one to be seen in the room wearing a Kerry button. Even in the days before the election, when I went enthusiastically on the locally organized buses out to Ohio to canvass for days, and expected to see many fellow NDM and DFNYC members, I saw very few. Most seemed to prefer working on local campaigns and voter registration than to have to go door to door enthusiastically pushing the name "John Kerry"

The 2000 campaign result was clearly a disaster. Gore should have been president and would have been a great president. Kerry would have been a fine president. We'd have a better world today with either of them having been president. But we got eight years of Bush instead because neither Kerry nor Gore fully inspired the left the way Bush did the right. They were both too establishment for many on the left, liberal but not liberal enough. This brings up the question, "can you be TOO idealistic?" Can you be too picky, as if you not only have to have something thats the right color, but it better be the exact right shade of that color. I think you can. I think many of us on the left want a candidate we can fall in love with, and do not react the same way when the candidate is not that person. You get a fine and totally competent candidate, somebody like a Kerry or a Gore, who you can respect but for whom there simply isn't any love, and when that happens you can end up not having your heart in their campaign.

This has happened the last two presidential cycles for the Democrats, it helped the Republicans beat the fine people and good liberals we nominated, and it could do so again. This is one reason I'm conflicted over who to support in the 2008 cycle. My sense is that Hillary Clinton is the one who would be the best, most competent President out of all the presumed candidates. My sense is also that the left will never fall in love with her because, like Kerry and Gore, she is too establishment. I think John Edwards might also be a fine president, but if the love for him was there, it would have been there four years ago. His being on the ticket didn't ignite any extra passion for Kerry. This leaves Barack Obama, who is right now the one candidate many on the left are courting and actually want to fall in love with. Obama might not make a better president, more qualified or competent, than either Hillary or Edwards, and he does lack their level of experience on the federal level. But if it means more on the left will have their hearts in the race, he could well be the best candidate. Which is one who can win.

You and Bouldin tend to see only what you want to see, and maybe I'm guilty of that too. Yes I do mention Hillary a lot and I happen to like her, but I have probably mentioned Obama just as much. I wrote effusively about him last year well before he decided to run. I was the one who put items on daily gotham about his book signings .etc But I'm not an Obama-bot am I? No I'm a Hillary-bot because Hillary is the one you don't like and therefore any positive talk about her irritates you (or certainly Bouldin) a lot more than similar talk about Obama. So you see what you want to see, which is hillary-bot.

This even when I have also repeatedly criticized her. Earlier I posted a response in Rock's item at room eight specifically saying that Hillary hasn't proved her leadership abilities, her executive skills, yet.

What I am seeing here is more zero-sum mentality. One side is all good and one is all bad. The kneejerk reaction to stereotype someone you don't agree with on one or more issues completely on all issues and all things. Bouldin in particular has gone out of his way to make it personal, calling me foul mouthed names, saying I'm a racist, saying I call other people racists, making character attacks. All because I disagree with his approach to certain political issues. He can't accept that we can have the same goals but different styles. In his view I'm not on the same page as him, I must be evil scum. So since Hillary epitomizes the things he doesn't like, I'm a hillary bot. Stereotyping. Labeling. Just the same sort of tactics the right uses and that we all despise. He won't give me half an ounce of credit that I'm not a hillary-bot, because in his zero-sum mentality where he's all good, I have to be all bad. I *have* to be a hillary-bot right>?

I don't lecture black people about what they should or should not talk about, that is absurd. I simply said that in my opinion, it doesn't help their/our cause if the race card is overplayed because some people are never going to respond the same exact way to those arguments. That is perfectly logical isn't it? How is stating what I think, for the sake of saying what I think, *lecturing*? I am not demanding others think the same way. Unlike Bouldin, and you to a lesser extent, who keep demanding I not say anything positive about Hillary or I am a bot.

Yes I get repetitious sometimes, and I need to work on not doing that, but thats only because one of the disadvantages of the internet is you are not always quite sure of the reaction your words are getting. So you wonder if you got your train of thought across well, and you get tempted to try again and again to get the words out right. It is also typical political style, how many stump speeches have you heard where the candidate makes the same points, for emphasis, again and again.

Also I have clearly noticed mole that you are far more likely to pick on me for issues of nuance or slight disagreement, than on bouldin or liza or others on these boards. I know you have strong disagreements with Bouldin on some issues, he is a libertarian after all essentially. You also think he is too abrasive at times. But you don't go after him about it like you just did in two responses to me. I think it is because he is a co-moderator here and on DG and you are more cautious, and you are much more reluctant to have heat with him, argue with him, than with me or other bloggers that you aren't dealing with every day. Thats part of being a clique, having a double standard for members of that clique. I'll get criticized by you for little things that you would never critize Bouldin or Liza for. Because I'm an easy target and there are fewer consequences. Likewise, he can trash me for being libelous and racist, when you know I'm not, and you won't say a thing to him. Too many consequences. You want to stay on his good side and stay on this board right? Have I ever heard you say, "Michael lay off him, you're getting carried away, you're wrong" No you won't do that, because its not worth it. But you'll lay into me when the occasion fits. You have a double standard.

Sitting silent while Bouldin chased me away from Daily Gotham because he has a grudge, when I was one of the few frequent substantive regular contributors, speaks volumes. If you want a site like that to grow, and be what it can be, you'd have said, "invite him back, give him a second chance" But you won't do that because you are more afraid of pissing Bouldin off than in doing the right thing. You put your own interests in maintaing harmony among the few moderators over any responsibility to make those who want to contribute feel welcome.

First of all, if someone supports the junior Senator, hey, be my guest. I happen to think that's a potentially catastrophic position, for reasons laid out in extensis elsewhere, such as here and here. This view is pretty widely held among Democratic strategists, by the way, certainly at the netroots and grassroots.

The larger point is this, though: I expect to be able to have a frank, realistic, and critical discussion of all the contenders. That's impossible when a HillaryBot, like our dearly departed Wallner, spams up every related thread with a variant of 'Oooh Hillary I want Hillary oooh and Bill too oooh yeah'. Wallner's arguments were, to sum them up, that

a) Bill and Hillary could sell themselves together, and who in their right mind would say no to that?

b) Hillary is considered, at this early stage, and by some metrics, the front-runner

c) Hillary is a woman, and it's about time for one of those.

Thing is, that's it. The end of the argument. And yeah, that gets kinda tedious. Granted, he feels comparably about Obama, but that would change if he were ever aware of the latter making a statement that addresses race issues, at which point HillaryBot Wallner would run screaming for the hills huffing about the 'race war' he'd be causing.

In short, HillaryBot Wallner has two themes: Hillary, and the assertion that talking about race in any context he's ever come across is harmful to civil discourse and 'turns people off'. And again, that's it, the end of the story, except that it's modulated again and again and again. "Repetitious"? Yeah, that's one way of putting it. As to the ludicrous idea that the Wallner-O-Rama's concepts somehow aren't getting through, Wallner, get over yourself. As I've said elsewhere, you're not that smart, and everyone else isn't that stupid.

And lastly, Wallner, please, for my sake and everyone else's, go get a therapist to talk out your issues, and don't spend all day hanging out on the blogs writing encyclopedias about yourself. I have an election to win and can't spend all day dealing with your cretinous bitchy whining.

The original post got me thinking about hiring school superintendents and casting musicals (also ranking standardized test scores, American Idol, etc). Individuals are not interchangeable, sometimes not comparable -- nor are their talents and style, contributions, their looks, personalities, etc, nor the times and challenges through which they must pass. One thing I saw with school superintendents is that any qualified candidate is either right or wrong for any given job, depending on everything else (most of which will be unknown and uncontrollable.)

And leadership success is perception seen in a rear view mirror.

Read anything of Howard Gardner's on leadership, for example:
"Whether direct or indirect, leaders fashion stories: principally stories of identity. It is important that a leader be a good storyteller, but equally crucial that the leader embody that story in his or her life."

On that single score, it seems to me (as a yahoo just watching) that Barack Obama and John Edwards hold a distinct advantage over Hillary Clinton and John Kerry for president in '08, and that Al Gore is roaring back in contention with a better integrated story of who he really is and why we should care.

mole said: "what finally got me about Wallner was his insistence that race shouldn't be discussed..." I never said race shouldn't be discussed! Again you misinterpret what I typed and rather than give me the benefit of the doubt, assume the worst possible interpretation. I find this quite insulting. And you wonder why I repeat things when I get misunderstood like this...sheesh! I said or was trying to say race is PART of a larger problem, the problem of human beings not getting along with each other that also involves class and economic disparity. Its a complex, multi-faceted problem, and when emphasize one part of the problem to the exclusion of all other parts of the problem, you distort things all to hell. Does that make sense to you?

And I also resent the accusation that I was lecturing this bi-racial couple on racism. I was not lecturing her, nor was I in any way saying she's a racist, I was saying just as I said above, that I question sometimes whether things are kept in the right perspective. That is ALL I was saying. I think she, having a black husband and mixed race kids, is probably and understandibly hypersensitive on the race issue. Thats fine. Hypersensitive does NOT mean misunderstanding, it means perhaps a reflexive tendency to overemphasize. Just as a woman who has had an abortion MIGHT by more sensitive on that issue than you or I. When you are closer to the fire, you can easily have (in my opinion) a perspective that is not quite as detached as someone who sees the fire from afar. Sometimes you can see more clearly how to fight a fire when looking at it from afar than from close up. Just as I said I thought, in my opinion, that you might have been hypersensitive about the situation in your daughter's playground because you were so close to it.

You talk about me "lecturing" and yet you do so yourself. In this very item you lecture me about nuance, about racism, about a lot of things. I think it makes you hypocritical. You didn't respond to anything constructive I said in my posts here, you only responded when you saw an opening to be negative and lecture and nitpick. And you don't even CARE when Bouldin lectures me, uses obscenties against me, and makes quite personal attacks (would you say telling someone you don't even know to go see a therapist is a bit of a personal attack?) You just don't care about anything he says. You'd get all over my case if I said half the ugly things about him that he's said about me, told him he needed therapy .etc, but when its him you won't.

You, mole, have a double standard. If you cannot treat people, all people, the same way, how do you differ from all the people causing wars in this world? Racism is CAUSED by those whose attitudes are dictated by accepting the same behaviours in some that you wouldn't accept with others. No, you are not a racist, but you are a hypocrite. You will lecture me. Only me. You choose who to pick on.

I don't think that shows common courtesy. I think it shows favoritism. I wanted to talk about Kerry and the candidates in this item. I didn't bring up all this past baggage. You drifted the item, because you wanted to pick on me, you and Bouldin just having to get your kicks in on a guy who's just trying to honestly participate.

Just when the thread was Kerry-centric again, with some very interesting points being made, the Wallner-O-Rama returns and demands to be the center of the discussion.

As to the claim that the Wallner never demanded race not be discussed ever, that's true. However, it should be noted that the Wallner has never come across any discussion of race in any context I can remember that didn't prompt this shrill wailing about 'pissing off people'. However, I've also never seen an example of people actually being pissed off by such discussions; perhaps these people simply don't read blogs, or these blogs. What I at least have seen, however, are people pissed at the Wallner and the presumptuousness with which the Wallner thinks to be able to determine what is and what is not fit for discussion.

So perhaps the Wallner should see fit to not bore everyone to tears and, yes, get some friends in the offline world. Because frankly, I've never seen this level of arousement in anyone on the blogs, ever. Seriously, nobody cares that deeply about what the Wallner thinks except the Wallner himself. And while that's true of everyone, the Wallner basically talks about nothing but the Wallner and how the Wallner is all-knowing and wise, supremely fit to tell everyone else what they hould be talking about.

Get a life, Wallner.

one online presence at least as single-minded, tediously repetitive, self-absorbed and conversation-killing over time as this persona (who I know not at all) is being described. She is a conservative Christian convert to homeschooling, called to make every possible discussion into a personal rant against the evils of charter schooling. If you gentlemen are sporting enthusiasts and since there are no juicy election contests on the near horizon, we could set up our own contest right here, perhaps? I say my troll can beat anything you guys have got on a wet or dry track! (Sex alone would be an advantage -- women may have less muscle but are typically longer enduring than men . . .)

mole, I have never said I am perfect or better than anyone else, nor that I consider myself any great authority. In fact I have specifically stated my universalist philosophy on these boards more than once (everyone is equally connected to everyone else) Yet you continue to imply I am some kind of egomaniac. You are simply taking the most negative intepretation of the things I type and the way I type them. I'm asking you to give me the same common courtesy you'd give the next person, the benefit of the doubt. We each have different styles.

The difference is I have not criticized your style, I have not gone out of my way to drift your posts into critiques of how you type or whether you put enough intonation into your posts. You act professorial and lecture sometimes too you know. Extend me the same courtesy you extend other users, regardless of how "annoyed" you get with my style of blogging or anyone else's. We each have our own way of doing things.

And Bouldin, you seem to have become some expert on whatever I've said in the past, like some obsessive nutcase who keeps folders with dirt on other people on their desktops and constantly collect information. I've never done anything to you but participate in your blogs. You on the other hand have made personal attacks again and again, and then go out of your way to remind others of those attacks in other items. Get over it. Get a life. How can you be a progressive when you are so vicious and mean spirited, tactless and cruel towards any fellow progressive? I'm not the one who comes across as conceited as all hell around here, nor is mole, it is you. What makes you so perfect that you think you have the right to act the same way towards others that you criticize them for acting towards you?

It's not my fault, Wallner, if you're a two-trick pony. As to the extent of your solipsism, re-read your last entry, and see how many sentences contain the words 'I', 'me', 'mine' and 'my'. Thing is, you're just not that interesting, even if you've said some memorably offensive things. As Mole points out, I can't really remember any other instance anywhere online or in meatspace where some old white dude tells an interacial couple that they don't understand racism, or a father that his daughter needs to suck up crap that he doesn't want to hear about. That's called being a creep, plain and simple.

You're just an old, bitter, self-righteous and boring white dude who has nothing better to do than lecture other people about how you're right and they're not. Not much to add to that, I'm afraid.

Getting back to the topic of this item, if the past could be done over, I know one thing Gore should have changed in 2000. Choosing Joe Lieberman as VP. Lieberman was too conservative and I knew more than a few on the left who did not vote for Gore because he was on the ticket. Gore chose Lieberman specifically because he had been the most critical about Bill Clinton's extra-curricular behaviour and the subsequent way he handled it.

I'm convinced that Gore would have won the electoral college in 2000 had he not chosen Lieberman, and had instead chosen as his vp, the number two guy on his list. The guy who had been the favorite until Gore's aides pointed out that he had his own issues with womanizing. A guy named John Kerry.

They were so afraid of "bimbo eruptions" re: Kerry after the Clinton experience that they chose Lieberman. That simple act cost them thousands of liberal/green votes in Florida and Ohio. Gore should have been president, Kerry VP, and this year we should have had Kerry running as the favorite.

Gore didn't even support Lieberman four years later for president. He supported Dean. You make bad decisions sometimes. Gore blew it choosing Lieberman over Kerry for his runnimgmate. In my opinion of course. Only my opinion.

about official fraud -- imo the most strategic redux likely would have been Gore immediately, legally insisting on a complete recount statewide, rather than picking and choosing only those districts in which he thought he was guaranteed to pick up enough votes. Power of story. And he should've insisted all the absentee military votes be included, etc. I think he lost it on the perception of his own gamesmanship, not official corruption. He was outplayed after the fact, when he could've had the high moral ground and either won or lost based on however all the chips fell. That is really putting the voters first rather than one's own interests.

(I still would lay odds that he would've lost in 2000, but then there would've been no SoreLoserman, and Gore could've triumphed in 2004 as the long-suffering and clearly most deserving, which he may do anyway in '08, presumably with a different running mate, although Lieberman does have some singular "unbeholden" ground staked out now . . .)

BTW, I somehow missed the news that the Senate reorganizing resolution Jan 12 locks in Dem party control even if they should lose the member majority during the next two years -- clever boots!

good points, but the thing is Gore should never have needed to win Florida. If Gore had won Tennessee and either West Virginia and Arkansas (both of which were reliably blue throughout the Clinton years, or one of those states and Nevada, he could have won without Florida. Those states, AR, TN, WV, are devoutly bible belt christian states with very very few jewish voters. Sad to say there are some states, and I grew up in one of them, which to this day aren't going to elect anybody jewish.

Bush won by just five electoral votes in 2000, 271-266. Florida wasn't necessary to win. All Gore had to do to win was win WV's five votes, which had gone democratic for many many years. Or carry his home state of Tennessee's 11 votes. Or Arkansas' six votes. Or Nevada's five votes. And he would not have needed Florida, he would have won anyway. Those states were all so close in voting that unfortunately I think its logical to think the difference in one or more of those states might have been rural democrats who didn't vote or voted Bush because of Lieberman being on the ticket, and their being reluctant to vote for a non-Christian.

I think Gore's people made a strategic error betting the whole pot on Florida, and for that reason and the Clinton thing picking Lieberman. Yes Kerry is more liberal than Lieberman and the states I mention are conservative states. But, based on what I have seen living in that area of the country, I believe there are more than enough people down in the bible-belt so devoutly attached to the bible, that they'd vote even for a liberal christian over a conservative jew. Or a conservative black man for that matter. Its just a sad reality.

And don't take any of that to mean that I personally am against jewish candidates being on the ticket. I specifically suggested in a previous post a while back that Obama consider Chuck Schumer as his runningmate. Obama for instance isn't a southerner like Gore, I don't know if he could carry any deep south states regardless if who is on the ticket. So his strategy would have to be different. Also I believe 2006 has shown that Ohio has finally turned solidly blue. You get Ohio and you don't need to bet the farm on florida or on picking off two or three bible belt states. So the equation ends up being different.

The power of this story (blogpost) started out arguing (very well, I thought) that an individual like John Kerry can be more true to his personal ideals and more influential as a national leader, if he commits himself to working effectively in the Senate rather than running ineffectively on another ego trip trying to win the presidency for himself.

Presumably we should ask the same question about each candidate and all Dems collectively, not just Gore and Lieberman (and Edwards in '04, who we brought in upstream somewhere) but now as we add Obama and Schumer into it, too.

(The same considerations apply to Rs, no doubt, but alluding to any likeness between the parties is considered affrontery here, so never mind that!)

WOuld m.Loutre care to extend the case made for Kerry staying in the Senate, to others? Can anyone persuade me that whether any one of them can win the White House or not, that individually and/or collectively all these Dem senators will be more effective at moving the progressive agenda forward for America, by spending the next two years and a bazillion do-gooder dollars OUT of the Senate?

From previous: (an individual like John Kerry can be more true to his personal ideals and more influential as a national leader, if he commits himself to working effectively in the Senate rather than running ineffectively on another ego trip trying to win the presidency for himself.)

Good point. One I think applies well to Al Gore. Many of us would like him to run for President and push global warming and his fossil fuel tax proposal. But the thing is that Gore himself may not think that running for President again in '08 is in the best interests of pushing those arguments. He has spent years since 2000 pushing the global warming cause to both sides of the aisle as a non-partisan catastrophe-in-the-making that needs immediate attention. Gore might well think that if he runs for President, everything he says-- including about global warming-- would start to be seen in a partisan context at least until the election is over and maybe for some time after that.

So he may well think that his running again for President would be putting his own personal needs/ambitions over the needs of his cause. He could possibly be seen as a more effective champion of fighting global warming thus if he stays on the sidelines then if he gets in the race. I'm sure Gore would never want to present the appearance that he was or had been using his fight against global warming purely to build a base for a political campaign, which is what detractors would say he did/was doing if he wins the oscar for best documentary and then runs for president.