Krieger

Howard Dean already has 7.5 million dollars for his presidential campaign. Only his Democrat rivals John Kerry and John Edwards have more campaign money than he does.

If Howard Dean didn't have that 7.5 million, he'd be in the same place that Kucinich is now.

Optional

Yeah, and almost all of that was through small internet donations from individual people. It's one of the remarkable things about Dean's campaign; he's the first candidate ever to really use the internet in an effective way.

The phrase 'ultra-moneyed', to me, means BIG money, industries and corporations and the like. Not individual voters.

Too bad. Would've been nice to hear Dean had some actual corporate support. Gonna be necessary to beat BushCo, and unfortunately Dean's policies aren't exactly conducive to Big Business.

-me

Krieger

Heh, you don't have to believe me. Just wait and see for yourself. If Howard Dean is elected president he will be another Bill Clinton repeat. However, I'm betting the farthest he'll get is to be John Kerry's VP candidate.

Ion

That would be good already.

Better than Bush anyway:

.) economy;

.) no wasteful wars and lies about them.

Krieger

Unfortunately, Howard Dean is not a god (although I'm sure that some of you probably disagree with me). Howard Dean can not replicate the tech bubble that existed in the 1990s which the Clinton administration enjoyed. It was the tech bubble that briefly increased the number of decent paying jobs in this country. But then the tech bubble went pop!

Clinton also had his share of wars/foreign affairs... The illegal invasion of Yugoslavia; he enforced economic sanctions against Iraq, which killed nearly a million people; he bombed the largest pharmaceutical factory in Sudan; and finally there was the bombing campaign "Operation Desert Fox" (fittingly named after the Nazi general Rommel) which also killed many more Iraqi civilians.

Daggah

Simple fact is that IF voting for Dean (or whoever ends up running on the democratic ticket) does not advance the "liberal" cause in America, then advancing the "liberal" cause in America is simply NOT as important as getting Bush the fuck out of office.

Period.

Pomp

The point isn't that Howard Dean is a god...the point is that, of the existing pack of realistic candidates, a lot of us are of the opinion that he's the best option. No, he's not a pure representation of anyone's ideological best case scenario for a candidate. He's as conflicted and compromised as any other candidate. That's what politics is about, though. One drawback to living in a society full of other people who have a say in their government is that they don't all agree with me. Politicians have to find common ground pocitions that they can run from. WHile I would certainly love to vote for the "living wage, 30 hour work week, highly progressive tax brackets" candidate, most people in America right now would not and, thus, it would be political suicide for a candidate to run on my best case platform. So, unless and until some sort of revolution takes place, I have to make do and vote for the candidate whose compromised position most nearly represents my ideal. Of the current lot, that looks to be Dean.

That doesn't mean I don't intend to look into Green candidates for local offices, mind you, but, as I've tried to convince you before, Krieg, I think it's irresponsible of the Green Party to run hopeless, if ideologically pure, candidates at a natiojnal level just yet. They aren't going to win until they've built the foundation (by electing governors, representatives, etc.) and making the futile attempt just draws leftist votes off of best realistic alternative (Gore then, Dean now) and furthers the agenda of the far right.

RED DAVE

No, it's irresponsible for the Democratic Party to run pro-corporate, conservative, poseurs, who have no problem co-existing in the party that has supported Bush in every foul thing he's done since he was elected.

RED DAVE

Krieger

Pomp, only capitalist candidates have a "realistic" chance at winning the "elections" in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that we live under. The point of voting Green (or for another left-wing candidate) is to show your opposition to the establishment and to help build a mass movement to overthrow their rule. Change will only come through revolutionary class struggle, but first we have to build the mass opposition movement.

excreationist

Maybe the reason why he wanted to have a lot of money for his campaign was so he had a good chance of winning.... or do you think he should have had, say $50,000 for his campaign?
In 2000, people donated about $696 million dollars to elect George W. Bush and a GOP Congress. For parties, such as the Democrats, to begin to gain your respect should they spend like $10 million for the whole national campaign?
To get exposure to the same extent as your rivals costs a lot of money. But if campaigns for established parties were publically funded, like I said earlier, there wouldn't need to be that problem, and it wouldn't need to come from the rich.

Was that war based on lots of untruths? Also, less of the world was strongly opposed to the war. Though he did lie about Monica.

Saddam would have been partly responsible - he could have diverted some of the money he spends on building palaces to feed the starving - and he could have met the demands that the economic sanctions were about (if there were any).

He might have been convinced it was a chemical weapons factory or something.

So maybe that U.S.'s foreign policy is bad. But still, it is about the lesser of two evils. If Bush is re-elected because left-wing people don't vote Democrat then there might be a better chance of the second Patriot Act being passed... and that is scary... and Bush might make things even worse in other ways.