Not Your Sweetie

(#139) (Rated 5.00/4)

by Donna Z on 03/13/2004 09:47:27 AM EST

Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply

Thoughts:
First up is Dean. Dean (and Gore most likely) have soiled their insider  nests. If Dean has any leverage, it is the number of his followers, and not his value as a respected Democratic figurehead. Dean has no gravitas to spend, and surprisingly to some, no ideas. That is what always got me about the Dean craze; no ideas. Healthcare? everyone wants healthcare. And what does the phrase mean: you've got the power to take America back. From what and for whom pop into my head, and yet, Dean never said.
What Dean did do was question the war, what Dean couldn't do was question it effectively. When I saw him on Meet the Press and he could not answer as to how many troops were in Iraq, I, who was seriously considering joining the movement, gave up any such consideration. The least a candidate can do, especially one coming out "anti-war" with no foreign policy credentials, would be their "homework." Gheesh!
Dean is holding back his followers because it is the only coin he has.
And now Edwards. No one can offer up a compelling rationale for Edwards. His supporters keep talking about him being from the South. Great. But Southerners even more than Northeners don't particularly like trial lawyers. Edwards only foray into politics as a Senator encompasses a period of two years "on the job" and two years of actively campaigning for president. It is a record so dismal that even NC didn't want to vote for him again. Being smart does not equate being experienced. Edwards has no executive experience. He has no foreign policy experience. He has no military experience. He has nearly no legislative experience. He does have the Clintons and access to money.
The Democrats however never fail to fail me. (Sorry General, you are the exception to the rule.) I am quite prepared to say WTF when the big announcement comes.
General Clark's latest message. Thank you sir, we are out here and need to hear from you. The more often the better, since your leadership skills have taught you team building. And even though it may seem a burden at times, we are your team.
Anyway, I read the e-mail that General Clark is moving toward something. Figuring out what went wrong with the campaign would seem to be completed, and he wants to plan for a November victory. That victory is simple and political: get bush etal out of power. If one includes personal agendas, the plan becomes more complicated and therefore more prone to failure. The one thing I am sure of about Wesley Clark, and one of my greatest joys in supporting him as well as one of my greatest sources of saddnesses is not being able to put "President" on his resume, is that he tells the truth. There is no hidden agenda and I did not hear VP in that message. I hope I heard that his future plans include organizing us, but I believe he wants us to organize the Kerry non-existant grassroots.
The grassroots. While I see an effort on the part of Kerry's campaign to manufacture grassroots, I believe that his campaign really doesn't get it. I've said it before and I will say it again, the "roots" are more than just a cash cow, we are ideas. With some of the feelers being put out by the Kerry campaign, I am shocked that the base and the activitist would be so ignored and insulted. I spent Thursday in a complete fury over this. I am still angry and become more angry when I hear pro-war, anti-women names being put into the vp spot.
The D-bunker is a place of input and should be supported, but the actions of the Kerry campaign must show me more than just a call of "work for me." Does the Democratic Party understand that being united ABB lights no fire in the belly?