DNC report from a MN Kucinich delegate

[no name no slogan]

I got this report from Charley Underwood, the delegate who cast a vote for Kucinich from the Minnesota delegation. He posted this to an email list-serv for the MN for Kucinich campaign. Charley, you might remember, was interviewed by Amy Goodman for Monday's Democracy Now! broadcast, where he told of the strongarm tactics used by convention organizers to control the delegates.

In this report, Charley confirms the things that many doubted happened on the floor: the confiscation of signs and handkerchiefs, the enforced "unity", the entire lack of dialogue between the delegates and those on the podium.

It's a very sad commentary in many ways, and really speaks to why so many people are alienated from our political process. But at the same time, it reinforces the importance of grassroots organizing, and how we can each make a difference in the process, and encourages us peacenik progressives to keep on fighting on, regardless of what happens November 2.

(I did get Charley's permission to share this with you, in case you're wondering about copyright, authenticity, etc.)

-------------------------------------------------------

July 31, 2004

I have been home a bit more than a day, and I wanted to give my perspective on the convention in Boston. Before I launch, I want to recommend Demi’s piece to you; I found it accurate and insightful (a previous post on the email listserv).

The first thing I want to say is that the entire convention was a sham. Perhaps I was naïve, but I went in with the perspective of Duluth (the MN Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party State Convention in May), where there was lots of expression from the delegates, including wrangling over platform, motions from the floor, significant interactions with other delegates. None of that was true in Boston; there were no discussions of platform, no microphones on the floor at all, no negotiations of any kind, no input of any kind from the delegates. By the end of the first night, I was very deeply upset, muttering things about “Stepford delegates” and wondering why they didn’t just get the crowd as extras from Central Casting, instead of going through the delegate selection process they did.

“Lock-step” doesn’t begin to cover the management of delegates by our minders. Since we were told that we could not bring in signs, I didn’t, but I made a sign on-site that said simply “Peace.” It was confiscated, and in a very clever way that left me with no possibility of confrontation. For the first two days, they were ambivalent about the pink scarves we had printed that said “Give Bush The Pink Slip; Delegate for Peace.” By Tuesday night, they were confiscating them by the hundreds at the metal detectors, and then going around the hall taking them from individuals. We confronted them on that one and got them to back off, but it was a tense battle that carried the risk of being ejected from the hall.

There was very tight control, even over the choreographed signs they passed out. If you held up a sign too early or too late, you got a reprimand. For example, if you held up a basically red Edwards sign from 15 minutes ago when everyone else was holding up the blue Edwards sign, you were in a bit of trouble. I saved myself grief by not holding up any of their silly signs.

So I want to say very clearly that this convention had absolutely nothing to do with grassroots politics or representative democracy. It was designed as a high-end infomercial. There was a constant drumbeat for “unity” and “message.” Sadly, the message was entirely about how qualified John Kerry was to lead our nation in war. There was no mention of our desire for peace, except for some of Dennis’s comments and a few unscripted remarks by Sharpton.

One of my biggest goals in attending the convention was to deliver a warning to a high level Kerry advisor. I believe that their strategy of selling Kerry as a more efficient war-monger is extremely dangerous. They run the risk of tens of millions of people staying home, since they see little distinction between Kerry and Bush when it comes to the war.

I got my chance on Sunday, when I attended a teachers’ union meeting with Kerry’s pollster Mark Millner. After his semi-rousing speech, they asked for questions, and I obliged. I asked if he didn’t think it was dangerous to ignore the millions of people who want us to end the occupation in Iraq, since it risks them staying home instead of voting. He replied that it was all the fault of the God-damned Republicans who were paying to get Nader on the ballot. I came back, saying that I was not talking about Nader or Republicans, but loyal Democrats who wanted to vote for somebody against the war in Iraq. He repeated his Republicans/Nader mantra again.

In other words, they have their plan: Run like Bush-lite, then blame Nader when you lose.

As I talk to you now about the actual delegate vote, I want to be very specific about the exact sorts of pressure we were all feeling. Going into the convention, Kucinich had already released his delegates and strongly requested that they vote for Kerry on the first ballot. After Sunday’s emotional meeting, Dennis became clear that he could not direct our votes that easily, that many felt bound by conscience to vote for him, despite his unity urgings. Or perhaps it was rather that many delegates could not morally vote for Kerry while he voiced support for war and for the occupation.

At our Minnesota state delegation level, the pressure was enormous. I imagine it was the same in other states. Dennis had released our votes; if we didn’t follow our leader, he would lose all credibility at the national level. Dennis was not even on the ballot; if we voted for him, it would only be recorded as “present” - - a sort of abstention. We were in a life or death fight against Bush and party unity was paramount; if we voted for Kucinich, it would be our fault if Bush won, and the state and local Democrats would be unwilling to work with us on anything - - our credibility with the party would be finished.

In that context, there was absolutely nothing to be gained by voting for Dennis, but everything to lose. In that context, our Kucinich votes would not be seen as votes in favor of peace and progressive issues, merely signs of party disloyalty which would benefit the Republicans. Nearly all of my fellow delegates, in deep anguish, abandoned what they saw as a quixotic fight, in favor of building alliances within the party. I held out for some language of withdrawal from Iraq as a condition, got stubborn, and became very much the spoiler in what would have been a very practical deal.

In the end, I became weary of so much talk about strategy. I just couldn’t vote for a guy who spoke so fondly about a more international and more efficient occupation of another country. It just doesn’t fit with what Mrs. Walker taught me back in the 3rd grade, about self-determination, the Declaration of Independence, and who has the right to rule a people.

The next morning, I gave a speech to the Minnesota delegation, explaining my vote of conscience, and my hopes for cooperation. In the end, I do not know whether the DFLers will work with the Dean and Kucinich types among them, or carry an ongoing resentment toward us because of my own willful decision. Time will tell. I only know that the consequent loss will be as great for them as it is for us, if we are shut out and cannot find ourselves in the DFL.

I hope you can forgive us all for any decisions we made in Boston. Please understand that we were all isolated, sleep-deprived, living in circumstances where others dictated our choices and asked for our moral decisions in a context controlled by them and totally new to all of us. With each hour since my return to Minnesota, I see more clearly that it was a situation, in fact, much like the context of brainwashing or the psychological operations used in Guantanamo. We were never tortured, and never stripped naked (although the security checkpoints at the entrance and at the airport had hints of that). We were, however, isolated from our community, from our usual context, and even perhaps from the moral parameters we usually have.

A Kucinich critic of mine once said that I liked to tell others what to do. I thought about that accusation a lot, and I believe that he was correct. I often give unsolicited advice, so I want to be careful what I say next.

The question arises: Should we now support Kerry? It’s a hard one. How can we support someone whose idea of progress is to put a velvet glove on the iron fist of colonialism? How can we support someone who speaks of a willingness to support unilateral wars (under the right conditions) and whose campaign is so overwhelmingly military in his values.

But what would happen if we all stayed home or voted for Nader? Wouldn’t we then risk the true hell of what W. and his neocons would do if they won an actual mandate of sorts?

I do not know what you can morally do in this situation. Perhaps you can find it in your heart to go to the polls with a clothespin on your nose and vote for Kerry. Perhaps you can even find the energy to do voter registration or phone canvases or door-knocking. Perhaps you will not find any energy at all for the non-choice of this presidential campaign, but you will throw yourself into something like Patty Wetterling’s race or one of the Legacy Project’s candidates for Minnesota House.

In the end, nothing has changed. We all supported a presidential candidate who, for many of us, came extremely close to ideal. He lost that particular battle, but none of us can stop what we are doing.

In the end, we must still support all candidates who reflect our ideals. In the end, we must examine our own beliefs and temperaments, and throw our energies into the causes and institutions we want. So keep buying your food at the co-ops. Keep marching and conducting vigils, when you can. Keep writing your senators and writing the president and sending letters to the local papers.

If you are tired or discouraged, take a break. But please don’t quit altogether. Go to the grass roots and keep organizing like crazy. In the end, we will need these millions behind us, whether Kerry or Bush holds the title of president.

And I must add this next: Cultivate community. The only thing that kept me even partially sane in Boston was my sense of community back here in Minnesota. I kept hearing the gentle voices of my spiritual community (Quakers) and peaceniks and activists back home. The demonic pull of Boston’s imposed reality was quite strong. Hey, I chatted with Walter Mondale, was interviewed by journalists who put my name in the paper and on the airwaves, I spent hours with cameras on me. It was all quite seductive.

But the voices of my community here came to me from across the miles, reminding me that all this strategy was nothing, compared to the death of a single child in Falluja or a single grandmother in Raffa.

I beg you to support the Kucinich community we still have. If you disagree with anything in Boston, whether my decision to vote for Dennis or the decision of others to work with the realities they saw, I still ask you to understand very deeply that we were all making the most moral decisions we could. I ask you to trust our motives and our morality, even if you do not agree. We need this community to support us, to provide us with a strong moral context, forgive our mistakes, and carry us through setbacks to the next level of change. It appears that we still have a great deal of work to do.

Peace, Charley Underwood

[President Jesus]

1. I would give this more weight if...

...Kucinich had come to Boston with more than .5% of the delegates.

Because Kerry won nearly every delegate, they get to call the shots. Dennis had every opportunity to compete for those delegates months ago. Now if his opportunity to win delegates were quashed, we'd be looking at a serious problem here.

When nearly every delegate is won by a particular candidate (and his runningmate), they have every right to treat the convention as a product launch. That's just reality.

[no name no slogan]

5. Infomercial vs. democracy

So if only one or two voices are quashed, it's somehow okay, because they're in the minority? I suppose it was okay then for Repukes to stifle anti-war dissent back in March 2003, because most people "agreed" with Dubya, then?

:eyes:

Political conventions by their very nature are about coming together as a party to share our views and come togeher AS ONE, while still respecting those with whom we have disagreements.

The platform was NOT voted on, or even discussed, by the collected delegates, but was fabricated by a pack of party bigwigs with NO INPUT WHATSOEVER from any of the party platforms passed at the state level.

There was NO DISCUSSION about the campaign, except among a few high-level campaign appointees, who had little if anything to do with the delegates.

This convention had more in common with a fascist rally than it did with anything remotely "Democratic" (or even "democratic", for that matter). It was a sham put on for the benefit of the corporate benefactors and party bosses, with little communication between the delegates (who ostensibly represent the party at its lower levels) and the candidates.

But apparently it's okay to become just as bad as the Republicans, because beating them at their own game is all that matters.

[hope42mro]

44. Realistic Truth: It's the "Gets-you-elected" game...

A favorite quote from Primary Colors (p.364)

""The question who've got to ask is, what are the options?" He said softly, almost warmly, still patient with me, his blue eyes locked into mine. "Only certain kinds of people are cut out for this work-and, yeah, we are NOT princes, by and large......Two thirds of what we do is reprehensible. This isn't the way a normal human being acts. We smile, we listen- you could grow calluses on your ears from all the listening we do. We do our pathetic little favors. We fudge when we can't. We tell them what they want to hear- and when we tell them something they DON"T want to hear, it's usually because we've calculated that's what they really want. We live an eternity of false smiles- and why? Because it's the price you pay to lead. You don't think Abraham Lincoln was a whore before he was president? He had to tell his little stories and smile his shit-eating, backcountry grin.

(This part hits home with me)

"He did it all just so he'd get the opportunity, one day, to stand in front of the nation and appeal to 'the better angels of our nature. Thant's when the bullshit stops. And that's what this is all about. The opportunity to do that, to make the most of it, to do it the right way-because you know as well as I do there are plenty of people in this game who never think about the folks, much less their 'better angels.' They just want to win. They want to be able to say, 'I won the biggest thing you can win.'" End Quote.

Thus I'll concede some sins to Kerry's camp if they listen to their 'better angels' and Kucinich once they take office. At the same time they shouldn't swing as far left as Bush went Right after he took office.

[goobergunch]

21. Kerry only won about 75% of the delegates, FYI (n/t)

[Kanary]

24. A person shares his heart, made gut-wrenching decisions,

isn't dictating what anyone else should do,

AND YOU STILL FIND A WAY TO CRITICISE?

Your post is exactly why I find little hope left in the DEM party.

NO SOUL, NO HEART.

Nothing left by criticism and sneers.

We need to look inside ourselves, and figure out why we can't support each other.

Kanary

[dpbrown]

31. One and a half percent, actually

And the delegates for any candidate were free to cast their vote in whatever manner they wanted, other than, presumably, the Kerry delegates, who were bound to Kerry on the first ballot (there was only one).

Therefore the Edwards, Dean, Sharpton, and Kucinich delegates were all free to vote for whomever they chose. Some Kucinich delegates chose to avail themselves of the opportunity to show support for the voice and passion of Dennis Kucinich, and some chose to follow his advice instead, to vote for Kerry.

You can accord that whatever weight you want, but I guess I would have given your opinion more weight if you had tried harder to get the percentages right, seeing as how your opinion is based on those facts.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[GainesT1958]

2. "In the end", Charley...

Your candidate did not win the nomination. I know how much you and other supporters of Dennis Kucinich loved--and still do love--the guy, and the stalwart stands he took on things. So did supporters of Howard Dean. So did I and others who supporter Wes Clark--and still do, for that matter.

But the fact remains that, in a democracy--or at least in ours--we have a primary system to determine who our Party's nominee will be. He, or she, may well not be our first choice, or even our secord or third choice. He may well hold some positions that we don't agree with and, like you, frankly despise. BUT...the fact remains, John Kerry is our Party's nominee now, "programmed " convention or no, and he was chosen by the people who participated in the same process as Dennis, and you. He is our standard bearer to take down the unelected fraud squatting in the White House right now. Dennis endorsed him, and you need to, at least, vote for him. Any other vote is a vote to do just what you and Dennis' supporters fear the most--a vote to give Dub & Co. and his Neo-Con fanatics an actual popular mandate to do even more harm to us at home, and others abroad, including Iraq and who knows what other country they happen to be ticked at next year? Plus, it means a DRAFT to go along with their desires.

If you've got to hold your nose, Charley, than by all means hold it. But vote for the guy who won't let the Neo-Cons have their say, or their sway. Who will at least listen to you and those who agree with you, not laugh in your face. In the long run, it'll be good for Dennis, and all who believe in him and his ideals. And good for the rest of us, too!:D

Peace be with you!

B-)

[no name no slogan]

7. Charley will vote for Kerry

But what strikes me is that those who ran the convention went out of their way to stifle the opinions and views of delegates elected to represent the membership of the party from their home states!

How "democratic" is that?

Was it really necessary for the floor patrol to confiscate a small, handmade sign that said "PEACE" on it? Or to confiscate hundreds of pink scarves that said "Send Bush a Pink Slip/Delegate for Peace" on them?

Are the Dems really THAT AFRAID of even the tiniest little difference in opinion that they feel the need to BLOT IT OUT completely?

Are we, as Democrats, that afraid of a minor difference in opinion between most of our members and our nominee?

How unbelievably cowardly. It's this same reasoning that has caused party identification with the Democrats to shrivel over the last decade and a half. We're too damned afraid of stepping on the toes of corporate power that we gloss over our beliefs (AND stifle free speech) just to "look nice" on TV.

This party needs an enima.

[Kanary]

25. This "Your Candidate Lost" crap is soooooooo old, and soooo divisive

I'm coming to the conclusion that the DLC part of the Party absolutely has plugged their ears.

THere is NOTHING in Charley's letter that does any bemoaning about Dennis "losing".

What he is talking about is ISSUES, PLATFORM, MORALS, and DECISIONS.

What part of that can you NOT understand?

Kanary, so fed up with all the control issues of this Pary!

[NJCher]

3. Related to this....

There is a book called No Debate. It discusses how "the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates." I heard George Farah on NPR and he outlined the history of the presidential debates and how they are regulated.

Bottom line: "The commission itself is controlled by the major parties and they obviously have no interest in advertising any alternatives to business as usual in Washington."
--Las Vegas Review-Journal

See this URL for info on the book:

http://www.sevenstories.com/Book/index.cfm?GCOI=58322100234970&fa=author&Person_ID=214&PublisherGCOICode=58322

This URL is the open debate Website:

http://www.opendebates.org/

If you want to listen to the program, go here:

http://www.wnyc.org/vote2004/lopate.html


Cher

[fearnobush]

4. Sharpton's was my favorate speech, but I tend to agree with the

over all scripted message since the American sheeple would never vote for peace in the 100 million attack ad world of Bu$h. I can say that due to Kerry's anti war past... I believe he will do the right thing - even if he has to embellish his true stance on that issue in order to get us there, that is winning first then ending the blood bath.

[no name no slogan]

6. I only hope you're right

Because Kerry has not said a thing about how he'll end the war, yet....all he's talked about is "substantially reducing" the American presence in Iraq by 2008.

Unfortunately, that sounds a lot like Nixon's "secret plan" to end the Vietnam war in 1968.

It would be one thing if getting out of Iraq was a minority opinion, but now most Democrats and most Americans agree we need to get out of Iraq sooner rather than later. Kerry wouldn't lose ANY support for taking a pro-peace stance today, and would probably gain quite a lot in return. He'd probably get another 3-5% easily from those who are planning to sit out this election because of the war issue.

Wouldn't it make more sense to take that 5% that's a sure thing than to fight over the fickle 5% that's undecided?

[fearnobush]

8. Unfortunately, most American's also agreed that the war in Viet Nam was

wrong and needed to end too... yet Nixon beat McGovern in a relative land slide. I believe in order to win, one must be realistic whwn fighting an opponant that has 90% of the media on it's side. Remember, what all politicians say and do are two defferent things. Bu$h ran on a non-nation builder, isolationist theme. Yet look at what he's done. I believe Kerry will do the right thing.

[mdguss]

9. Sour Grapes:

Everybody knows that the convention isn't going to have fights (the last pretence of that ended in 1972).

Kucinich had no power; neither did anyone else. They all had no power to make deals because John Kerry won ELECTIONS in the primary.

Here's an example: Kerry didn't slate candidates for delegate in my district. Dean and Kucinich had full slates; Edwards had one person running. Kerry got 80 percent of the vote in our CD and Edwards 14. Nobody besides Kerry won enough votes to get a delegate. The result: the Maryland Democratic Party got to pick delegates to go to Boston.

Kerry won somewhere around 3,200 of the 4,000 delegates to the convention. That figure was well beyond the number needed to pass a platform, nominate candidates and hold signs up. In some places, they took Dean's delegates to the convention.

The vast majority of Democrats voted for John Kerry in the primary. They entrusted him to set a course. The people who voted for Kerry in the primaries (including me) knew he voted for the war. I conclude that a vast majority of the Democratic Party thinks that leaving Iraq immediately is a rash, irresponsible and the wrong thing to do. In my view, the people who are the peace movement need to ask themselves this question: what course will bring long-term peace not only to American troops, but to a war torn Iraq? In my view, leaving immediately creates another Afghanistan where war lords struggle, and where violence rules. It's easy to say we should leave immediately to bring peace to Iraq, but that statement is intellectually dishonest.

So, to Kucinich supporters who are outraged because average Democrats didn't vote for a candidate that said, "Bring the troops home," fine. Go ahead, support Ralph Nader, whose campaign was the second most important reason George W. Bush got elected four years ago (the Supreme Court being the first).

The convention made it clear: this is a choice between a hopeful vision of the futre and the stale, negative and divisive policies of the Bush administration. Will a candidate be perfectly "pure" for anyone? Not unless you are the person running. I don't agree with Kerry on several issues, but I realize he is the choice who best relfects my views. Hopefully the left-wing of American politics will come to that same, rational, conclusion.

[no name no slogan]

10. So the party is a dictatorship, then?

Does that mean that those of us Democrats concerned about getting our troops out of Iraq should just "shut up" and "disappear" from the party?

FYI, Dennis Kucinich receieved 17% of the vote in MN, despite spending almost NO money, and having an all-volunteer and largely inexperienced campaign staff. By the time of our state convention, our Progressive Caucus (composed of anti-war delegates, civil rights advocates, and progressive supporters of EVERY candidate) had at least 35% of the delegates on the floor. We pretty much ran that convention, and other groups were coming to us, begging for support of their candidates and issues.

The MN delegation knows damn well they need our help to get Kerry a victory in this state-- we ARE a "swing state" this year, FYI. Our 10 electoral votes could mean the difference between victory and defeat. Thankfully, the state party knows this, and have been more than willing to listen to our concerns and capitalize on our skill and expertise at getting non-voters involved in the process.

But apparently the DLCers are more than willing to keep whoring the party to the highest corporate bidders in order to chase the ever-elusive (and ever-shrinking) "swing vote"-- most of whom will do NOTHING to build the party before, during and after the election-- and ignore the growing tide on the left-- who are simply asking that we consider their voices and don't dismiss our passion for justice and peace.

Oh, and BTW, here's another report from one of the other folks who was in Boston:

Our M4K delegation was put through the wringer. They were real troopers and a whole lot of people in the larger Minnesota delegation
finally began to catch on to the fact that something different was happening. Others new to the process are really looking to us for leadership in the DFL as a result of how well our people did under fire in Boston. It was a grueling process; but as they say "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger!" In this instance is also makes you more well respected - and that's exactly the manner in which we have been choosing to comport ourselves in order to make real changes in the direction of the Party. Hooray for our folks -- all them.

Apparently, some Dems have not learned the lessons of the 90s & 2000, when we tried to "out-Republican" the Republicans, and consequently lost Democratic majorities in the US Senate, the US House, many governorships and state legislatures as well as city councils and county governments, too. Our sole bright spot? Electing Clinton, who governed like the best Republican president since Eisenhower.

If you honestly think you'll be able to buy another election, more power to you. But the Repubs will ALWAYS have more money, more ads, and a more "professional" organization, because they can AFFORD it.

But if you want to win elections the way Paul Wellstone used to win them, you may want to keep us around.

And please, let's drop the "then go vote for Nader" bullshit, shall we? NONE of our delegates said that, and they will probably be supporting Kerry. However, you had best not take for granted the votes of the non-voters who became energized because of the Kucinich and Dean campaigns, because they have NO LOYALTY to this party. Many of them are once again fed up and disgusted with the way the party has comported itself, and its cavalier behavior at this convention will not do it any good.

The vast majority of Democrats voted for John Kerry in the primary. They entrusted him to set a course. The people who voted for Kerry in the primaries (including me) knew he voted for the war. I conclude that a vast majority of the Democratic Party thinks that leaving Iraq immediately is a rash, irresponsible and the wrong thing to do. In my view, the people who are the peace movement need to ask themselves this question: what course will bring long-term peace not only to American troops, but to a war torn Iraq? In my view, leaving immediately creates another Afghanistan where war lords struggle, and where violence rules. It's easy to say we should leave immediately to bring peace to Iraq, but that statement is intellectually dishonest.

Then you haven't been reading the news lately. 70%+ of the Democrats at the convention wanted the US to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. And only 46% of ALL Americans approve of continuing the occupation. Not to mention that 70% of IRAQIS want us to get out NOW-- regardless of the consequences to them.

Your attitude that "only the US can fix Iraq" reeks of neo-colonialism and racism. How dare we say that the Iraqis are helpless, and that only us good Americans can "rebuild" their country-- especially after the last 14+ years of undeclared war we've fought against them. You belittle the Iraqi people by saying this, and completely dismiss their own ability to organize their society to meet THEIR needs-- NOT those of US businesses. Just because the US has destroyed their country, it does not qualify us to "rebuild" it in any way, shape or form.

I also find it odd that you compare Iraq to Afghanistan-- especially since the US has "occupied" Afghanistan for nearly three years. Look at what has happened since: the country has not gotten "safer". We replaced one group of thugs with another group of thugs who are just as inhumane as the Taliban were. The country is NOT stable, and elections have been repeatedly postponed, while the country remains under the control of a warlord who is a former CIA collaborator and ex-consultant for Unocal (who will benefit greatly once their pipeline goes through Afghani territory). Violence continues on a day-to-day basis, and the country is still "hostile" outside of Kabul.

Afghanistan is a perfect example of why a prolonged US occupation will NOT work in Iraq. Our presence does more to destabilize the country than it does to help it.

And what would the "Peace and Justice" crowd gain by supporting Kerry? He won't cut the bloated pentagon budget (a dept which, btw, can't account for over $1 billion that has simply been "lost"). He will not abandon the "pre-emptive strike" doctrine. He wants to ADD another 40,000 troops to the active military. He has no plan to get us out of Iraq or Afghanistan. He supports Ariel Sharon and his thuggish Likud brethren who refuse to abide by UN resolutions to leave occupied Palestine. He supports "normal" trade relations with China, despite China's use of slave labor in its sweatshops. Indeed, if P&J issues are your biggest concern, you have little to gain by voting for Kerry.

BTW, the Kucinich delegates did not go to Boston to "start a fight". We CAN count, and we knew damn well that Kerry was going to be the nominee. But somehow, you make the faulty assumption that Kerry's own delegates supported his positions-- which was hardly the truth.

Primary voters selected Kerry because he was "electable". They thought he would be the best candidate to take on Bush. But if you look at the party platforms and resolutions from the states, you find that they're MUCH more progressive than the one foisted on us at Boston (and "passed" by 200 of the 4,000+ delegates, btw-- some "democracy").

[Zidane]

11. You know

Considering the DLC operates seperate from the "common" party member, and takes a hell of a lot of coporate cash, one might wonder exactly what their agenda is.

Considering they have cost us more races than I can count I would not at all be surprised if the GOP has bought them to internally crash the party. No other explanation can explain the intentional head on crashes they have caused that resulted in races being lost.

[Kanary]

26. I agree with you, Zidane, and it occurs to me

that whether the DLC wins, or the RNC wins, it amounts to the same thing for them, so they get to celebrate either way.

We just keep looking at that short end of the stick.

GAK

Kanary

[Dookus]

27. more Naderite bullshit

"there's no difference"

There's a HUGE fucking difference, and people who deny that are being willfully blind.

[mdguss]

23. The rest of the country isn't progressive:

The Progressive anti-war voices ran a candidate, Kucinich, in all Democratic primaries. Nationwide, John Kerry ended up with about 75 percent of the vote in the primaries and Kucinich around 4. That shows that the mainstream of the Democratic Party isn't where the left-wingers think it is (and believe it or not, I've actually worked for a left-winger or two). Irresponsible rhetoric aside, the people of the Democratic Party elected John Kerry to represent them. Naturally, they're going to send people to Boston who will vote for Kerry's platform--not Kucinich's.

As Bush's campaign will prove, you cannot, you will not, and you must not win an election on your base constituency alone. To win, Democrats and Republicans alike need to pick up America's moderate center. That's why many left-wingers think, "there is no difference between the two parties." The fact is they both have to convince the same people if there is any hope of a win.

I really don't get why the far-left (led by Ralph Nader) has this idea that people would come out of the woodwork and vote for Democrats if they only became more progressive. It's an assertion that the rest of the country thinks like them--which, given Nader's self-centered ways, isn't suprising.

As for Kerry's delegates not supporting his positions--the fact is, as I explained earlier, Kerry didn't slate out his delegates in later states. The result was he ended up taking a lot of Dean people because they tended to be local politicians with some influence.

Even so, the delegates knew what Edmond Burke learned the hard-way: they are there to represent the people who elected them. The people of the Democratic Party elected them to vote for John Kerry and his platform. I'm glad the stunts talked about in your post failed.

As to Iraq, you failed to answer the question: would leaving a power vaccum really bring peace and justice to Iraq? Sure it'd bring American soldiers home, but all human lives are precious. So, shouldn't we take the action that limits violence and increases stability?

I would argue that we haven't focused enough of Afghanistan. We've let the war-lords do lots of our work, lost an oppurtunity to capture Osama bin Laden and there isn't the security needed to hold a free and fair election.

But instead of rightly criticizing Bush for that, the peace movement insists on taking positions that do not make sense. Saying, "We're against killing, so we should pull our troops out," doesn't make sense when you think about the reality of a power vaccum in Iraq. If American soldiers left, there would be a three way civil war between Sunnis, Shities, and the Kurds. It would be violent and very bloody. Perhaps the US should of thought about what we'd do after the war--beyond Cheney's insistance that they'd welcome us as liberators. But now that we are there, we owe it to the Iraqi people, to the American soldiers who have served there, and to the world to rebuild Iraq by providing security and aiding in the establishment of institutions that will be a peaceful conduit for inter-faction struggle.

[no name no slogan]

30. It is so, more so than you think

Most Americans (over 60%) favor a national healthcare system, funded by the government-- that's BOTH Democrats AND Republicans.

Most Americans think that big corporations also have too much control in our economy and society.

Most Americans also support government intervention to keep American jobs here, even if it means restricting "free trade".

Believe it or not, America is MUCH more liberal than the DLC and the right-wingers would have you believe. Most Americans support fair trade, a populist economic policy (unlike the Wall Street-friendly economics of Greenspan/Republicans/DLC) that values people's rights over those of corporations, fully funding our public schools, and rebuilding our public infrastructure.

It has only been in the last decade or so (since the Dems started buying the "supply-side" economics of Reagan/Bush) that they've deviated from their long-standing record of standing up for the "little guy", to disastrous consequences: one ineffective president not withstanding. We've lost ground with the working class, the progressives, human rights activists, and other long-time Democratic core constituencies that see NOTHING of value in the corpo-friendly neoRepublican economic policies of the DLC.

BTW, it's not "the far left led by Ralph Nader". Nader is simply a candidate, no more, no less. The same goes with Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean, for that matter. Progressive Democrats don't give a damn about the banner carrier, as long as s/he supports progressive principles. Why do you think that Kucinich's supporters spent so much time changing the platform, even though we knew Kerry was the nominee?

Kerry's nomination may be the best thing for progressives this year: it gives us a reason to stick together beyond this election, and hold Kerry's feet to the fire from the left, and prove to him that we are a relevant constituency that can help him. As Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN, longtime Kerry supporter) said to me and other Kucinich delegates at MN's state convention: "light a fire under Kerry".

In the last several elections, almost half of all Americans have not bothered to even VOTE. This number is even greater among poor and working-class people. Why? Because NONE of the major-party candidates has addressed THEIR issues! Just look at the economic policies of Kerry and Bush: they're more similar than they are different. Neither man would cancel NAFTA/WTO, and initiate NEW trade agreements that would protect American workers as much as they protect big corporations.

Neither candidate is proposing a universal healthcare plan that covers all Americans. The closest we get is Kerry's plan, which simply gives more money to the major insurance companies providing these "insurance" plans to the uninsured (but does not GUARANTEE healthcare-- only "coverage", which can be denied), and still leaves several million people without access to healthcare.

Thankfully, Kerry IS fighting for a $1 increase in the minimum wage, which is a GOOD START. If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would now be closer to $14/hr-- TWICE what the current minimum wage is. Who knows, maybe Kerry will grow some cojones and fight for an even higher minimum wage? One can only hope...

How about workplace safety? More Americans are hurt every year due to unsafe workplaces than are assaulted. We know Bush won't but will Kerry increase the budget to allow greater enforcement of existing laws?

These are just a FEW of the issues where the differences between the Dems and Repubs are not wide enough to make a difference to many working people. The Dems have effectively forsaken the working people of this country to get the big $$ from big corporations. They've forsaken the labor unions and the working poor for "soccer moms" and "office park dads". It is a breach which has cost this party dearly in the last 14 years, and one which will need to be fixed if we ever intend to be a TRUE majority party again.

[mdguss]

36. Wrong:

You say, "Half of Americans don't even bother to vote," and then you assert that they're not voting because they're disillusioned progressives. People who don't vote are, generally, reflective of greater society. Four million evangelical Christians didn't vote in 2000, millions of moderates didn't vote, some conservatives didn't vote, and some progressives didn't vote.

The assumption that everybody (or even most) people who didn't vote last time would be motivated to come out for a progressive like Nader or Kucinich is false. They had the choice of Nader last time, and it didn't really seem to matter enough to the non-voters to get to the polls. They could've shown up for Kucinich this time in the primaries, but they didn't.

The reason people don't vote is cynicism (which can be both left and right). The cause of cynicism is a media that points of the candidates "lies." The endless game of gotcha doesn't serve the American public well and convinces many people (progressive and conservative) that, "They're all liars." So they don't vote, and probably won't vote. Don't get me wrong, we should work very hard to identify possible Democratic non-voters and turn them into voters. But it's foolish to think that every non-voter believes in a progressive agenda.

As for Kerry's plan, it would pretty much give everyone that wants health insurance health insurance. Nailing the insurance industry might seem like a just thing to do, but it employs tens of thousands of people. Realistically, the only way national health insurance works is if private insurers are used. Kerry's plan allows individuals to become part of a national pool and purchase insurance from already insuring companies at a much lower rate then they'd get as employees of a small business. And the insurance companies will be ok because Kerry says that the federal government should assume the risk for all catastrophic cases (cases over 50,000 dollars). The result: you can choose whether or not you want health insurance, you can get a good price if you want it, and you can choose your own doctor.

Nader is the leader of the far-left fringe of this country. His assumptions are wrong, and he is in a position to cost Kerry an election crucial to the future of this country

[mdguss]

37. Delete

Sorry for the double post

[Nederland]

39. Not a dictatorship

A dictatorship would be a situation where a tiny minority is able to force their opinions on the vast majority. I'll leave it up to you to figure out who in this situation represents the tiny minority and who represents the vast majority.

[Blue_Roses]

22. While "getting out of Iraq" is a dream

most of us would LOVE to see, reality is, if we leave --totally--at this time, it will open the doors wide open to what already is a quagmire of the most extreme conditions to more terroist attacks and untimate instability for us as well as for the Iraqis. ( not that it could get much worse, but it can)

[MaggieSwanson]

12. Thank you for the MN report

...and thanks to Charley as well for sharing his story. After what happened at the Iowa convention I am hardly surprised to hear about the goings-on in Boston.


Courage, America!

[Zidane]

13. What happened in Iowa?

nt

[MaggieSwanson]

14. Suppression off progressives...

Kucinich, Dean, Edwards, and yes, even some Kerry progressives were trying to form a viable preference group, after our Progressive Caucus was voted down. (Comment from man in Kerry shirt, "We're ALL progressives here, so what's the point?")

Frustrated by inconsistant reports from Rules committee as to how many we needed to be viable, what groups we could recruit from, how much time we had left, and a myriad of other absolutely ridiculous last minute rule changes, and after finding out that minority platforms were being voted down on the main floor while we were sequestered downstairs (all 175 progressive-minded Dems), someone shouted that we should have an anti-war rally. Right then and there.

As I always have 20 or so protest signs in the trunk of my car and it seemed like a healthy way to let out some (considerable) steam, I brought the posterboards in.

We marched up and on to the main floor with signs in hand (some appropriate-"This is What Democracy Looks Like!", "Free Speech: Use It or Lose It", and some less applicable-"Honk for Peace").
A Dean delegate took our Kucinich pink, Dean green, and Edwards yellow voting ballots straight to the Chair and slapped them down in front of him. (Sentiments were running high and we figured that if our votes weren't wanted we might as well give them back.)

They certainly didn't want to kick us out - unity was the theme after all, and they had a sneaking suspicion we might hang around outside and talk to reporters - so they allowed us to vote as a convention and not by preference groups.

That's the short version. It wasn't very nice. Many of us felt very -dare I say - disenfranchised there for awhile.

Now I'll put on my helmet.

[no name no slogan]

35. WOW. I didn't realize it was that bad in Iowa

Minnesota, by comparison, was a tea party.

The Progressive/Peace/Civil Rights caucus (which included progressives from ALL the campaigns-- NOT just DK) was treated relatively well. We were also ultra-organized, and had a long-time "political hack" (John Sherman) coordinating our floor organization. We had a floor leader for each of our eight congressional districts, who had color-coded signs to help our (mostly newbie) delegates with procedural issues, DNC Central Committee races, other party officers, etc.

One of our elected officials (John Marty, state senator and early DK supporter) even got some time on stage, where he invited all the elected party officers who supported Kucinich at the caucuses. Needless to say, we overflowed the stage-- and showed the rest of the party that we're here to stay, and will be a huge asset to the DFL this year and many more years into the future.

[uhhuh]

15. I see a lot of slamming of the DNC suppressing anti-war voices

I don't like that myself,But I think it is strange that there are no complaints from Kucinich supporters about his support of John Kerry and this convention.

He gave a great speech AT THIS SAME CONVENTION where these reports say his supporters were so mistreated. I guess he sold you guys out, huh?
Dean too.
They spoke at this convention willingly. They knew what it was going to be all about, or if not, they should have after the first day.

They gave their speeches of strong support for Kerry and have not spoken out against the suppression of the anti-war contingent since it ended thursday.

They either are complete cowards, or they accept that in this environment, there has to be a unified front against chimpco.

I voted for Dean, with Kucinich as a close second. I trust that they are being genuine with their support of this Democratic ticket.

If they are not cynical opportunists, which I don't think they are, I will vote with Kerry based on their recommendations.

[Zidane]

16. Umm...

DK said from practically the start of his campaign he would end up supporting the nominee - whoever that was.

No Kucinich supporter was unaware of that. And considering it was known many many months ago I don't see why anyone would all of a sudden be getting upset about it now.

This is totally irrelevant to the silencing of delegates, however. Unless DK or Dean endorsed silencing delegates I don't see what the hell your point is unless your logic is 'supporting kerry = silencing delegates = dk/dean are sell outs' which is total BS.

In fact - if you go to this site http://www.truthout.org/dnc04.shtml and watch the convention interview with DK you will see DK directly CONDEMN silencing of dissent at the DNC.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your spin.

[dflprincess]

17. It's a good report but I have to say

I'm not sure why he's surprised by how the convention was run. Granted I'm a hack and been around since McGovern ran and a lot of the delegates this year were new and maybe they haven't watched a convention (Democratic or Republican) in the last 20 years so they didn't know how they play out.

The DNC starts pushing the state parties around at least a year before the national convention, everything in the Call we send out for the caucuses has to be approved by them and the threat is always - "do it our way or your delegation will not be seated." There have been years when the DFL tormented the DNC for awhile but in the end they always cave. Just once, I'd like to see the Central Committee say "Fine, don't seat us - see how that looks on TV."

One of the reasons I've never had any big urge to go to a national convention is because they're not like the state conventions. It's all a done deal by the time you get there - even the platform so there's really nothing to do but listen to speeches... Though this year - even with everything set it stone - I think it would have been fun to be there.

[NNadir]

18. Here is another self glorifying report from the "Progressives" telling

just how high their regard for themselves is. When are you people going to grow up?

I was absolutely thrilled by our convention and its fine speakers (including even Al Sharpton) which I watched on CSPAN today. I reached for my mute button only once, when the blathering idiot Kucinich came on, since I can't stand poor thinking and self absorption.

Of all the many fine candidates we had (and I started out as a Deaniac) there was exactly one who actually embarassed me, Kucinich. He has all the worst "progressive" qualities: Self importance, an inflated sense of ego that is disproportionate to the results of actual accomplishment, the spirit of a mindless scold, the studied and practical indifference to women's rights, a life measured more with grand sounding phrases than with example and moral consistancy, and, oh yeah, did I forget, a history of betraying friends and co-workers.

Now we have yet another Kooksinitch thread badmouthing the Democratic Party for not being as "noble" as its most pathetic 2%, this in a time when the most disasterous usurpation of American government since the Civil War is occurring.

Like I said, grow up.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Would you care to elaborate?

I am particularly interested in what you said here about Dennis Kucinich:

oh yeah, did I forget, a history of betraying friends and co-workers.


Would you care to elaborate?

[no name no slogan]

33. I expected about as much from you

Only you could call Kucinich an "egomaniac" and "self important". And of course bringing up the old saws about him being "anti-women" and a "betrayer" of friends and coworkers.

Here's some advice: why don't you go MEET the man, and talk with him, instead of getting your information from right-wing websites and publications and avowed enemies of Kucinich.

But, given your past behavior, I certainly wouldn't expect much from you. Blather, Rinse, Repeat, etc.

[sandnsea]

19. The Platform Drafting Committee

That's the place to hash out the platform. They had meetings in Portland, Santa Fe, New Orleans, and Miami. Kucinich people were there and had their concerns listened to and that additional line about Iraq entered into the Platform. That's the way it works. If people wanted Dennis' brand of the Democratic Party, people would have voted for him. And I, for one, didn't reject Dennis because I agree with the "iron fist of colonialism". I rejected Dennis because he doesn't have realistic plans to resolve complex problems, frankly, it's pie in the sky. I've said several times that the man supported putting inspectors into Iraq in Sept 2002, but never had a plan to make it happen. And UN in, US out, is just more pie in the sky.

Convention voting has been much like this one for quite a long time now. I'm sorry you're disillusioned, but with thousands of different opinions on how to effectively govern, you are rarely going to get a 100% concensus. I'm sure the Joe Lieberman types aren't completely happy with the platform either.

[rhite5]

29. Hello sandnsea, I believe you are a fellow Oregonian

I have to differ with you about your uninformed comment about the Kucinich platform positions. At his website there have been from the beginning specific plans for many, many issues. Kucinich is known for having the most carefully thought out plans on these subjects, more than any of the other candidates. You can argue the merits of the plans, but do not say they do not exist.

You will note in my other message that all of the state platforms were ignored at the national level. Kucinich did have an influence on the Oregon state platform.

[rhite5]

28. Thank you SO MUCH for sharing this report.

I had been anxious to know to what extent the unity pressures were affecting the elected delegates who had been instructed by the voters in our state to vote for Kucinich on the first round of balloting. Now I realize what happened.

Most people who have posted in this thread seem to have a misunderstanding about the role of state delegates to the convention.

It varies from state to state, but in my state, Oregon, (and in Minnesota) the delegate selection process goes through several steps. In Oregon, where only Kerry and Kucinich were candidates in the Primary, there were separate caucuses for any Congressional District in which DK got at least 15% of the Primary vote. In my Congressional District we had a high enough percentage (20%)to select ONE delegate for Kucinich. The Kucinich Caucus spent a couple of hours interviewing the candidates for delegate and did a careful job of selecting the ONE to go to National. My Congressional District was also selecting several delegates to go to Boston for Kerry. That was done in a separate caucus. Other Congressional Districts were doing the same thing in other parts of the state.

Then at the State level another selection process took place where additional delegates were selected by two separate caucuses, some for Kucinich and some for Kerry. I do not think the state sent any "uncommitted" delegates, even the "Super Delegates" were committed to a specific candidate. Among our delegation of 50-something were 8 or 9 Kucinich delegates. We Oregon Primary voters who voted for DK believed that our delegates were committed to vote for Kucinich on the first round of voting in Boston. After the first round, if it went to more rounds, they could vote as they wished. Of course we had no illusions about the final outcome, but it was very important to those of us who worked so hard for Kucinich in the Oregon Primary to have a presence at the National Convention. They were representing US, a percentage of the voters in Oregon. They were not just voting their own beliefs.

Why was it important to us? We wanted the Kerry Campaign and others to recognize that there are a significant number of voters in Oregon (swing state) that are not pro-war. Many of the thousands of voters they represent are liable to move to Nader if Kerry and the platform did not throw them some bones in the platform at least on the Iraq War issue. We had already had some influence on the Oregon Platform on several issues at our state convention.

As it turns out ALL of the state platforms (all 50 states) were ignored when the final draft of the National Platform was drawn, except for one slight change in wording. The final drafting occured in Florida well ahead of the National convention, so there was no opportunity to discuss, influence, or even vote on the platform in Boston. Incidentally, I believe almost all of the state platforms are more progressive than the national platform. And we also know that a large majority of the Kerry delegates in Boston overall were also anti-war and more progressive on other issues.

We did not see democracy at work here. To criticise those who report this to you and accuse them of disloyalty when they share their personal struggles with their consciences is a strange, uninformed thing to do.

Yes, the Boston convention was a sham, a charade very effectively carried out. It tried to show that all Democrats are in agreement. Remember Medea Benjamin was taken out of the hall in handcuffs for displaying an anti-occupation banner? And all evidence of Peace signs, buttons and T-shirts were banned or confiscated.

[no name no slogan]

32. You're most certainly welcome

You're correct about MN's selection process, too. Our selection process is a little different because we're a caucus state, but it's pretty close.

Even though we're a caucus state, we have a "straw poll" at the caucuses, which determines the number of overall delegates each candidate will get. Statewide, we got 17% overall, and over 15% in three of our eight congressional districts.

Incidentally, our precinct caucuses convened about two minutes after Edwards had dropped out of the race, which affected our total support as most caucusgoers had not heard the news by then. However, by the time our congressional district and state conventions had occurred, our actual Peace/Progressive coalition was closer to 40% of the total delegation-- but because of the straw poll rule (and the ridiculous 15% rule), we did NOT receive any additional slots at the CD or state level.

We got two delegates from the 5th district, and one each from the 4th and the 8th. We also qualified for an additional five at the state convention, and one alternate. We also got a Kucinich supporter elected as an Edwards delegate from one of the CDs where we only had 12%, however (a "stealth delegate" if you will). Out of a total of ±86 delegates, we had nine total.

The platform committee meetings, OTOH, were another story. We got to send ONE MEMBER to them, despite the fact that MN had the 2nd-largest number of DK delegates.

Furthermore, the rules for speaking at the platform committee were deliberately designed to put the lid on debate. In order to even SPEAK to the platform committee, you had to get the support of OVER HALF of the platform delegates. Without the support of 1/2 of the delegates, you COULD NOT EVEN SPEAK at the meetings.

Thankfully, with the help of many volunteers (remember, DK had almost NO paid staff by this time), we were able to put together a presentation about why including a peace plank would be a good idea for the platform. John Sherman, our platform delegate (and the soon-to-be father-in-law of one of my longtime best friends), was able to get enough support to speak at the Miami meeting.

John's three-minute speech was the ONLY one that got a STANDING OVATION from the platform delegates. He emphasized why getting out of Iraq is a winning issue for the Dems, and one that could differentiate us from the Republicans. It is archived at www.kucinich.us if you want to see it.

So the whole platform "process" was little more than a sham to appease the party members, to convince them that they had a "voice" in what the party was going to be about. The was little discussion, NONE of the state platforms were factored in, and it was created by a hand-picked committee which did not reflect the make-up of the party itself.

Yes, many of us are frustrated, but it's also given us a bigger reason to continue on past November 2. Because when Kerry wins, he'll feel the pressure from the progressives who got him to the oval office on Day One. I hope he's not expecting a honeymoon...

:D

[rhite5]

34. "I hope he's not expecting a honeymoon..."

Right on! We are not lemmings.

It is good to share behind the scenes experiences from state to state, the stuff that is never in the press. Makes us all feel less isolated. Thanks for sharing the details.

[returnable]

38. "the non-choice of this presidential campaign"

I'm really sorry he didn't get to wave his pink panties at the convention, but that quote undermines his entire argument.

You can argue about the differences (or lack thereof) in the Kerry and Bush foreign policies.

But to suggest there isn't a clear choice between these two candidates on other (and just as significant) domestic issues is insanity.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

40. Yep. Just another "grass roots" dork

As a rule of thumb, you can pretty much ignore anyone who uses the phrase "grass roots".

They think they sound smart when they say there is no difference between Kerry and Bush. Outstanding.

[demwing]

41. Kerry needs every bit of support

and the party does not need to squash dissent, however...

If you think that you're doing ANYTHING to help get rid of Bush by complaining that a mandate for Democratic unity is an enforced unity, Kerry using "strongarm" tactics, Dems being forced to walk in "lockstep," or acting like "stepford delegates" then you're not thinking very well. How are you going to make progress when you begin a dialogue with insults?

Your language seems to indicate that you think that the Dems are the fascists in this race. Have you been paying attention to BushCo for the last 3 years?

Then you, or rather, Charley, popped off with this gem:

"Sadly, the message was entirely about how qualified John Kerry was to lead our nation in war. There was no mention of our desire for peace, except for some of Dennis’s comments and a few unscripted remarks by Sharpton."

First, there were some messages of peace, delivered in prime time slots. Am I wrong? You just said as much, so don't fudge!

Second, considering the limited prime time slots available, and the LIMITED support that Kucinich and Sharpton received in the primaries, I would bet that the message was given disproportionately LARGE airtime! And still you complain. That attitude is sad.

Further, if you don't think Kerry and Edwards were not offering peaceful alternatives to war, you were'nt paying attention. That's YOUR fault.

And it's bullshit to say that the whole convention was a sham, or that Kerry is being sold as "a more efficient war-monger."

Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit. You should be ashamed for supporting that kind of divisive crap.

In case you've forgotten, Kerry isn't just trying to win the Dem nomination, he's trying to unite an entire country, handle a war he didn't start, and represent the voices of all Americans, not just yours and Charley's.

I don't want to alienate anyone, but the majority of Americans want a leader that can perform as the CIF. That means the ability to lead a country in a time of war. Kerry needed to speak to that majority, and he did it wonderfully.

Time to swallow your pride and get behind the candidate that has a chance of winning AND of delivering on the most progressive issues possible.

Not Ralph Nader.

Not Dennis Kucinich.

Not ANYONE else.

It's John Kerry.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demwing]

43. Now you compare the Dem Party to Mussolini's Black Shirted Fascists?

Is there nothing you won't do or say to get your way?

You just dropped into the dust heap of obliviousness.

[voigtwal]

45. Please give my thanks to Charley - we need to reclaim our power

Thank you for posting Charley's report. Please pass this message to him--- Thank you for standing up for Kucinich during the vote. Your courage is a banner for all of us which will enable us to continue working, not just for a change in administration, but for a change in the locus of power in our political system. The convention floor, and therefore the Democratic Party, is not limited to the facade the world was presented. The progressive voices may have been silenced at the Fleet Center, but you did not cease to exist! We are counting on you to continue to be the Democratic Party. Outside the convention there was also an amazing groundswell of activism, alive, hopeful and invigorating to many of us, and hopefully to you as well. Take hope in the larger community that continues to form ... people are rolling up their sleeves for the long haul, to November and beyond. Your Minnesota community and your meeting and all of us will help each other to stay sane as we keep on keeping on.

[DaveinMD]

46. I'm sorry

but this is so much sour grapes. Conventions today are about promoting your candidate. And Kerry is not running as a prowar candidate. He is running as someone who knows how to handle a war should we have to be in one. He is also saying that we will only go to war in the future because we have to, not because we want to. And we won't go to war to protect Saudi oil princes. If you think that's the same as bush, you are just blind.