OT: Interesting

[ProSense]

article from the FT:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2950182&mesg_id=2950182

A loosely related discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2948279

[Mass]

1. Clinton's remark irks me, particularly because it was gratuitous.

Of course, it is a move to the left (or to the center, if he wants, but the center is definitively to the left of the current policies).

What is it with these people being afraid of words.

[ProSense]

2. The FT

is a hit piece of another kind, it's solely designed to create the impression that Democrats are now anti-free trade, when most Democrats support free and fair trade. Grouping Lou Dobbs, Al Gore and John Kerry is completely clueless.

This was a shift to the left and the positions that prevailed are good for the country, but OMG, could they throw up any more cautionary flags!

[karynnj]

4. What a pathetic article

What I don't understand is that they say John Kerry "implausibly" ran against it. Then for examples they give the tax cuts for the wealthy. This seemed a very consistent Kerry position.

If they are going on vote - Al Gore was less a populist than Kerry - did they forget his debate with Perot. The comments that Kerry made on NAFTA showed that as long ago as 1993 he was speaking of the problems of the rich being richer and the poor poorer. But both Kerry and Gore are far away from Dobbs with his obsession on out sourceing and immigration.

[sandnsea]

3. America Chooses Enlightened Pragmatism

The real message of Tuesday’s election is that America woke up and said “Stop labeling me”! The threat of Nancy Pelosi liberal San Francisco values and the gay marriage agenda from New Jersey didn’t stop voters from choosing the D. While the punditocracy wants to conclude this election isn’t a rejection of pure conservatism, it’s hard to ignore the basic fact that six years of pure conservatism is what led to the tsunami of change.

Newly elected Democrats don’t fit the mold of the classic liberal, but they have also been chosen over the ultra-conservative religious of the past. Harold Ford Jr’s conservative Christian persona didn’t win the day in Tennessee, even in light of Corker’s sleazy campaign tactics and blind trust problems involving his real estate dealings. Mike Beebe of Arkansas, now one of the bluest states in the union, won on a platform of strong populist economic change. Like Tester and Webb on social issues, Beebe believes government ends where the front door begins. Whatever their personal views may be, they understand the Constitution does not allow government to impose social regulations onto the individual.

Consider also, the number of landmark elections that took place across the country. Not only have we elected the first woman Speaker of the House, we’ve also elected the first Italian-American Speaker of the House. Keith Ellison has been elected from Minneapolis, the First Muslim in Congress. Massachusetts has elected its first African-American governor. South Dakota has rejected its draconian abortion ban and Missouri has passed stem cell research.

The politics of the future will embrace this kind of enlightened pragmatism Americans are known for. This country is ultimately interested in results, put up or shut up. How many times someone goes to church each week or how many peace marches one organized is not nearly as important as whether the world is a safe place for its citizens. Americans, ultimately, voted for progress and results, a return to a thoughtful democracy.




http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/

[ProSense]

5. This pretty much settles it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2960080&mesg_id=2960080

It's not about the labels, it's about the issues.