Which Democrat do you favor?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by pinky lee

The Whig party was pretty monied too, and it met the same fate.

True, but different times.

I'll tell you what I base it on- there is a hard core cadre of unrepentant tax-spend-socialist government program- politically correct- minority set aside- gay empowerment- anti-military- pro-abortion fanatics who are tired of sublimating their hard left ideology in order to win elections. Its not working anyway, the only years it worked and the only Dem is elected is Bill Clinton, and he was basically a liberal nightmare- he single handedly set back socialized health care, the welfare system and protectiionist union policies.

He was also the chair of the DLC in 1990, and was never truly the champion of Leftist "fanatics" that you claim he was. He was more like Jimmy Carter than he was George McGovern, and just because he was an old pot smoking hippie, that doesn't mean he was really a Leftist, or even a traditional, national liberal in the Truman/Johnson sense....

So, they are rebellilng against the DLC with its Leibermanlst centrist policies and going on a liberal kamikaze mission. The only reason the Dem party is viable at all is that mostly they hide their far left agenda or pander to enough groups to mollify the lefties who dont really get any real power.

The Democratic hierarchy has no "far left agenda," at least not any more than the Republican Party has any "far right, seditious militia-supporting, harmful tax breaks, corporate welfare loving, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-environment, anti-womens choice, anti-SOLDIER" agenda....

You give far too much credit to the Left. It has tried working throughout the system to take over the Democratic Party, and it hasn't worked since the 1970s. The pieces left after the demise off the Citizens Party went into the Jackson presidential camp in the 80s, in an attempt to push him up. That didn't work, and it hasn't worked. The DLC are far too powerful, and far too many elected Democrats are in bed with big donors to push too far to the Left.

Now, Dean and Co. are threatening to blow the lid off what the true agenda of the far left is: and they control the Dem activists who control the primaries. By and large the electorate DOESNT support the ideology of Commisar Rodham-Clinton and even she knows enough to make nice about the military and security. Dean has no such compunctions. His "surrender first' strategy will go over like a led zeppeliin and he could conceivably lose 49 states, even liberal NY and CA. On his coattails the Senate could go 60+ filibuster proof Republican.

Again, unsubstantiated ideas. What makes Dean a leftist nut? The fact that he supports gay unions as opposed to gay marriage, and feels that the Federal government shouldn't even be discussing such issues of privacy and morality...? Perhaps you mean how he opposes measures such as medical marijuana, and calls universal health coverage "tipping at wind mills"??? Maybe you mean how he argues for a balanced federal budget, a traditionally conservative argument...? Wait, maybe you mean how he opposed a war with a nation that clearly posed no threat to us, yet another traditionally conservative standpoint...? Or MAYBE you mean how he supports the death penalty for specifically horrid crimes....? I'm "treading water" here, so you'll need to help me out (and I'm really gonna need help with Senator Clinton).

On the heels of this, the centrist disgust at the far left's hari kari will split the party. The Greens will make up a 3rd sect. Once the rift begins, there will be scism after scism as various interest groups break off to consolidate what power they have left.

Interesting argument, but not likely. I am a member of the Green Party, and they do not have the viability needed to maintain a national party (and in some ways, it's in fact contrary to the very premise of the party). When the going gets rough, third party and infdependent voters always flock back to one of the main two parties. Fact is, Clinton provided a certain degree of national comfort during the 90s, thus making the folks on the fringes of the spectrum more restless. We had high third party activity in the 90s, also because the two parties moved closer and closerto each other. But now in President Bush, folks on the Left see a clear and present danger. It isn't about building a party like in 2000, or electing a third option, this time it's about getting Bush out of office for many people.

The Lefties are flocking to Dean because he opposed the war, he was governor of Bernie Sanders' state, and he works on a so-called "grassroots" level. Truth is, he isn't that liberal, and he also has big money behind him, like from AOL Time-Warner. Now I'm certain that your view of what makes someone a "socialist" or a "fanatic" is different than mine, but I have a hard time seeing what makes Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton one of those things.