Fading Passion

Fading Passion
Ruth Conniff
The Progressive, vol. 67, no. 8, August 2003

Wisconsin, which this year moved its primary up to February 17, attracted Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, and John Kerry to the statewide Democratic convention in Milwaukee in June. The event underscored the differences between the hell-raisers and the establishment. Some of the most progressive legislators in Washington warmed up the crowd: Representatives David Obey and Tammy Baldwin, and Senator Russ Feingold.

Speaker after speaker brought the crowd to its feet by condemning the weak-kneed centrism of Democrats afraid to take a strong, oppositional stance to Republican politics.

<snip>

There is a struggle going on right now between conservative party leaders like Lieberman and the more progressive base. Certainly, the deck is stacked against the base when it comes to fundraising and the power to anoint a nominee. But from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it makes sense for the leadership to listen to the warnings of David Obey, and to take note of the sparks of genuine passion and enthusiasm from the people who care about things like state party conventions. Forget about abandoning principle. Abandon these folks and there will be no hope of rousing voters to turn out George W. Bush.

I'm intrigued by Conniff's implication that Lieberpuke might actually be able to pull off the nomination - despite the fact that his message of bashing his own party is being consistently received with stony silence at Dem gatherings - based solely upon the clout of his corporate backers. I've been struggling to understand the Lieberman strategy: surely, I reasoned, it borders on the suicidal to attend gatherings of the Dems whose support one needs to achive the party's nomination, and proceed to heap abuse upon them for their Democratic proclivities. Could it really be that he could win our nomination even without popular support, based on nothing more than his influential backing? Damn, wouldn't that be the final epitaph on the quaint notion we once had of government by the people and for the people?

http://www.progressive.org/aug03/rc0803.html

has been bashing the Dem party from the right, and Dean has been bashing them since January from what is perceived to be the left. They are both centrists compared to the rest of the field. Why is the Dem party the dominant target for both of them?

Dean hasn't made any at all - other than to tell the party elders that bending over and grabbing your ankles isn't a good campaign strategy.

Where do you get that they've been "bashing the Democrats"?

- C.D.