Of the last 8 Democratic nominees which one comes closest to reflecting

your own personal political views and philosophy?

when I saw that there were no comments...I thought ...oh my another thread of mine (which I don't start very often) is sinking

because of his amazing record of anti-corruption efforts and his belief in open government.

AGAINST the death penalty.

how much he is remembered after 34 years

Considering that he is rarely in the news -- he seems to be remembered quite well. Perhaps he is not so forgotten:



watch trailer:

http://movies.go.com/readerreviews/movie?name=one-bright_2005&genre=documentary&studio=First%20Run%20Features

link to Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000E6ESSA/ref=cm_bg_f_3/002-5963463-8581663?v=glance&n=130

My memory of him is not too clear - although in my defense, I would like to say that during his run for office I believe I had just developed the ability to form short sentences. Probably wasn't able to debate politics at that age.

- Make7

vote. So I proudly cast the first vote of my life for him. I'm sorry to say that was the first time and the last time that I could without reservation vote my concience in a general election for President.

I suspect that most liberals of the dovish variety are McGovernites even if they don't know it.

I'm going to check it out. McGovern was before my time but I guess, as a young progressive, I should know more about him.

are excessive and social advances are too slight, George McGovern is a hero. This might sound silly, but politically--as a progressive-I feel like he is a father.

I might suggest reading his 1972 acceptance speech for the Democratic Party nomination. It is hard to imagine that any major party nominee could say such words today - link:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/shownomination.php?convid=16

snip:" I have no secret plan for peace. I have a public plan. And as one whose heart has ached for the past ten years over the agony of Vietnam, I will halt a senseless bombing of Indochina on Inaugural Day.

There will be no more Asian children running ablaze from bombed-out schools. There will be no more talk of bombing the dikes or the cities of the North.

And within 90 days of my inauguration, every American soldier and every American prisoner will be out of the jungle and out of their cells and back home in America where they belong.

And then let us resolve that never again will we send the precious young blood of this country to die trying to prop up a corrupt military dictatorship abroad."

snip: "National security includes schools for our children as well as silos for our missiles.

It includes the health of our families as much as the size of our bombs, the safety of our streets, and the condition of our cities, and not just the engines of war.

If we some day choke on the pollution of our own air, there will be little consolation in leaving behind a dying continent ringed with steel."


and the ending:

"From secrecy and deception in high places; come home, America

From military spending so wasteful that it weakens our nation; come home, America.

From the entrenchment of special privileges in tax favoritism; from the waste of idle lands to the joy of useful labor; from the prejudice based on race and sex; from the loneliness of the aging poor and the despair of the neglected sick -- come home, America.

Come home to the affirmation that we have a dream. Come home to the conviction that we can move our country forward.

Come home to the belief that we can seek a newer world, and let us be joyful in that homecoming, for this “is your land, this land is my land -- from California to New York island, from the redwood forest to the gulf stream waters -- this land was made for you and me.”

May God grant each one of us the wisdom to cherish this good land and to meet the great challenge that beckons us home.

This is the time"

Even down to the 90 days to pull out plan. I guess that tells us how he would be treated today.

Wesley Clark talks with George McGovern at a pancake breakfast in Keene, New Hampshire, on Sunday.

"I am here to endorse with all my heart and strength General Wes Clark," the three-term senator from South Dakota told about 500 people gathered at a pancake breakfast at Keene Middle School."

link: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/18/elec04.prez.clark.mcgovern/

I've never heard Wes Clark talk like that McGovern speech. I've heard Kucinich sound a LOT like that. Who endorsed who has nothing to do with this discussion. I would like to think we could have a discussion on DU without someone campaigning for the '08 Presidential nomination.

As a person George McGovern always had close friendships with people of completely different political philosophy than his own. He was very close friends with Barry Goldwater and is to this day very close friends with Bob Dole. He's just that kind of nice guy.

He was and is an incredible idealist but always has a strain of pragmatism.

For you to compare McGovern to a Democratic leader whom you admire, but when I do the same thing you have a problem with that?

Nevermind. I know the reason. :eyes:

You didn't compare Clark to McGovern. You were making a rebuttal and quoted a statement from the last campaign.

From another true progressive, McGovern.

I didn't disagree with or rebut what you said about Kucinich.

So I guess he is my personal favorite but of course his issues were of another era. I have to apply some realpolitik here and say that I would also look at one who stepped up to this time, on whose watch 9/11 would NOT have happened, and who understood from way back the threat to our environment. That would be Al Gore.

I went with McGovern myself...

too bad its not out yet but definitely one to look for

thanks again

it helps put things in perspective when we're all trying to decide the future direction of the Dem party.

this early in the a.m.

I didn't vote for him either, I'm just saying.

but I ended up going with McGovern.

of the more liberal Dems.

I dunno, maybe I'm some kind of a miracle worker or something.:shrug:

I realize that Carter was considered to be one of the more conservative Dems by '76 standards, but he's still very liberal by '06 standards.

I was only 13, and barely aware politically when Carter was elected, so I'm not going by what I thought of him at the time, but he's had a very active public life since he left the presidency, and has had alot to say, and I greatly respect and admire him.

I also have a great deal of admiration and respect for McGovern, despite the fact that I was even younger and less aware when he got the nomination.

So I like 'em both. So sue me.

or evolved since.

Conservative back in the 1970's is incredibly different than what it is now. Carter might have called himself a "conservative" but I don't know if I would define him as a conservative. Conservatives don't ask Americans to make sacrifices and conservatives bomb countries to score political points. These two instances alone make me believe that Carter had some great liberal credentials going for him at least by today's standards.

publicly back then?

Interesting...

opposition to the war and his endorsement of Dean have given him a more positive image with those who would lean in the progressive/left direction. But, yes he is essentially a DLC/New Democrat as opposed to a New Deal liberal of either the hawkish (Humphrey) or dovish (McGovern) variety. And I suppose both Humphrey and McGovern are ancient history to many people.

I, on the other hand, rather approve of his record.

Al Gore would likely receive such venom from the far-right that many liberals/progressives might end up defending him while grumbling under their breath (or on DU) at the same time. Howard Dean had a love/hate affair with the left when he was in office as Governor of Vermont.

was actually the driving force behind Clinton's welfare reform, a big backer of NAFTA, a proponent of faith-based organizations, very much a hawk on foreign policy (“We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone.”).

but I suspect a lot of people might not. How he would actually govern as President is hard to say. Perhaps a change in his constituency might modify some of his policies. But I suspect it would likely still be closer to the Clinton/DLC/New Democrat model.

I don't think they're the same man, personally.

Publically he opposed the Iraq war. Big whoop!

Poll question: Of the last 8 Democratic nominees which one comes closest to reflecting your own personal political views and philosophy?

11% voted for Jimmy Carter a moderate to moderately-conservative Democrat

29% voted for one of two clearly definable liberal who ran on a liberal agenda -- 31% if we include Mondale who had a liberal history but ran on a moderate agenda.

...put "DLC" next to their names.

impression. Or perhaps they are judging more on image, style and personal charisma than on their political philosophy and positions on issues.

I have to personally agree with your analysis of JFK for example, but many people of the progressive left think that was his philosophy. I suspect that is wishful thinking.

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

Aside from matters of which he has criticized Bush on national security, show me where Gore had changed his stance on anything since he was VP.

.

but I am just trying to analyze Al Gore's more positive image and higher level of popularity with liberals/progressives.

George McGovern almost got my vote, but I went with John Kerry. I like his low-key humor and self-effacing style in a group of people. I like that he is a bit nervous in the public eye, that he prefers quiet solitude for thinking and planning.

I like his wife, who is smart and strong and brave, and who doubtless wouldn't give John Kerry the time of day unless he was worthy of her own virtues. I admire and respect their marriage and the way they both treat each other's children by a previous marriage.

While few of us are hogwild about the support-the-president vote, Kerry's overall voting record aligns fairly closely with my own perceptions of effective governance. I'd prefer a socialist democracy with Robert Kennedy or Bill Moyers at the helm, but not that many of us have lived in states that have two influential liberal senators. Good god pity the good blue voter who has Jeff Sessions or the late Strom Thurmond or the two vacuous nitwits from Oklahoma, etc.

I like Kerry's evolution as a public citizen best of all. He's wealthy and doesn't need to be in the U.S. Senate scrapping and clawing with Republican morons, but he does it. He does it pretty well. He and John Edwards won the Ohio election in 2004 and ought to be in different places today.

Like you, I picked Kerry. My first vote was for McGovern and I still have a button.

He is given so little credit for what he did. He was by far courageous. Telling the American people about the corruption of the Nixon White House. He was progressive and had a caring heart.

I wished we had more like him in government now!!!

Reagan-Bush administrations was NOT courageous? Or did you forget about IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning, all of which were far worse crimes against the constitution than Watergate, and together constitute the most corruption in the last century of American history.

My personal political hero...

Both Humphrey and McGovern were the last two genuinely unabashed old-fashioned New Dealer liberals (prairie populist). McGovern was considerably more critical of military spending and adventures while Humphrey was more of a Truman Doctrine man. But in terms of seeking major sweeping domestic social reforms they were the last two nominees to really run on that kind of agenda.

Mondale was a bit of a Humphrey protege, but ran on a very toned down version that was not very inspiring. I guess that was the end of the visionary New Deal/Great Society Democrats.

Publically at least with that great 1948 convention speech that induced Strom Thurmond to walk out. Late rof course the landmark Civil Rights acts could not have been passed without him.

Most people's knowledge of Humphrey is limited to the '68 Democratic Primary. During the Primary he was cast as the candidate of the status-quo (which is logical since he was Johnson's VP), as opposed to RFK, who was young and charismatic, and Eugene McCarthy who was largely supported by the New Left. And of course everybody has the video of the riots outside the DNC Convention in Chicago lodged in their memory.

It is unfortunate that people don't know that Humphrey was quite liberal on domestic issues. His greatest legacy should be about his courage in championing civil rights in an era when most "progressive" Democrats were unwilling to do more than "play politics" with the issue. Had it not been for Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic Party might still the Party of white southern racism - it is a shame that history has failed to give him the credit he deserves.

Humphrey is kind of an unsung hero thee days.

Except for getting caught in that little matter called VietNam, Humnphrey was classic liberal Democrat in the best sense of the word.

He fought for civil rights back before it was cool. (In the 1940's.)

I admit it. I'm out in left field.

-Laelth

I like his recent speeches but I don't remember him articulating one back in 2000.

Because pre-911 Al Gore couldn't seem to figure out what he thought about anything.

I didn't get to cast a vote for him, as I was only 12, but he's top in my book.

Because that's where Al Gore was in 2000.

I think Al Gore has a much more positive image now with progressives/liberals than he did in 2000 because of his opposition to the war, his recent speeches and his endorsement of Howard Dean. But in terms of his actual position on issues at least in 2000 - I can't help but see your point.

Unless he has fundamentally changed his political philosophy Al Gore is essentially a DLC/New Democrat. I can understand liberals/progressives making a pragmatic choice in is his favor -- I would consider doing that myself -- but based on conviction and/or ideology I cannot see liberals/progressives favoring him from that perspective.

For once I have to agree with Mr. Wyldwolf's analysis above.

Despite the fact that that is not what the poll is asking for.

I like Al Gore but I see no real evidence that his ideology has changed. Dean is a true centrist as well, so in that respect Gore's endorsement is not surprising.

I wanted to go more liberal but I haven't been alive long enough to make a judgement on anyone pre-Clinton. Carter ran conservatively but he is one of my political heroes for all the charity/environmental work that he has done. He made a lot of mistakes during his presidency but I admire him all the same :)

Actually a friend of mine knows him and tells me he is a REALLY nice guy

and he is a great guy. He is truly a public-spirited guy who takes public transportation to work, does his own grocery store shopping, and picks up trash when he's out walking. He and Kitty show up regularly at town events.

That said, Kerry lines up almost perfectly with my own views. I like his strong moral values, I like the way he's unafraid to take on corruption, and I like him very much as a person.

For me, McGovern was a very strong second place, though. I voted for him in my first presidential election, by absentee ballot away at college. I'm proud to say I was one of those sensible Massachusetts voters who chose him!

he did a lot of good things in Massachusetts.

He might of have been a really good president too. But unfortunately, he was not a very good presidential candidate.

Clinton and Gore so I just voted Clinton. But they both were politicians that I could always connect with.

May be some people should look back at what some people stood for during their campaign. With the exception of McGovern, this looks weird.

If one holds to the New Dem/DLC philosophy - it would make perfect sense that they would have answered Clinton, Gore or Kerry; possibly even Dukakis. If they liked someone with a strong liberal background but not a specific liberal agenda at the time they were the nominee I suppose, Mondale would seem like a reasonable answer.

If they are torn between traditional liberal and New Dem either Dukakis or Kerry would to me seem a reasonable answer.

If they are out-and-out liberal/progressive, it would seem to me that Humphrey would make sense if they are liberal but in the hawkish direction or McGovern if they are liberal and in the dovish direction.

But that's just my analysis. I am sure other people could quite fairly see it differently.


I do understand the point of supporting someone on pragmatic grounds (IE: a liberal backing Gore because he might have the best chance of winning) But I was curious about how people saw these nominees philosophically and in terms of their positions on issues.

a "stuffed shirt" before he found his angry self in 2004. Gore was anything but liberal before then. He actually teetered on being conservative. Looked who he picked as his VP candidate in 2000- Liberman. There is nothing wrong with hero worship, just understand and really know something about who you are worshiping.

There are a lot of people who recognize he was an effective Senator and Vice President and who actually do agree with his positions. Imagine the possibilities.

He was the most liberal president we've had in the last 30 years. He was a Social Democrat, one of only about 3 that we've had in this country:

1) Gave the Panama Canal back to Panama.
2) created the Department of Education, and a national energy policy
3) tried very hard to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment...has any President even brought it up since then?
4) There is STILL peace between Israel and Egypt.
5) By the end of his presidency, the tax bracket for billionaires was about 75%

(note: having lived about 10 miles away from President Carter for the last 5 years, I'm biased anyway.)

nfm

I've always like President Gore.

.

He was a piss poor candidate.

He lost what should have been a calkwalk.

I read and heard what he said - I couldn't believe he said half of it, but he did.

It was embarassing.

I still fought mightly for him and was hearbroken when he "lost" - but he's yesterday's news.

He doesn't have what it takes. Neither does Hillary.

They are both very good Senators.

Keep them there.

Give someone else a chance.

He had his chance and blew it bigtime, no matter how you slice it.

Maybe by 2010, you'll be a little less bitter, but, um--good luck getting through May '08, 'kay? Something tells me you're going to be one unhappy camper at that point, sitting at home, watching Kerry complete his clean-up of the primaries, angry and resentful that whomever you backed didn't have what it took. I wish you all the best; it seems like you'll need it.

kicked and so did the leftleaning media on a DAILY BASIS who had no chance to outshout the disciplined lies of the corporate and RW message machine. And Bush STILL had to depend on rigged machines to stay in power.

BTW - Please name the Democrat who has beaten the corporate press since 1997.

Its healthy and liberating to be honest about what happened. Did the R's and news media pull dirty tricks? Heck yeah. They'll continue to do so. But we need to field good candidates in high quality campaigns who are strong enough to overcome those obstacles. We need candidates who can catapult their message over the news media and turn out enough voters to deal with dirty tricks.

I voted for Gore as well - though I was far happier voting for Kerry.

He's still one of my heros.

McGovern even endorsed Clark, who was against the Iraq war while being a little more fiscally liberal than Dean. But I don't think any of the above choices is quite as fiscally liberal as Mondale is. And Mondale supported a nuclear freeze when that wasn't fashionable.

to a large extent a protege of Hubert Humphrey.

But when he ran for President in 1984 -- like everyone else after McGovern he kind of played it safe and moved to the center even supporting keeping all of Reagan's military budget and most of his tax and spending cuts - although modified. His record as a Senator though was as an unabashed liberal.

It's an important distinction. I've liked the things Gore has been saying lately, but he rans a sh*tty campaign in 2000. So, I went with George McGovern. His ideals annd integrity were unmistakeable. And, his political sensibility is still intact... he endoresed Wes Clark, after all. ;)

TC

I agree that does make a difference

I really thought there were more liberal and anti-corruption voters here at DU. They certainly ACT like they are.

as I only really know Clinton and later.

I was in high school for Dukakis, and supported him over Bush (despite being almost the only kid in my school who did) - but didn't know a lot about him (I lived in Germany and didn't have American TV, so I didn't really get a lot of info).

Before then, I really didn't know anything at all about politics, so...I don't really know whether anyone Dukakis or earlier would be closer to my views than Clinton/Gore/Kerry.

Al Gore. By the way I need help from everyone on this site my name is Tim. I was trying to defend this other guy from all these right wing wack jobs who are pretty much praising Bush. This guy name Chris Martin told him to STFU when he was trying to expose the right wing media. I need everyone to post a message to tell this guy he's a moron and praise the other guy who was trying to exspose the right wing media. Here's the link http://www.lonestarball.com/story/2006/3/14/16336/6360

I sure hope he runs again - and wins in 2008! :)

There are other potential candidates who I think would have a good shot (Clark, Edwards, Clooney?) but none of them is as well-qualified for the job as Al Gore.

In Gore We Trust
www.algore.org