New Hampshire Primary results
Started: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 20:25
Finished: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 20:42
They're being reported everywhere, but just for the sake of it...
Kerry - 38%
Dean - 26%
Clark - 13%
Edwards - 12%
Lieberman - 9%
Kucinich - 1%
Sharpton - 0%
Some are saying this means it's time to start the funeral march.
Me? I'm contemplating whether to sign up and hop on the Deanie bus to New Mexico this weekend to help raise awareness. Keep hope alive.
A quote from a comment in the above link:
"Giving up hope would be to give up hope on America."
Why? Quoting from this thread:
If Dean manges to win the nomination, Kerry and the majority of the Democratic party elites will secretely try to undermine him. They prefer Bush to Dean. In the end they can't fight the right wing because they are beholden to the same intests (big business). Big business funds everyone but Dean. They hate Dean because he defends democracy, which is not about empty phrases but about ACTIVE PARTICIPATION by the masses. The majority of the Dem ELITE are as scared of that as the Rupubs. When it boils down to it, Big business money is stronger than, abortion, gays, guns etc. This is what unites the right wing and most ELITE Dems against Dean. They HATE him. The Media HATES him because he dares stand up for REAL democracy.
The floor is open.
by bouncing (2004-01-28 17:32)
I think it is largely exactly what you stated, but I look at it another way.
Something I've come to understand is, almost every issue (especially the progressive ones like gay marriage) have a minority behind them. Usually, a small minority.
The major political parties are "big tents" of people who do not share an idealogy, but rather happen to be passionate about a few of the issues enclosed in the big tent.
For the Republicans, the big tent covers religious fundamentalists (American ones, but not unlike the hijackers of 9/11), economic libertarians, and multinational corporate interests.
For the Democrats, the big tent covers civil libertarians (gay rights, privacy, etc), social liberals, environmentalists, and education (mostly because Democrats fund it more).
But it's important to note that within each party are contradictions. In the Republican tent, large multinational corporations realize that sexual tolerance means big business in everything from porn to clothes. (Gay men, not surprisingly, spend more on a variety of things than straight men.)
Economic libertarians are also at odds with Republican's continued support for corporate welfair programs.
The Democratic party has similar contradictions. Labor unions seldom have much in common with environmentalists, for example.
How unpopular, sometimes good, sometimes bad issues get through in America is through exchanges. Take, for example, abortion. The vast vast majority of Americans are pro-choice. But not enough people care passionately about that to vote against Bush. The Patriot Act's actual provisions are not well supported in the American polls. The act itself, without explanation of what it allows, remains popular -- meaning that people are generally unaware of its contents.
So you can't really have a President who supports his base because the bases will have conflicting interests. John Kerry doesn't have a single word about a number of touchy issues on his website.
Howard Dean is a threat to some of those unsavory bases in the Democratic party, such as the media itself. Even though the Democrats in general rally behind him, you know that when Howard Dean is confronted with a difficult issue, he'll study it first, then go with his heart, go with what's right. It's that kind of courage that scares even the socially progressive big business.
That's why people are afraid of him. Especially the media elite -- Time Warner has nothing to fear from civil unions or tougher clean air laws, but you can bet when media consolidation arrives at the oval office, they don't want someone who will do the right thing.