♥ Virtual town hall meeting on Iraq/bloggers pick the candidate!
Congratulations to Moveon.org (MO) on its recent event. I regret I'm not the Moveon.org member I should be, having contributed nothing more than a good bit of petition signing. I can't host an event in this small space, and never donated to a site. Sorry.
Readers, MO sent an e-mail to people on the mailing list asking bloggers to answer the question which candidate promises to be best for extracting us from the Iraq catastrophe, chosen from among the virtual town hall panel. They include John Edwards, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Barak Obama. I don't know how MO would like this selection made or reported in the blog. There are links to the transcripts-videos-podcast at the link above.
Meanwhile, I can answer MO's question and tell MO what to do, once again. But, MO won't listen to me, and herein I have a problem, and MO has a problem. I can tell MO what to do, but I can't do it for MO, and I'm going to tell MO what to do right damn now while I'm still mad about reading this e-mail. Further, I'm going to bury the candidate selection in the text so MO can enjoy the hospitality.
I don't have to listen to the meeting to answer the question. I admit I don't know Sen. Dodd's thoughts, and apologize to him in advance. In all fairness I'd describe myself as left-extreme, but that is the groove I travel. What groove will MO travel, majority rule, subscriber rule...or something else?
The answer is, in a perfect world, if MO is true to its founding principle of embracing progressivism, it will choose (C) something else. That sounds undemocratic, and it is. It's called leadership, and leadership can be very undemocratic. I've been shocked to see MO adopt its mission strategy by poll, and the business with the Pelosi bill was so infuriating I almost hit "unsubscribe." Here's the thing, MO, I don't need your fucking bullshit. Why do you exist, except to make money, that you can't take a stand better than that? Brother, the world is waiting for leadership to step forward. It's a very simple thing.
This isn't my blog. It belongs to Luke, and Luke is on vacation this week. I can't speak for him and hope he isn't embarrassed by my taking liberties with his site. He's been more than patient, and some people feel I go too far sometimes. If Luke were here, I'd hope he'd point you to the name of the blog, Wot Is It Good 4, and then sing this little tune for you: "War...uhh!...(good God y'all) what is it good for? ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN' Say it, say it, say it..."
It's as simple as that. I hear a lot of worthless talk from people who don't care and want to cast themselves as "centrists" about how there is such a thing as a good and honorable war. In picking the dream war exodus candidate, I'd like to treat you to a couple little facts of life.
A redacted history of America and the two-thirds rule
I wrote a bizarro-world history lesson in three parts for this blog a few months ago I won't bother linking. People who came to the U.S. in the seventeenth century and moved west took whatever wasn't nailed down and slaughtered Native Americans. There is no making that picture pretty with legends of brave pioneers and savage Indians. And, two-thirds of the people who live in the U.S. understand that, and are passionate about it. In the end, the buffalo were slaughtered and the remaining Indians were herded onto reservations. But we can relax a little, because they aren't all on reservations today.
Fast forward to Iraq, which from the start was handled like cowboys and Indians. Two-thirds of the people in the country and world can be counted on to know the Iraq war is bad. On a given day the percentage could go as high as 80 percent, but you can count on two-thirds.
MO has a problem with that, and submits to a roundtable discussion which yields the inevitable patchwork/botched slap-together rule writing, policy making or candidate selection. Herein lies the error. Support for a war erodes. It's easy to be against a war after it's gone on awhile and it's easy to see the whole thing is a myth and utter waste.
Epilogue - Will MO eat fish heads?
What the democrats need in a candidate is the bloodhound who knew it was a stupid idea to go to war in Iraq before it started, and never changed sides. That's who MO should choose. That's who most people would like best for the next term. Plus, the democrats should think about the next election, which stands a high probability of being another GOP forcible insertion. War will be an issue then, too. But MO won't choose on such criteria, just count the votes and make a pie chart.
I don't mean to be harsh, dear MO, but you asked a specific question. I arrived at an answer you will hate and once again ignore. I can't speak for Sen. Dodd, but I know of two men who have been against the war since before it commenced, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich. Either would make a very fine president--they have the bloodhound in them. The others have changed sides and I don't trust them.
It isn't the answer you want, but it is an answer that is true; at least, by this method of inference it's true. MO, you can make money or you can be progressive, but you if you choose to be progressive you'll make less money. At the first of the year I told you suspending Bush's authorization to use military force was the first order of business for the new Congress. You ignored me, and now we face a situation where we're closer to nuclear obliteration than we were during the Bay of Pigs crisis. Thanks, pals. You'll ignore me again this time, and you'll screw up. I lean left and am extreme, but surprise. I'm one of the two-thirds. I contend the center groove you're groping for is left of center, and recent higher approval ratings of Congress suggest some of the newest members of the two-thirds were conservative republicans mere months ago.