Time for yet another unofficial DU '08 straw poll--vote early and often!

[smoogatz]

Fourth in a series of quick snapshots of DU's current mood, '08 presidential-run-wise. The likely top ten prospective candidates are listed alphabetically, without comment. Don't worry--I won't argue with your choices or dispute your rationales--this isn't one of THOSE polls. If I've left out your favorite (Bayh, Kucinich, Dean, Boxer?), be sure to let me know.

[smoogatz]

1. kickeroo.

[smoogatz]

2. And again.

[orpupilofnature57]

3. Al Gore ,we need a non hollywood actor.Hill would be a good Veep

and would let the country digest a woman and another Clinton slowly , and realistically but surely.

[gully]

4. I love DU polls, please join me in a recommend. I voted for that Gore

guy. ; )

[blm]

5. For such early consideration it should ask: Coverup Dem or Open Government Dem?

And then get people to think about how that question limits your choices - unless you prefer a coverup Democrat, and in that case, there's certainly no limit there.

[davidinalameda]

6. who are the cover-up Dems

[blm]

9. well....pretty much the same crowd who covered up for Bush1 and anyone who they've

brought in to join their ideology since then.



From Robert Parry, Nov12,2006: Democrats, The Truth STILL Matters!

Mr. Parry is allowing this article to be reprinted in full - you may also repost at other forums you visit or on your sites. It is THAT important to help citizens to understand what the stakes are in all of this.

This is not about arguing for impeachment - it's about getting the truth out so events like a Bush presidency, 9-11 and Iraq war can NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.


Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

“I told that the New Republic hadn’t brought them enough votes to win a single precinct,” the senior Democrat said. “But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.”

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIA’s “politicization” issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clinton’s confidence and – after several CIA scandals – was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton – and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats – view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton’s folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

[smoogatz]

7. I think both schools of thought are amply represented.

Though God knows what Vilsack has to say on the subject of subpoenas for Bushco.

[blm]

8. heh...that one question would weed out the group really fast - Will you open the books

on BushInc?

[smoogatz]

10. Another kick.

[smoogatz]

11. Self-kick, one more time.

[bigwillq]

12. At this point, Edwards

but it's way too early for me to make a definite decision.

[smoogatz]

13. Man, you gotta love the Clarkies--

they pounce on these polls every time I post them. But where are the Kerry people?

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Clark is popular. And I think he'd make a strong candidate.

He's my number 2 choice, after Al Gore. Sort of like DU-in-general.

[FrenchieCat]

67. Me, I see Gore People pouncing!

Guess it depends on who's looking at it.

Clinton and Obama each poll higher than Clark or Gore in the Media poll world, so really, why make a stereotypical comment that might piss off some Clark supporters about this "another Smoogatz" Poll? :shrug:

Bottomline is that comment from you was unrequired and far as I'm concerned, unfortunate.

[smoogatz]

14. Last self-kick for this one. If you vote, please give a little kick

so we can get a reasonably representative poll. Thanks!

[smoogatz]

15. Oh, all right--one more.

Then I'm going to watch a movie with the Mrs. Good night, DU!

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Al Gore.

'Nuff Said.

[citizen snips]

17. John Edwards

n/t

[benny05]

21. ditto n/t

[ms liberty]

19. Gore, Gore, Gore! K&R n/t

[DesertRat]

20. President Gore!

He won the most votes in 2000, he can win again!

[Liberty Belle]

22. You should add Nancy Pelosi!

If Dems do a good job, Americans will know and respect her.

[me b zola]

23. Russ!!!

[pstans]

25. Feingold stands up and fights for what he believes in

I am behind Russ Feingold because he stands on principle.

Run, Russ, Run!
http://www.runrussrun.com/referral/61726566

[ashlarah]

29. Feingold says he will not run.

[MethuenProgressive]

24. Gore '08 - and a novel idea

Maybe. I think a novel approach would be to run a whole ticket Gore for Pres, Obama for Veep, Clark for SecDef, Bill Clinton at State, Biden at the UN, etc. Let the people know up front who will be running the country.

[tinrobot]

26. Re-Elect Al Gore

Right man, right time...

[WiseButAngrySara]

27. Kick! Interesting results.... n/t

[dalaigh lllama]

28. kick

and recommend. Glad to see Gore way out in front.

[LTR]

30. Where's Lieberman?

Just kidding. I vote Gore. He already won once.

[Vidar]

31. Gore or Clark, though Feigold is my favorite.

[In Truth We Trust]

32. Cynthia McKinney '08! It is time for a truth teller in the White House

[NoPasaran]

33. Why stop there?

Cynthia McKinney for Queen of the World!

[In Truth We Trust]

35. Is that a Mississippi Trent Lott type sarcastic point of view? Or do you genuinely find Cynthia to

be a true representative of the majority.

[NoPasaran]

37. It's a mainstream Democratic point of view

She was an embarrassment and I'm glad she's gone.

[In Truth We Trust]

39. How did she embarass you? Btw the "mainstream pov" once held George W FraWd as savior and saint.

The "Mainstream pov" once held that the Earth was flat. Go figure.

[NoPasaran]

47. The current mainstream view is she is a raving nut

...and that's probably going to hold up for at least the next few thousand years.

She embarrassed me (and everyone else) by behaving like the flip side of George Allen.

[Jeanette in FL]

34. It's Al Gore for me

I was living in Palm Beach County in 2000 and I have never gotten over, nor will I ever get over the theft of the Presidency of Al Gore.

Democrats have taken over the helm of this ship in 2006 and Al Gore should be head of the helm in 2008. It will take much to right the course of America but I truly believe that Gore can do it.

[LWolf]

36. Out of your choices, Gore is the only one

I will cast a vote for. You can add Kucinich, Boxer, McKinney, and maybe a few others.

[smoogatz]

38. Next time I'll add Kucinich, I think--now that Russ is out.

Or maybe Al Sharpton.

[dalaigh lllama]

40. It would be interesting to see

where the support for each of these candidates comes from, to get a sense of the demographics. I can start by saying I'm rural Missouri, registered independent, white middle class, and I'm staunchly for Gore, who is the runaway winner of this straw poll at this point. Anyone else?

[smoogatz]

41. At 208 votes, this particular poll is a reasonably good representation

of the current mood on DU, I think. It's a good-sized sample, and the results are pretty consistent with three nearly identical polls I've done in the past, starting in June '06.

[dalaigh lllama]

45. So you're saying Gore

has been a frontrunner in all your straw polls to date? If so, that's wonderful news to me. Any idea if there are other straw polls at other sites showing similar results?

[smoogatz]

49. Yep--by similar margins. I'll post a results rundown soon.

I'm sure there are plenty of other online polls, but can't point you at any specifically. Most of the ones I've seen don't include Gore, I guess because he hasn't publicly expressed interest in so many words.

[LWolf]

50. Born in Missouri,

raised in CA, currently living in OR.

Have lived in cities and lived rurally. Currently living in a former rural area under the strain of rapid population growth. Still plenty of ranches and open space left...for the moment. The cancer of tract housing moves ever closer, though, and my little back road is about to be stressed with a major resort built across the street.

[kiteinthewind]

54. Missouri, also but

Suburban KC area, white, middle class, professional, 40ish, progressive Dem and absolute Gore supporter, now that Feingold has decided not to run.
:hi:

[dalaigh lllama]

59. Well, if Missouri is the "bellwether"

of the nation, between your suburban creds and my rural creds, maybe we'll convince Gore to run. (That's my opinion based on a "wisp" poll -- which I define as a very small part of a straw poll ;-))

[kiteinthewind]

61. I feel certain he will!

The man certainly has found his mojo!
:toast:

[NJ Democrats]

42. Voted for Gore now that Russ is out

[ignatius 2]

43. Gore/Clark ticket for 2008. Gore who has written a brilliant book about

global warming and produced a movie of the same, Gore who has been hired by the UK as a consultant regarding global warming, and Gore who was badly SCREWED out of his rightful place in the WH in 2000. I believe most people,except for the ditto head repugs, realize that Al Gore would have been a superior president to chimpy and therefore will get a tremendous amount of votes.

Clark adds the security to the ticket that many soccer moms and seniors need. I saw that the senior vote this midterm was 50-50. I think a brilliant man, a 4 star general like Clark could change that mix in favor of the dems. The fact that he was an economics major, number one in his class at West Point and is a war hero could bring in some of the white male vote that we sorely need. Many white males, IMHO, vote for those in which they can see themselves. What could be more macho than a heroic 4 star general? Also, if McCain runs for the republocans, Clark could be a natural offset to the war/hero/security arguments.

Gore and Clark, a winning ticket to bring real change to America and restore our image to the world.

[in_cog_ni_to]

44. GORE/WES CLARK

or WES CLARK/GORE...THAT would be our PERFECT ticket!

[mentalsolstice]

46. See my sig, need I say more?

[Pool Hall Ace]

48. Clark or Gore

[Christian30]

51. Voted for Clark

I don't think that Gore is going to play in Preoria. Too much baggage.

[nam78_two]

52. Gore or Kerry

Feingold was another one I liked but I guess he is not running :-/...
Pity-I am not sure Gore will run, Kerry doesn't have as much support as I would like :(.

I am not enthusiastic about any of the others.

NO on Obama! Inexperienced, cautious and so on....

[frebrd]

53. Gore K & R

[BlooInBloo]

55. I don't understand why Feingold is listed as an option.

Since he's, um, not an option.

[smoogatz]

58. I originally posted this poll last night, about twenty minutes before

I read on Atrios that Feingold had said he wouldn't run. Next time I'll probably include either Kucinich or Sharpton instead of Feingold, or if some other obscure governor declares in the meantime I'll include them.

[BlooInBloo]

60. Best. Reason. Ever. :)

[clu]

56. hehe

you left out kucinich and dean, in that order. boxer? sure, why not...

[bamacrat]

57. Gore/Clinton 08'

Let Hillary show her strengths before she tries.

[tavalon]

62. Kicked

and recommended. This is fun. I'm surprised Hillary isn't doing better. Pleased but surprised.

[Hutzpa]

63. I've always said Gore/Clinton is the ticket for 08 n/t

[Laelth]

64. It needs to be someone who opposed the Iraq war from day 1.

imho

That narrows our choices, a bit.

:shrug:

-Laelth

[smoogatz]

65. Well, for sure you've got Gore, Clark, Feingold and Obama

I have no idea what Vilsack or Richardsons' view of the war was prior to the invasion. And of course Feingold's out.

[Laelth]

66. I voted Clark.

I am of the opinion that Gore does not want to run and will not run (though if he wanted the job, he'd have my vote). I think Obama is too risky in the top slot, but would make a great VP. Feingold, as you note, is out.

:shrug:

-Laelth