Kerry and Gore both had populist messages. Send some one from Massachusetts to get votes in Virginia and Missouri and they'd better be able to perform miracles.

I admit, though, I'll never understand how Gore could not carry Tennessee.

So who on a national ticket can win in Virginia and Missouri?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"It is a revolutionary world we live in. Governments repress their people; and millions are trapped in poverty while the nation grows rich; and wealth is lavished on armaments. 

For the fortunate among us, there is the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who enjoy the privilege of education. But that is not the road history has marked for us. 

The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great enterprises of American society."
-Robert F. Kennedy-

"In nearly every place, especially rural communities, where we found a severe unwillingness to help the poor, we also found, and not always because of ethnic differences, a pocket of feudalism in America: a local power structure committed to perpetuating itself at all costs and unwilling to countenance the slightest improvement in the lives of the excluded, for fear they would gain the confidence and the wherewithal to overturn the status quo at the ballot box. Elected officials, judges, police officers and sheriffs, and local bankers and business people were always ready to use any tool necessary to quash dissidence whenever it appeared. This was true in Cesar Chavez's world in California, in the Rio Grande valley in south Texas, in Mississippi, and in Appalachia." 1968

Peter Edelman
Searching for America's Heart: RFK and the Renewal of Hope

It's still true away from the interstates in the Red States, especially the South. Until the national Democratic Party addresses these people's interests and gets them involved the south is lost. The folks in self-imposed JesusLand ghettos are largely lost, having cocooned themselves into church, 'Christian' radio, TV, internet, music and books. Sad but true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It seems pretty obvious, doesn't it: Do good for all Americans regardless of location, sex, race, income or other differences because they are all human and all are worth helping and saving. A good populist won't give up on anybody.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is EXACTLY what I've been saying for quite a while now. Don't become more Republican to win back these votes, become more Democratic.

Clinton's embrace of the corporate elite nearly finished off the blue-collar support of the Democratic Party. Rural America used to be very favorable to the Democrats, particularly the family farmers. Too bad there are hardly any family farmers left to turn to, but we still have a working class.

It's not just the south, it's the midwest and plains states too. Look at the Democrats who are winning in Montana. You may not agree with all of their issues, but they're certainly not Republican-lite corporatists.

THIS is what the Democratic Party needs to be thinking about if they don't want to blow this chance and see Republicans return to power in 2008.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Missouri - the South? What in God's creation are you talking about? St. Louis and KC as part of the South - you can't be serious. As a lifelong resident of the South Carolina, I can't think of one person that considers Missouri as part of the South. Hell, when I was in school in Iowa no one thought Missouri was from the South, other than directionally.

And Webb is hardly a progressive. Mind you, the only reason he won is because he stomped ass in the suburbs of D.C. and the other urban areas.

I'm glad we took back control of the house, but this election was hardly a repudiation of the argument that Democrats and progressives can win without the South.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We should respect that Ford as a Black Democrat (or more precise, what racist might consider even worse, a Mulatto) came very near to victory in a location where his opponent got a boost in the polls when an ad was shown playing on the rapacious black male preying on the white female cliche. That should "excuse" the candidate's consevative credentials (at least they seem to be sincere, that's more than what you can say about a lot of Republicans)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't write anyone off. Yesterday's winners were written off in 2000. They didn't even know it at the time. People just caved in to leadership and didn't even put up a fight. It's called coming home to roost. It's been done before and will be done again. That includes the South. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The reason the Democrats should not give up on the South is more than a tactical one. It's about justice. There are working poor people, and disenfranchised citizens, all over the country. But nowhere in the US is there a more pressing need for economic justice, for an extension of democracy into the workplace, than the Southeast. If the Democrats ever figured out how to win national elections without Southern black and rural voters, it would be a license to further abandon the historic values of the party.

I am no fan of the DNC or the DLC. They are, primarily, corporate shills seeking Faustian bargains. But this isn't about them. Until there is true electoral reform allowing proportional representation or instant runoff voting, and hence viable third parties, the Dems are the only political hope for millions of people being poisoned, disenfranchised, overworked, underpaid, put down, and locked out.

Progressives ought to be about creating justice both through alternative institution building and winnable national politics. It's not a question of selling out to the DNC, it's a question reaching beyond the usual networks, and building new ones, among people most in need, and most likely to be passionate about economic justice.

P.S. I'm not thrilled with Webb, but it sure is nice to see one more bully sent home from Washington. Here in Virginia, it's an amazing feeling to see one's vote count for something again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Funny how short a memory you have Alternet.....wasn't it just last week an article ran about how the Democrats shouldn't even pay attention to the South?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You've got to understand that the South is not red - it's purple. In Tennessee Harold Ford got 49% of the vote because he took the time to go to every area of the state. Yes, he didn't win this time, but that doesn't mean he didn't make significant inroads into the so-called redneck mindset of almost half of Tennessee. Yes, he is conservative on many issues, but at the same time he ran on increasing the minimum wage, universal health care, renegotiating the Medicare drug bill, redeploying in Iraq, safer borders, and fortifying veterans' benefits. Unfortunately that message was drowned out by the NATIONAL GOP's position and interjection of racism into the campaign. Multimillionaire Bob Corker refused to discuss any issues, and simply ran on the tired old stand behind Bush, repeal the death tax, terror, terror, terror policy. Frankly, I think Corker would have been scared to death to yell racism had not Ken Mehlman and the RNC done it for him. Though he claimed to decry the ads and denied at first he had control, he later admitted he could have them taken down and then had the TV ad pulled. His hypocrisy blared out constantly on the radio with the almost word for word bigotry and misrepresentation of Ford up until the day of the election.

Main point here. If people stick to their cliques and never venture into the "other" territory, nothing will change. We're deeply ashamed of the Corker victory for what it obviously is, kneejerk reaction to the "black man's gonna git yore white woman" ad. But we must constantly confront these issues, talk back and rebut to the people we are in contact with everyday, and smile as we point out what our agenda really is. I've found there are a lot of people that think like me in deeply Red E Tennessee, but they would never have known it if I didn't have an "impeachbushgame.com" bumper sticker on my car, along with "Turn left at next election" and wasn't a constant irritation to the editor of my local Republican owned and edited newspaper. The hard work is in the areas where people think they don't agree with you. Thing is, they probably do agree, it just has to be pointed out to them in a nice, not condescending, but constant way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's a nice little Slate article about how evil it is that a lot of the red-state Dems are 'economic nationalists':
http://www.slate.com/id/2153271/nav/tap1/

I think this shows how Democrats who focus on ECONOMIC issues can win. In fact, look, we did it! We won the House! We won the Senate! (as soon as Allen finally gives up) We're gonna stop Chimpy in his tracks and give him hell! Why? Because we didn't push people on social issues further than they could go and we focused on being strong, liberal Democrats on the economic issues we can win on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's debatable whether Kerry and/or Gore had populist messages, but ultimately the messenger IS the message. Neither Kerry nor Gore were populists by any definition or stretch of the imagination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One of the big criticisms of the Dems was that they were led by Eastern Estabishment "elites" who look down their noses at southerners (That's folks from the Deep South). In reality, the real elitists, smug with their self-righteousness and certain that they are always in the right is found in the rural south and west. They're sure that God's on their side, that city folks are evil and corrupt and that they have all the answers for putting it right.

If you want to see a good example of what happens when these folks run the show, look at the 1920s. They got Prohibition, censorship, drug laws, blue laws, etc. They marched proudly thru Washington DC with in their White Robes, and they supported Isolationism big time.

As it turns out, they were organized crime's greatest friend. Their stupid laws promoted big city corruption as politicians viewed this "hick morality" as much to do about nothing.

The 1930s started the decline of these rural Calvanists, along with WWII and the Warren Court upholding "one man one vote" so that state legislatures could function.

Ultimately, they made a comeback with the Republicans and the "Southern Strategy" (actually a RURAL strategy).

The idea shouldn't be to write off the south, but to attack this self-rightous elite of rural religious leaders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hopefully the left will soon confront the crude realities of race and electability in the south. If a "moderate/conservative" African American native in a border state like Tennessee, can not win against a undistinguished Republican black candidate any black can forget it at the state-wide level. This brings me to the media love affair (so far) with Obama. There is no way he would carry a southern or border state. Frankly I think the calculus in most of the West would be similar. Of course any Hillary-Obama ticket would not have a chance. Maybe a DLC type nominee would select him as a VP choice to buttress turnout in the Northeast and urban centers.

Sadly Obama might have to settle for being the "moral and motivational" voice of the democratic party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm sorry, but white folks in the South still will not make common cause with their black neighbors. It doesn't seem to matter how much they and their children suffer economically, many of them would still vote Republican because - as the attack ad against Ford sadly illustrated - they're more terrified of some black guy having sex with their white women than they are of having a decent job the next day. Also, these are the same people so against two people of the same gender getting married, they'd rather see their jobs being 'outsourced' overseas. Until white people in the South can finally get over the fact that yes, they lost the Civil War and yes, black folks can actually sit in the front of the bus - they deserve what they get.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Democrats won because Americans who might otherwise or ordinarily vote Republican wanted to punish Bush for Iraq, and the only way to do so short of revolution was to oust the Republican Congress. Americans will support discretionary military ventures (even those, such as Iraq, that are subsequently revealed to have been unwarranted) only if they are fought and won quickly and not protractedly, which is considered a loss no matter how justified it initially appeared. In short, the Republicans lost Congress because Bush and his adminstration are not conservatives, as true conservatives would never have initiated such military adventurism but, if forced there, would have acted decisively to win it and be done with it.

This country and the West in general are heading down a dangerous road not of our choosing and one which most Democrats are not constitutionally equipped to face. I believe that within the next decade or two, conservatives will rise to power, because conservatives are unafraid to face reality, and the country as a whole will have no choice but to quit living a spoiled existence of denial and start facing reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... on this over in Peek. My conclusion: everyone please just shut up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Many rode in on the coat-tails of corruption, allegations of homosexuals in the Repub party, and on ballots in which the populace voted to enshrine the outlawing of gay marriage. Polosi and company had a good strategy from the point of Democrat party politics, but not one to advance any kind of progressive politics. Many, if not most, of those Dems elected were selected because they were conservative, 'moderate' (at least compared to the Rep holding the seat, had military background, etc. Even then many of the races were close in terms of percentages and they wouldn't have been elected if the Repubs hadn't made such a mess of spending, the war perception, homosexual goings-on, corruption, etc. Now how are the Democrats going to get along together when the agenda is far from clear. Remember people want to get voted back into power so they need to pay attention to what they do in those Southern, MidWestern, MidSouth, and Western seats??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In the South, especially in rural areas, you are fighting an agenda of selfishness by elites overlayed with self-righteousness from the McJesus establishment. This manifests as the brainwashing of the "average worker" by notions such as the idea that those who receive social welfare benefits are "raising my taxes, cause they are too lazy to work." Related to this is the belief that the average worker should somehow accept suffereing because a "reward" in the next life will be waiting for him or her. In reality, what you have is a skillful manipulation by elites - from the McJesuses and the wealthy over to the corporate honchos, of the "average man." This manipulation results in the "average man" voting against his or her real interests. What Dems need to do is show the working/middle classes that it is in their best interest to vote Democratic. That universal health care, a higher minimum wage, and guaranteed pensions will benefit them more then adherence to the elite/corporate/McJesus agenda. That social welfare benefits will always be to the advantage of the poor and middle classes more than the wealthy. And, that we need to stop blaming the victim, the poor. This is a tall order for the Dems. But it is doable. Especially if Dems can focus on the tangible economic benefits that will result from their policies. Debacles such as Iraq and McJesuses humping kids will help a little bit, but Dems cannot count on the stupidity of Repubs if they are to be successful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The quaint intent behind the word morphs into something highly irritating upon overuse.

This is really just an emotional, knee-jerk and altogether unconvincing article from Bob Moser. He's beyond arrogant to claim he knows exactly why more southerners chose to vote Democrat, and he's silly to contend that their votes were cast in response to an honest, down-home campaign style.

Southerners read the news too. Perhaps the sorry state of the union put a passion for so-called "family values" in perspective. The fact that so many of them voted to ban recognition of same-sex unions speaks loudly. And despite the dismal state of affairs, elections that should've been landslides for Democrats were still squeakers.

The south isn't hopping on the progressive bandwagon anytime soon. Let's see what they do in 2008 before we waste time and money wooing them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Virginia and Missouri is the best we can show for the South? The former a race where the Republican did his level best to sabotage his campaign, took troubles to distance himself from his Jewish background, called an Indian-American a 'macaca', and still got close to 50% of the vote.

The South lest we forget is the region that voted out triple amputee Max Cleland in agreement with Chambliss' (who did not serve) questioning of his (Cleland's) patriotism.

So, are we supposed to buy into the "working class" references and rhetoric to believe that this is a class issue? Well, we work too in the North ... only we are less tolerant of the macacas.

It is possible that the south is on its way to a more liberal (dare I say enlightened) viewpoint. And for that reason, it would be advisable not to write them off. But, it would be self-delusional to think that a 2008 or 2010 strategy can seriously proceed without the assumption of winning without the south.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"The Democrats clearly have no mandate for their pet issues of gun control, homosexual marriage, and higher taxes--especially at a time when the average American is deeper in personal debt than at any other time in history and jobs are being offshored at a rapid rate destroying the economic prospects of the American people.

After the years of illegal war and the overnight destruction of civil liberties that were 800 years in their creation, the United States stands at a watershed. If the legislation that has been put on the books permitting spying on Americans without a court warrant, legalizing torture and self-incrimination, and repealing habeas corpus and the right to an attorney remains on the books, the United States will be a police state regardless of which party is in power.

If the Democrats are to make a real difference, their first task is to repeal the Orwellian-named “Patriot Acts,” the torture legislation, the detention without court evidence legislation, and the right-to-spy and invade privacy without court warrant legislation. The White House tyrant needs to be quickly told that one more “signing statement” and he will be impeached, convicted, and turned over to the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague.

The notion that Americans can be protected from “terror” by giving up the Bill of Rights is absurd. Democrats are complicit in this absurd notion. Many were intimidated into voting for police state legislation, because they lacked the intestinal fortitude to call police state legislation by its own name. The legislation that has been passed during the Bush regime is far more dangerous to Americans than Muslim terrorists.

Indeed, the prime cause of Muslim terrorism is the US interference in the internal affairs of Muslim countries and America’s one-sided stance in favor of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When Jimmy Carter was president, his even-handed approach made the US respected throughout the Muslim world. 9/11, if it was actually an act of Muslim terrorism, was the direct consequence of US one-sided meddling in Middle Eastern affairs.

When, and only when, the Democrats have erased the Bush administration’s police state legislation from the books, thus restoring the Constitution, they should clear the air on two other issues of major importance. The Democrats must convene a commission of independent experts to investigate 9/11. The 9/11 Commission Report has too many problems and shortcomings to be believable. Recent polls show that 36 percent of the American people do not believe the report. Such a deficient report is unacceptable. 9/11 became the excuse for the neoconservative Bush regime to launch illegal wars of aggression in the Middle East. The 9/11 Commission Report is nothing but a public relations justification for the “war on terror,” which in truth is a war on American liberty. As long as politicians with a police state mentality can cling to the cover of the 9/11 Commission Report, the Bill of Rights will remain endangered.

The other issue is the blatant corruption in the Bush regime’s contract practices. So many contracts are tainted with their connections to Republican power brokers, including Vice President Richard Cheney, that the taxpayers are being fleeced on the level of the Grant administration. Indictments and long prison sentences are in order.

This leaves the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both are lost. Both invasions were illegal. Those responsible must be held accountable. The American prosecutors of the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg emphasized, as Robert Jackson put it, that Germany’s crime was not in losing the war but in starting it. Under the Nuremberg standard, to launch a war of aggression is a war crime. It is punishable with a death sentence. "

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Barack Obama is from Hawaii, Kansas, Kenya and Illinois-well, sort of. Could he win in the South in 2008?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I hate to be the one to break this to anybody, but it is no longer the 1950s. I won't lie: racism is still going on in the South. That said, it is also going on in the Northeast, the Northwest, the Southwest, and the middle of the damn country. Quit pretending that racism is only a Southern problem.

My family is Cajun and I lived in the South for most of my life, although I am now in Ohio. I suppose my observations won't count for much since you didn't get them from a Hollywood movie or some comedian's stupid jokes or Air America, but here's my two cents for what it's worth.

The Civil War is indeed over. The fighting part, anyway. What you people seem to miss is that it had long-reaching effects on the South's economy. Yes, it was just and right to end slavery. But the South did not have anything to fall back on when it lost that economic base. There were hardly any factories, and we pretty much were relying on two or three crops to bring money into the region. That's always a big mistake, but we weren't the first or the last to make it.

What didn't help was Lincoln being assasinated. He had intended to bring the South back into the Union in such a way that everybody could save face. Thanks to him being killed and Johnson impeached, the Radical Republicans (go figure) got their way and were able to screw the South front, back, and upside down over a barrel. The truth is that it's only been in the past twenty or thirty years that we've seen any real recovery, and the War's been over for a hundred and forty-odd years. That's how bad the damage was. (That's also why the South stuck with the Democrats for so long even though they were the so-called racist party.)

The other thing you need to understand is how isolated the rural life is. You don't seem to grasp this. I, on the other hand, have lived in that setting. You have to understand that even now in the Information Age there are areas of the country that don't get broadband. There are areas of the country that are just completely computer illiterate. My parents' generation went to high school, also, when schools and businesses were still largely segregated. They didn't associate with blacks because there were very real negative consequences for doing so. That which we do not understand, we tend to fear. That which we fear, we often hate.

So you have all these generations of people who don't understand one another, and they're still around and they're still out in the country and they have no contact with unfamiliar people. And they have no real access to the outside world by the Internet because they can't afford it, or they don't understand it, and the funding to help them gain understanding and access just doesn't exist.

All of that is true, none of it is really all their fault, but instead of suggesting solutions to the problems they face, you people want to write them off as ignorant savages. How is that going to solve anything?

The funny part is, they aren't stupid. (To you, ignorant and stupid mean about the same thing.) In fact they could survive situations that would send you all running home to your mommas. As my mom put it, she has been living in poverty for most of her life and she could handle suddenly having enough money to live and pay bills and be comfortable, but if her rich sister were to trade places with her, Aunt Ruth wouldn't last a week. It's like that with you people too. Rural Southerners may not be all that sophisticated, but you're hothouse flowers. You wouldn't survive that long out in the elements. If you think that's something to be proud of, well, OK.

I'm glad the Democrats regained Congress but they better straighten up their act. It's exactly that kind of snobbery outlined in the article here that has helped keep the South in poverty for so long. They need help, not snubbing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amen! Moser's column is right on target and reflects exactly what I have been thinking over the past few days. It also describes what happened on election day here in my northwestern corner of North Carolina where Democrats swept all the local elections, including state senate and state house, in a county - Watauga - where Republicans hold the registration edge. Our Congresswoman, V. Foxx, recently featured for her contribution to "pork" on ABC's "Nightline" even lost sizeably here in her home county, though she won overall. (Those who know her best, like her the least.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]