convention democratica

[benfy]

programma del partito democratica per le presidenziali 2004:

http://www.dems2004.org/atf/cf/{59B09D55-4544-4D5F-965C-8DBD20B51054}/Platform%202004%20-%20by%20Comm%20(2).pdf


oratori:


Monday, July 26
The Kerry-Edwards Plan for America's Future

David Alston, Vietnam Swift Boat Crewmate of John Kerry
Tammy Baldwin, U.S. Representative from Wisconsin
Jimmy Carter, Former President of the United States
Bill Clinton, Former President of the United States
Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator from New York
Al Gore, Former Vice-President of the United States
Steny Hoyer, U.S. Representative from Maryland, Democratic
Whip
Terry McAuliffe, Chairman of the Democratic Party
Kendrick Meek, U.S. Representative from Florida
Robert Menendez, U.S. Representative from New Jersey
Thomas Menino, Mayor of Boston
Barbara Mikulski, U.S. Senator from Maryland
(joined by all Women Senators)
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, U.S. Representative from Ohio
Jim Turner, U.S. Representative from Texas

Tuesday, July 27
A Lifetime of Strength & Service

Tom Daschle, U.S. Senator from South Dakota, Democratic
Leader
Howard Dean, Former Governor of Vermont, 2004 Presidential
Candidate
Richard Durbin, U.S. Senator from Illinois
James Forbes, Senior Minister at Riverside Church, New York City
Richard Gephardt, U.S. Representative from Missouri, 2004
Presidential Candidate
Chris Heinz, Stepson of John Kerry
Teresa Heinz Kerry, Wife of John Kerry
Mike Honda, U.S. Representative from California
Ted Kennedy, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts
Jim Langevin, U.S. Representative from Rhode Island
Carol Moseley-Braun, Former U.S. Senator from Illinois, 2004
Presidential Candidate
Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona
Barack Obama, State Senator from Illinois, U.S. Senate
Candidate
Ron Reagan, Son of former President Ronald Reagan
Christie Vilsack, First Lady of Iowa
Ilana Wexler, 13-Year-Old Founder of Kids for Kerry

Wednesday, July 28
A Stronger More Secure America


Steve Brozak, Ret. Lt. Col., USMC, Candidate for U.S.
Representative from New Jersey
Elijah Cummings, U.S. Representative from Maryland
Cate Edwards, Daughter of John Edwards
Elizabeth Edwards, Wife of John Edwards
John Edwards, Democratic Vice-Presidential Nominee
Bob Graham, U.S. Senator from Florida, 2004 Presidential
Candidate
Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan
Dennis Kucinich, U.S. Representative from Ohio, 2004 Presidential Candidate
Greg Meeks, U.S. Representative from New York
Martin O’Malley, Mayor of Baltimore, Maryland
Harry Reid, U.S. Senator from Nevada
Ed Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania
Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico
Al Sharpton, 2004 Presidential Candidate

Thursday, July 29
Stronger at Home, Respected in the World

Madeline Albright, Former Secretary of State
Joe Biden, U.S. Senator from Delaware
Wesley Clark, Four Star General, 2004 Presidential Candidate
Max Cleland, Former U.S. Senator from Georgia
James Clyburn, U.S. Representative from South Carolina
Alexandra Kerry, Daughter of John Kerry
John Kerry, 2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee
Vanessa Kerry, Daughter of John Kerry
Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator from Connecticut, 2004 Presidential
Candidate
Ed Markey, U.S. Representative from Massachusetts
Juanita Millender-McDonald, U.S. Representative from California
Eleanor Holmes Norton, U.S. Representative from the District of Columbia
Nancy Pelosi, U.S. Representative from California, Democratic Leader
Jim Rassman, Green Beret rescued by John Kerry in Vietnam
Louise Slaughter, U.S. Representative from New York
(joined by Congressional Women)
John Sweeney, President of AFL-CIO
Mark Warner, Governor of Virginia

[benfy]

Los Angeles, CA
July 15, 1960

Governor Stevenson, Senator Johnson, Mr. Butler, Senator Symington, Senator Humphrey, Speaker Rayburn, Fellow Democrats, I want to express my thanks to Governor Stevenson for his generous and heart-warming introduction.

It was my great honor to place his name in nomination at the 1956 Democratic National Convention, and I am delighted to have his support and his counsel and his advice in the coming months ahead.

With a deep sense of duty and high resolve, I accept your nomination.

I accept it with a full and grateful heart – without reservation – and with only one obligation – the obligation to devote every effort of body, mind and spirit to lead our Party back to victory and our Nation back to greatness.

I am grateful too, that you have provided me with such an eloquent statement of our Party’s platform. Pledges which are made so eloquently are made to be kept. “The Rights of Man,” – the civil and economic rights essential to the human dignity of all men – are indeed our goal and our first principles. This is a platform on which I can run with enthusiasm and conviction.

And I am grateful, finally, that I can rely in the coming months on so many others – on a distinguished running mate who brings unity to our ticket and strength to our Platform, Lyndon Johnson – on one of the most articulate statesmen of our time, Adlai Stevenson – on a great spokesman for our needs as a Nation and a people, Stuart Symington – and on that fighting campaigner whose support I welcome, President Harry S. Truman – on my traveling companion in Wisconsin and West Virginia, Senator Hubert Humphrey. On Paul Butler, our devoted and courageous Chairman.

I feel a lot safer now that they are on my side again. And I am proud of the contrast with our Republican competitors. For their ranks are apparently so thin that not one challenger has come forth with both the competence and the courage to make theirs an open convention.

I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk – new, at least since 1928. But I look at it this way: the Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgement – to uphold the Constitution and my oath of office – and to reject any kind of religious pressure or obligation that might directly or indirectly interfere with my conduct of the Presidency in the national interest. My record of fourteen years supporting public education – supporting complete separation of church and state – and resisting pressure from any source on any issue should be clear by now to everyone,

I hope that no American, considering the really critical issues facing this country, will waste his franchise by voting either for me or against me solely on account of my religious affiliation. It is not relevant. I want to stress, what some other political or religious leader may have said on this subject. It is not relevant what abuses may have existed in other countries or in other times. It is not relevant what pressures, if any, might conceivably be brought to bear on me. I am telling you now what you are entitled to know: that my decisions on any public policy will be my own – as an American, a Democrat and a free man.

Under any circumstances, however, the victory that we seek in November will not be easy. We all know that in our hearts. We recognize the power of the forces that will be aligned against us. We know they will invoke the name of Abraham Lincoln on behalf of their candidate – despite the fact that the political career of their candidate has often served to show charity toward none and malice toward for all.

We know that it will not be easy to campaign against a man who has spoken or voted on every known side of every known issue. Mr. Nixon may feel it is his turn now, after the New Deal and the Fair Deal – but before he deals, someone had better cut the cards.

That “someone” may be the millions of Americans who voted for President Eisenhower but balk at his would-be, self-appointed successor. For just as historians tell us that Richard I was not fit to fill the shoes of bold Henry II – and that Richard Cromwell was not fit to wear the mantle of his uncle – they might add in future years that Richard Nixon did not measure to the footsteps of Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Perhaps he could carry on the party policies – the policies of Nixon, Benson, Dirksen and Goldwater. But this Nation cannot afford such a luxury. Perhaps we could better afford a Coolidge following Harding. And perhaps we could afford a Pierce following Fillmore.

But after Buchanan, this nation needed a Lincoln – after Taft, we needed a Wilson – after Hoover we needed Franklin Roosevelt . . . And after eight years of drugged and fitful sleep, this nation needs strong, creative Democratic leadership in the White House.

But we are not merely running against Mr. Nixon. Our task is not merely one of itemizing Republican failures. Nor is that wholly necessary. For the families forced from the farm will know how to vote without our telling them. The unemployed miners and textile workers will know how to vote. The old people without medical care – the families without a decent home – the parents of children without adequate food or schools – they all know that it’s time for a change.

But I think the American people expect more from us than cries of indignation and attack. The times are too grave, the challenge too urgent, and the stakes too high – to permit the customary passions of political debate. We are not here to curse the darkness, but to light the candle that can guide us through that darkness to a safe and sane future. As Winston Churchill said on taking office some twenty years ago: if we open a quarrel between the present and the past, we shall be in danger of losing the future.

Today our concern must be with the future. For the world is changing. The old era is ending. The old ways will not do.

Abroad, the balance of power is shifting. There are new and more terrible weapons – new and uncertain nations – new pressures of population and deprivation. One-third of the world, it has been said, may be free – but one-third is the victim of cruel repression – and the other one-third is rocked by the pangs of poverty, hunger and envy. More energy is released by the awakening of these new nations then by the fission of the atom itself.

Meanwhile, Communist influence has penetrated further into Asia, stood astride in the Middle East and now festers some ninety miles off the coast of Florida. Friends have slipped into neutrality – and neutrals into hostility. As our keynoter reminded us, the President who began his career by going to Korea ends it by staying away from Japan.

The world has been close to war before – but now man, who has survived all previous threats to his existence, has taken into his mortal hands the power to exterminate the entire species some seven times over.

Here, at home, the changing face of the future is equally revolutionary. The New Deal and the Fair Deal were bold measures for their generations – but this is a new generation.

A technological revolution on the farm has led us to an output explosion – but we have not yet learned how to harness that explosion usefully, while protecting our farmers’ right to full parity income.

An urban population explosion has crowded our schools, cluttered up our suburbs, and increased the squalor of our slums.

A peaceful revolution for human rights – demanding an end to racial discrimination in all parts of our community life has strained at the leashes imposed by timid executive leadership.

A medical revolution has extended the life of our elder citizens without providing the dignity and security those later years deserve. And a revolution of automation finds machines replacing men in the mines and mills of America, without replacing their incomes or their training or their needs to pay the family doctor, grocer and landlord.

There has also been a change – a slippage – in our intellectual and moral strength. Seven lean years of drought and famine have withered a field of ideas. Blight has descended on our regulatory agencies – and a dry rot, beginning in Washington, is seeping into every corner of America – in the payola mentality, the expense account way of life, the confusion between what is legal and what is right. Too many Americans have lost their way, their will, and their sense of historic purpose.

It is a time, in short, for a new generation of leadership – new men to cope with new problems and new opportunities.

All over the world, particularly in the newer nations, young men are coming to power – men who are not bound by the traditions of the past – men who are not blinded by the old fears and hates and rivalries – young men who can cast off the old slogans and delusions and suspicions.

The Republican nominee-to-be, of course, is also a young man. But his approach is as old as McKinley. His party is the party of the past. His speeches are generalities from Poor Richard’s Almanac. Their platform, made up of left-over Democratic planks, has the courage of our old convictions. Their pledge is a pledge to the status quo – and today there can be no status quo.

For I stand tonight facing west on what was once the last frontier. From the lands that stretch three thousand miles behind me, the pioneers of old gave up their safety, their comfort and sometimes their own lives to build a new world here in the West. They were not the captives of their own doubts, the prisoners of their own price tags. Their motto was not “every man for himself” but “all for the common cause.” They were determined to make that new world strong and free, to overcome its hazards and its hardships, to conquer the enemies that threatened from without and within.

Today some would say that those struggles are all over – that all the horizons have been explored – that all the battles have ben won – that there is no longer an American frontier.

But I trust that no one in this vast assemblage will agree with those sentiments. For the problems are not all solved and the battlers are not all won – and we stand today on the edge of a New Frontier – the frontier of the 1960's – a frontier of unknown opportunities and perils – a frontier of unknown opportunities and perils, a frontier of unfulfilled hopes and threats.

Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom promised our nation a new political and economic framework. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal promised security and succor to those in need. But the New Frontier of which I speak is not a set of promises, it is a set of challenges. It sums up not what I intend to offer the American people, but what I intend to ask of them. It appeals to their pride, not to their pocketbook – it holds out the promise of more sacrifice instead of more security.

But I tell you the New Frontier is here, whether we seek it or not. Beyond that frontier are the uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered pockets of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus. It would be easier to shrink back from that frontier, to look to the safe mediocrity of the past, to be lulled by good intentions and high rhetoric – and those who prefer that course should not cast their votes for me regardless of party.

But I believe the times demand new invention, innovation, imagination, decision. I am asking each of you to be pioneers on that New Frontier. My call is to the young in heart, regardless of age – to all who respond to the Scriptural call: “Be strong and of good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed.”

For courage – not complacency – is our need today – leadership, not salesmanship. And the only valid test of leadership is the ability to lead, and lead vigorously. A tired nation, said David Lloyd George, is a Tory nation, and the United States today cannot afford to be either tired or Tory.

There may be those who wish to hear more – more promises to this group or that – more harsh rhetoric about the men in the Kremlin – more assurances of a golden future, where taxes are always low and subsidies ever high. But my promises are in the platform you have adopted. Our ends will not be won by rhetoric and we can have faith in the future only if we have faith in ourselves.

For the harsh facts of the matter are that we stand on this frontier at a turning-point in history. We must prove all over again whether this nation, or any nation so conceived, can long endure; whether our society, with its freedom of choice, its breadth of opportunity, its range of alternatives, can compete with the single-minded advance of the Communist system.

Can a nation organized and governed such as ours endure? That is the real question. Have we the nerve and the will? Can we carry through in an age where we will witness not only new breakthroughs in weapons of destruction, but also a race for mastery of the sky and the rain, the ocean and the tides, the far side of space and the inside of men’s minds?

Are we up to the task – are we equal to the challenge? Are we willing to match the Russian sacrifice of the present for the future, or must we sacrifice our future in order to enjoy the present?

That is the question of the New Frontier. That is the choice our nation must make – a choice that lies not merely between two men or two parties, but between the public interest and private comfort – between national greatness and national decline – between the fresh air of progress and the stale, dank atmosphere of “normalcy” – between determined dedication and creeping mediocrity.

All mankind waits upon our decision. A whole world looks to see what we will do. We cannot fail their trust, we cannot fail to try.

It has been a long road from that first snowy day in New Hampshire to this crowded convention city. Now begins another long journey, taking me into your cities and homes all over America. Give me your help, your hand, your voice, your vote. Recall with me the words of Isaiah: “They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary.”

As we face the coming challenge, we too shall wait upon the Lord, and ask that he renew our strength, Then shall we be equal to the test. Then shall we not be weary. And then we shall prevail.

Thank you.
John F. Kennedy

[benfy]

siti di interesse generale:


http://www.dems2004.org/site/pp.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=92959


sito della conventione di boston

http://www.ndi.org/

la fondazione di Madeleine Albright aderisce all'internazionale socialista è un centro studi di politica internazionale vicina al partito democratico.

http://www.democrats.org

il sito del partito democratico

da dove prendo le vignette

http://www.johnkerry.com

[benfy]

politica estera

http://www.johnkerry.com/video/playe..._war_on_terror

[benfy]

Quando Lincoln usò i falsi inviti
Fino al 1972 i congressi dei partiti erano campi di battaglia dove tutto era lecito


DAL NOSTRO INVIATO

WASHINGTON - Che cosa sapete di una Convenzione politica americana? Ok, i palloncini bianchi, rossi e blu che cadono sulla testa dei delegati quando il candidato prescelto ottiene finalmente la nomination . Le canzoni popolari, Il cuore del Texas... (in Italia rubata da una pubblicità del brandy «che dà la felicità, Cavallino Rosso...»), l'inno nazionale, la bandiera a stelle e strisce, bombe e trincee nella notte.
Le convenzioni, domani si apre a Boston quella democratica che nominerà i senatori John Kerry e John Edwards candidati presidente e vicepresidente, sono molto di più. Oggi si limitano a presentare il candidato al Paese, per il partito che è all'opposizione, o esaltare il bilancio del presidente per il partito al governo.


I candidati alla presidenza clicca su una foto


Ieri erano tumultuose battaglie, che duravano fino a che i delegati, spesso inebriati di whisky, non si mettevano d'accordo su un nome. Nel 1924 i democratici si batterono per 17 giorni, contro i soli quattro di Boston 2004. Contavano allora i boss, a New York celebri quelli di Tammany Hall, che dividevano spoglie e prebende ed erano capaci, se scontenti, di cambiare casacca come nel 1884 quando i padrini che sostenevano il governatore Cleveland andavano imperterriti al podio ad elogiare i suoi avversari. Ogni trucco era lecito: nel 1940 Franklin Delano Roosevelt intuì che i delegati non avevano molta voglia di dargli la terza nomination per la Casa Bianca. Roosevelt incaricò il fedele capogruppo al Senato, Alben Barkley, di annunciare il bluff: «Il presidente mi incarica di dirvi che non ha mai avuto, né ha oggi, il desiderio di essere rinominato da questa Convenzione... vi lascia dunque liberi di votare per qualunque candidato». Il silenzio cadde spettrale sulla sala di Chicago: davvero il presidente si ritirava? A quel punto, con precisa regia, il sindaco della città, Ed Kelly, collegò al microfono un altoparlante, nascosto in cantina. La voce tonante di Thomas Garry, assessore alle fognature, lanciò il canto «Vogliamo Roosevelt!», i delegati lo seguirono incantati e Roosevelt fu rinominato per la terza volta, toccando poi il record di quattro nel 1944.



Le primarie negli Stati Uniti clicca su una foto


Da allora «voce della fogna» è definito ogni tentativo di indirizzare la convenzione a sorpresa, grazie alla regia. Ci provarono i delegati di Jesse Jackson, primo candidato nero a vincere primarie, sventolando bandiere palestinesi ad Atlanta nel 1988, sotto gli occhi basiti di milioni di americani. Noi crediamo che gli americani siano apatici davanti alla politica, ma la loro tradizione è diversa, al punto che nel Giro del mondo in 80 giorni , Jules Verne fa ritardare il flemmatico viaggiatore inglese Phileas Fogg quando un comizio negli Usa esplode in scazzottate e mischie.

Le elezioni primarie, il voto Stato per Stato per nominare i candidati, si sono affermate dal 1972 per diffondere democrazia diretta nei partiti. Prima di allora, le convenzioni venivano brokered , gestite, i candidati arrivavano con pattuglie di delegati e i boss se li scambiavano, come in certi vecchi congressi delle correnti democristiane. Per reagire allo strapotere dei boss, prima che il vento del 1968 imponesse le primarie aperte, i candidati ricorsero al trucco di «affollare la curva», packing the galleries , mettere cioè una claque fragorosa di militanti a zittire gli avversari. La Convenzione repubblicana di Philadelphia del 1940 si aprì sotto cattivi auspici, Lizzie, l'elefantessa dello zoo locale, era morta a 42 anni, e l'elefante è simbolo antico del partito. Wendell Willkie, politico ignoto ai più, decise di strappare la nomination al candidato ufficiale, Taft, e fece stampare di nascosto dozzine di biglietti di ingresso falsi, distribuendoli ai sostenitori. Non appena il suo nome venne messo in votazione scoppiò un boato da stadio, che durò oltre venti minuti e trascinò Willkie alla vittoria, battendo il compassato Taft. Il trucco aveva nobili tradizioni: nel 1860, a Chicago, il padre della patria Abraham Lincoln aveva fatto stampare i biglietti di invito al suo amico tipografo Ward Lamon. Di giorno Lamon preparava gli ingressi ufficiali, la notte li duplicava, regalando quelli falsi a Lincoln. I suoi fan si presentarono al botteghino del Wigwam di Chicago di buonora e quando arrivarono i militanti del rivale Seward non c'erano più posti in tribuna.

Niente di tutto questo è prevedibile a Boston, o a New York, dove i repubblicani si incontrano alla fine di agosto per confermare il ticket George W. Bush e Dick Cheney. Le primarie scelgono i candidati e le convention li presentano.

Sarà un documentarista allievo di Spielberg a filmare il ritratto di John Kerry che, in 30 minuti, racconterà il senatore al paese. E' possibile che quel film, con i due dibattiti faccia a faccia tra Bush e Kerry, si riveli il momento decisivo della campagna elettorale 2004. La spontaneità è ormai sceneggiata, al punto che le grandi reti tv non mandano in onda le convenzioni gavel to gavel , dal colpo di martello di apertura a quello di chiusura, ma si limitano a due o tre ore di diretta, e anche meno, rimandano i patiti della politica ai canali via cavo specializzati, da Cnn a C-Span . Nel 2000 gli indici di gradimento tv erano stati pessimi.

Vedrete quindi momenti di commozione, ma dietro ognuno ci sarà uno spin doctor, un analista politico. Già nel 1964 la regia televisiva assegnava ai candidati il loro posto preciso in palcoscenico: «Goldwater e Scranton avranno dimostrazioni "spontanee" per 22 minuti, Rockefeller per 11, tutti gli altri per meno. Solo 200 dimostranti a testa con permesso di agitare cartelli o bandiere. A nessun costo piazzarsi davanti le telecamere tv. Solo il partito può far cadere i palloncini dal soffitto». In realtà, Goldwater fece stampare, alla Lincoln, ingressi falsi, e rubò la scena al povero Scranton. Fu Bill Safire, oggi commentatore principe del New York Times , a coordinare le false dimostrazioni spontanee «l'importante è che sembrino belle in tv».

Una manifestazione senza regia fu quella che prese d'assedio la Convenzione democratica di Chicago, nel 1968. Migliaia di ragazzi circondarono la sede dei lavori chiedendo pace in Vietnam e la polizia locale del sindaco democratico Richard Daley (suo figlio è oggi sindaco a Chicago) bastonò contestatori, giornalisti, fotografi, delegati, lasciandosi dietro centinaia di feriti, devastazioni e un processo durato a lungo. L'inchiesta ufficiale parlò di «brutalità poliziesca», e la scena folle di un partito diviso in una guerra civile sanguinosa contribuì ad eleggere il repubblicano Richard Nixon.
A Boston Kerry gioca in casa, sono invece gli uomini di Bush che si preparano ai cortei di New York, dove ogni causa, dal salvare le foche alla guerra in Iraq ha già chiesto di registrarsi per protestare. Scene di scontri e incidenti sarebbero una pessima presentazione per il voto di novembre, e in città le fermate degli autobus son decorate dunque con il motto «Anche i repubblicani amano New York».

Controlli, perquisizioni, credenziali, stavolta, sono mirati alla sicurezza contro il terrorismo. E ai veterani delle Convenzioni come noi, che alla fine si commuovono sempre alla pioggia di palloncini, stringe il cuore di nostalgia, pensando ai bei tempi dei biglietti truccati per battersi in politica.

[richard]

manderemo Bush a coltivare patate in ohio

[benfy]

L'ex presidente degli Stati Uniti Jimmy Carter, parlando alla Convention democratica a Boston, ha condannato duramente la politica estera di George W.Bush, responsabile di avere scatenato una guerra ingiusta in Iraq e di avere fatto inasprire il conflitto in Medio Oriente. ''Gli Stati Uniti - ha detto Carter - hanno irritato gli alleati, hanno perso gli amici, e senza volerlo hanno fatto un piacere ai loro nemici proclamando una confusa e imbarazzante strategia di guerra preventiva''. (Agr)

[benfy]

Bill clinton ha attaccato energicamente bush sui tagli alle tasse ..ironizzando sul fatto che lui come benestante doveva ringraziare bush per aver pagato poche tasse ..poi dice clinton ho capito chi avrebbe pagato questo taglio .....gli studenti ..i pensionati ...i fuori assicurazione

ha criticato fortemente la gestione unilaterale del dopo 11 settembre ,lo spaccamento dell'onu e l isolazmento degli usa dal resto del mondo ....

clinton lancia kerry rivendicando gli 8 anni di prosperita pace e collaborazione nel mondo .