Dean tells AP Obama must reclaim progressive base

[ProSense]

Source: Associated Press

NEW YORK – Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has a message for President Barack Obama: Reclaim progressive voters or risk both re-election and the future of the Democratic Party for years to come.

Dean, the former Democratic National Committee chairman and one-time presidential contender, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that Obama has "clearly upset members of his base" on issues including tax cuts and allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Obama stands to lose both the presidency and his party's credibility if he doesn't reverse course before 2012, Dean said.

"You take care of the people who sent you to the office," he said in an interview. "There are hundreds of thousands of people under 30 who slept on floors for two years to make sure Barack got elected. You can't turn your back on those people because if you do, it's going to be hard to find any friends."

Dean, whose 2004 presidential bid was largely fueled online by young, activist voters, is a prominent spokesman for the party's progressive wing. While he has frequently criticized the president, Dean announced through a spokeswoman earlier this month that he would not mount a primary challenge against Obama in 2012.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101130/ap_on_re_us/us_democrats_dean_2

[MrTriumph]

1. Dean is very diplomatic.

x

[ChairmanAgnostic]

112. I agree. Imagine if he were caught talking

off the record. I suspect that he might sound like a lot of us unhappy campers here.

[The Box]

251. Maybe its time.

Maybe its time for the liberals and progressives to say. "Thank you Mr. President, but we are going to look for a new candidate for 2012. One who shares our beliefs and doesn't compromise away everything thats good for the poor and working classes.

[Can of Whoop-ass]

281. You're bailing out

on a potentiall good President. Imagine if everyone had bailed on Clinton in '95 over Monica?
Hang tough!

[Matariki]

299. There are blow jobs, and then there's unending wars, tax cuts for billionaires,

ending unemployment and talks of cutting social security, failing to prosecute war criminals, continuing and in some instances adding more policies that violate the Fourth Amendment, etc, etc, etc.

[LiberalLovinLug]

300. I think Bill has lost his place

As the best Republican President that the Democrats ever had.

Obama would have fit right in as a Republican circa 1980 or so.

[No Elephants]

319. Was Reagan this far right?

[Hydra]

302. And if we hadn't owned Glass-Stegal repeal?

We'd be in a much better place right now if Republican virtues were called what they are- killers.

[CreekDog]

323. The Monica story didn't break until 1998

:hi:

[Tansy_Gold]

2. .

[hlthe2b]

3. Damn right...

Like the woman who proclaimed she was "exhausted" with defending Obama, though she had supported him so ardently..... Many of us are sharing this sentiment.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Swagman]

209. understandable but the attacks from the right on Obama have

surely been so fierce and for all the wrong things.

The attack upon his legitimacy has been disgusting.

But Dean is right-Obama needs better advisers.

[No Elephants]

224. She was laid off recently--and still supports him, exhausted though she may be.

[lob1]

4. I'm afraid Obama might be setting up his base to lose

their social security. If he does that, he won't have a second term.

[INdemo]

8. Its a lose,lose situation.. We lose our Social Security with

this corporatist,Obama, or we lose it with a Republican corporatist..So we are screwed either way..
Obama can still give us a great speech though.He will tell us things are gonna be fine and turn his back hold his hand out for more corporate mafia money..And yes I voted for this guy..
Its almost too late into this term for him to salvage his base support..
We need a real progressive to run challange him and the Democratic base will support that candidate...

[txlibdem]

Hear, hear!

The 2012 primaries will be Obama's last days in the public spotlight. After that he'll have a nice guaranteed corporate job waiting for him --after all he's done for the right wingers he will definitely never want for money the rest of his life. Too bad the rest of us Americans can't say that.

[No Elephants]

225. He won't need a corporate job. Clinton was up to assets of $110 million by 2007.

Influence peddling, book writing, public appearances. And, unlike Clinton, Obama had a few million before he became President. And, with all due respect to Toni Morrison, unlike Clinton, Obama really is "the first black President," which will make him an ever better candidate for many things in his post-Presidency.

I don't think many Presidents in the last 40 or more years have had to worry about working for the man.

[txlibdem]

240. I forgot about speaking fees

I'm sure "the first black President" will command a high price for speaking fees and have gigs all over the world.

My feeling is that Obama doesn't give a s**t about the "little people" because he's a multi-millionaire and his future income is only pointed upward so he doesn't have to worry about money for the rest of his life. He obviously doesn't care what happens to the middle class, his focus is on protecting the criminals who destroyed our economy and boosting the profits of big corporations with no accountability what-so-ever. He just doesn't give a s**t about you or your family or your future.

[No Elephants]

318. Candidly, I am not much for speculating about what is in people's minds or hearts.

I just know I have not liked a lot of what Obama has said and done--and not done or said. He could weep for me and mine every night and it wouldn'ty change my opinion of him so far.

[txlibdem]

330. Agreed. I was referring to his actions versus the fine campaign rhetoric that won him the election

Yesterday on C-SPAN they were playing clips of a speech by then candidate Obama decrying the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and stating that he will end them. Let's just see what happens between now and January 2nd (new congress being sworn in on Jan. 3rd IIRC).

[peacebird]

116. thing is - raising social security age makes no sense. Just means less advancement for

younger workers because older workers are in the top jobs.

We need young people working and getting promotions to support their families. We need older workers to be allowed to step out of the job market. At many hospitals it is whitehaired VOLUNTEERS who do a yeomans share of the work. They man the information desk, wheel patients to the front door, and do a myriad of other tasks.

[True_Blue]

161. Yes, raising the age would increase unemployment.

The retirement age should be lowered to at least 60. Just think of how much unemployment would drop if they lowered it to 55. The majority of the long term unemployed are 50+.

[EVDebs]

195. Cash for Geezers? Lower the Retirement Age to 55 Now!

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2009/08/cash-geezers-lower-retirement-age-55-now

[Peggy Day]

203. Plus the older we get, the slower we get

I hate to admit it, but I'm not as fast as I used to be. Who wants a bunch of old farts trying to keep up with the youngsters? Also they fail to mention that we have paid into this-it's not for free.

I think Obama is a corporatist too. I am so disappointed in him. He kept up Bush's policies and his appointees.
The cards are stacked against us. It's coke or pepsi-the democrats or repubs are both the same.

What was the percent of people that called in to their representatives against the bailout/Alito/Roberts ....fill in the blanks
They do what they want-they are all millionaires-no wonder they all want tax cuts for the rich-they ARE the rich.
No one mentions that if the tax cuts would work-they already would have!!!!

[whathehell]

244. The boomers were taxed "extra", paying for their retirement AND their parents retirement..

..I'll be damned if they'll take that money from me.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/1983amend.html

[defendandprotect]

308. Mainly to create a slush fund for politicians ....!!

The burden of FICA was put mainly on the shoulders of the poor and middle class.

[indimuse]

222. Thank you!

it's like moving the heard forward.. ;)

[TBF]

21. Yeah, no kidding, He's already lost my trust completely. nt

[MissDeeds]

27. Same here n/t

[Stoic]

75. Same here n/t

[emilyg]

108. Same here.

[peace frog]

127. Same here

I hear an echo. ;) But yes, he's lost his base already. Reclaim it? At this rate, not likely.

[DimplesinMI]

139. Same here

And I am one of those African-Americans that supported Obama in the last election by a 90 percent margin. To say that Obama is losing the African-American vote is an understatement. I would say that he will be lucky to get 40 percent of the AA vote in 2012, at this rate.

[defendandprotect]

137. Same here!!!

Long, long ago --

Everyone needs to set their BS meters waaaaay higher!!!

[donheld]

176. Same here

:(

[Enthusiast]

217. Yeah, I keep wanting

to trust Obama but find it increasingly hard to do. Too many strange coincidences to explain away to suit me. Too many right wing appointments to the cabinet to explain away. I get the strong impression that we are victims of some gigantic ruse.

The moment Obama took office, and even before he was sworn in, the right wing attacks started. And, if anything, they were even more outrageous than the ones launched against Clinton. While millions of us defended Clinton because he was under attack, crucial legislation was signed into law that favored the wealthy speculators at the expense of working people and the nation. Sound familiar? "Look, these crazies are calling Obama all sorts of names and they are making outrageous claims calling him a Kenyan, socialist, Nazi, non-citizen Muslim!" And while we look over there Obama created a commission with the primary task of further dismantling the New Deal. I don't know about you but this looks an awful lot to me like one giant smoke screen - an intentional distraction.

[LiberalFighter]

46. He will lose more than just a second term.

[saigon68]

49. HE WON'T ANY WAY

His defense spending is more ridiculous than the Chimps

[intheflow]

61. Won't really affect the under 30 demographic much.

I don't know a single person under 30 who expects social security to still be available upon their retirements. Hell, most don't expect they will ever be able to retire. And I, as a 46-year-old, also have my doubts that I'll ever see any of the ss money I've paid into the system.

[still_one]

67. That is because you are listening to the lies propagated by the repukes, and corporate media. The

social security system IS NOT BROKE. Money was BORROWED from it, which MUST be paid back.

The lies that the republicans have been propogating for years is to get the younger crowd to believe the lie, and then privitize the crap

Social Security is intack until 2030, by then the bulk of the baby boomers will be gone, and it WILL be solvent, unless of course, the lie continues to be propogated, then, no offense, people will get exactly what they have coming, a depression without a saftey net

[intheflow]

85. Social Security is only intact (not *intack*)

as long as Congress says it's intact. It could be shut down at any time, its money appropriated for some emergency war fund or some such bullshit, any time Congress deems it would be in the country's best interest to do so. Then, too, most of those Baby boomers had children - so why do you think the financial strains will somehow lessen on social security when the boomers all die off?

[still_one]

88. Appreciate the spelling correction, really, however, if Congress does what you say, then the country

is finished. Why, because it means they defaulted on an obligation

For the second part, the population is less than those born in the decade after WWII. Less people than the baby boomers, less expenses dished out for future Social Security

and, the money MUST be paid back, or the country IS FINISHED

[laughingliberal]

105. "why do you think the financial strains will ... when the boomers all die off?"

Rofl! Cause we can add? Boomers did not produce nearly as many kids as their parents.

[intheflow]

262. While birth rates have declined since the end of the boomers, .

the sheer number of boomers produced a lot of children. According to this USA Today article - citing CDC statistics - there were about 75 million boomers born (1946-1964). From 1965 - 2007, there have been about 162 million births, mostly from boomers and their children. That's more than double the number of boomers who have relied on and will be cashing in on the system. I don't see how a boomer die-off is somehow going to be this magic bullet that opens the system wide for the rest of us - not to mention, we'll have to wait another 40-50 years before most of the boomers are gone anyway; I'm a '64 baby, 46 now, my family lives well into their 90s.

[blackspade]

283. Your comparison is off

You are comparing an 18 year time span to a 43 year span to make your point.
There were 75m boomers born in 18 years compared to 162m over 43 years.
Even avaraged, the rate for each 18 year period following 1965 is 7m lower per generation.

[intheflow]

295. It's still more than double the amount of people

than were in the boomer generation. I acknowledged that birthrates have declines, but I still don't see how double the amount of people eligible for social security is somehow going to lessen when the boomers die. Not to mention that wages have declined, so even when the boomers' kids are eligible to participate in benefits, the amount of money they've paid in will both be much less and worth much less upon their retirement.

FWIW, I support a strong social security system. I just don't think we have that.

[blackspade]

305. But the span of time is the difference.

Those 43 years of people will not hit the system at the same time.
If you look at the generational average the number of people going on SS will decline, especially for my generation (Gen X) who will retire starting in 2030.

[intheflow]

321. But neither will the boomers all retire at the same time.

If 75 million boomers were born over 20 years and more than double that was born over the following 40 years, that still averages out as a somewhat equal distribution over the decades of babies vs. benefits.

[blackspade]

328. So what is your point?

SS will be solvent at the current rates until I retire, at the very least, with no changes.
SS is not a pressing problem and totally unrelated to the national debt.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xxqqqzme]

110. No, the new scary words are:

Trust me. I'm from a multi-national corporation and I'm here to protect your interests.

[Enthusiast]

220. Exactly.

We are to believe the private sector will protect our interests better than the big evil government. Yeah, I got a bridge to sell you too.

All these people suggesting we dismantle the New Deal have no suggestions for replacing it. None, zero, nada. Just die when you can no longer work 56 hours a week with no health care. Now that would be one wonderful future.

[defendandprotect]

132. GOP anti-SS propaganda has been going on for decades ......

and they stopped having SS explained to the public -- SS administration used to

send people out to speak at the larger corporation to explain the benfits -- presumably

to all the unions, etal. Everyone pretty much was familiar with it as an INSURANCE

program which no one could duplicate with any private company.

:)

It's also solvent thru 2039 -- or better last I heard.

There is only one way the right wing can rise and that's via political violence --

stolen elections -- and lies!

:)

[Iliyah]

304. Agreed

Social Security is ok and does not have anything to do with the deficit. The GOP lies are repeated by the corporate media and the people who just don't read the facts.

And no, another GOP lie about Afro-Americans. He still has the hugh support of them. Listen to the corporate media and this is what they want you to believe, and it is simply not true.

Come 2012, the Dems and Pres. O will be back in office. The GOP are digging a hole inwhich it will be difficult for them to dig out.

This is the way the GOP says "Merry Xmas" to the unemployed re: benefits "F UP"! I more concerned about lining the pockets of the rich......, ie tea bats and the GOP

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

141. Many 30 year olds are married and understand the INSURANCE value of S/S....

benefits to spouse and children if anything happens to them --

And also if for some reason they become disabled --

Granted the GOP has screwed up much of it so that it's evidently taking a long time

for people to qualify for disability when GOP is majority --

seems to improve when Dems are --

It's an INSURANCE program you could not possibly duplicate via a private insurance company.

[intheflow]

325. I'm not arguing differently.

I've used survivor benefits myself when my husband died when my son was young. That extra money coming in from SSI put clothes on and a roof over my son's head. I support a strong social security program, but having watched it be successfully hacked at for 30 years has made me skeptical on several levels about its future viability.

[TBF]

180. Right, I've felt that way for awhile

and I'm just a little younger than you. But I also have paid in tons since turning 21 (with 6-figure income through much of the 90's) - and I'm quite annoyed that they're cutting it. We paid in alot thinking it was a safety net for retirement (if not our own then that of those less fortunate), and instead it has gone to war-mongering.

[Enthusiast]

219. This has been their goal all along-

to get you to adopt these expectations. And it has worked to perfection.

"I don't know a single person under 30 who expects social security to still be available upon their retirements."

Social security could provide retirement security for the American worker as far into the future as we want. We just need to insist on it. Obviously the private retirement system has been attacked on several fronts and has proved to be less secure than social security.

[No Elephants]

226. Maybe. And maybe they won't care about the mandate until it kicks in,

conveniently well after 2012.

[ooglymoogly]

263. Well you surely won't if you don't fight tooth and nail for it.

The deck is stacked. We have to reshuffle. Starting with a strong primary candidate we know we can trust and this time we can't allow the corporate "MSM" to be the gate keeper eliminating folks like dean with the bogus amplification of the dean scream.

[defendandprotect]

125. No, he won't ... but Social Security will still have been destroyed ....

Not something that Bush could have done ....

takes a Dem to do it -- and catch us all unawares!!

And think if Obama pulls it off he will destroy the Dem party --

[Enthusiast]

221. I can't escape the conclusion

that damaging the Democratic Party brand has been part of the plan all along. This simply can't be explained away to simple incompetence.

[ooglymoogly]

331. Digging at the truth is a dangerous thing in this country. nt

[BlueIris]

5. The base is long gone.

It won't be possible to get them back.

[TheEuclideanOne]

7. You are right

That window is closed. Time to move on. Just when I think.... "Maybe tommorrow I will wake up and Obama will be a completely different leader", he does something else that shows that he just doesn't get it.

Technically that is not true, really. Two years ago he gave an interview to Rolling Stone where he pretty much predicted exactly what happened. The right will say no to everything and say "Look, he accomplished nothing"!". So I guess we can not even say that it took him by surprise.

So sad. Immeasurable opportunity costs here.

[MedicalAdmin]

30. So he knew 2 years ago that there was no point in trying...

and decided to cash in instead?

[TheEuclideanOne]

57. Not so sure. You would not think that he would take that route.

Yes, he did know it, but threw that information away and fought like everybody was one big happy family. I can't see that he cashed in either. I suppose that is why his behavior just seems so puzzling.

[No Elephants]

231. Two years ago, there was much point in trying, incl changing Senate rules at the

start of the 2009 Session, fully integrating the military, enacting a really meaningful health care reform bill, renewing tax cuts for everyone but the rich, etc.

He was not a prophet, nor even a creator of a self-fulfilling prophesy. He knew he wasn't going to be primarly a fierce fighter for change, but a guy trying to hedge his bets for his own reelection. He was lowering expectations and trying to make sure in advance that Republicans got the blame. And, at least among some Democrats, he seems to have succeeded.

While I very much support blaming Republicans when they are at fsult, messaging, and reelecting Democrats, I don't know if I can ever forgive him or this Congress for other things.

[obxhead]

56. It's some of his accomplishments that really enrage this family

though.

(points at HCR and the corporate handout it really is)

[TheEuclideanOne]

60. I would call those lack of accomplishments.

He got the checkmark, but lost the support of anybody who was paying attention. The ones that were paying attention because it is their jobs is the pundits and he turned alot from cheerleader to a very disappointed supporter and very soon to a vocal person looking to replace him. To make matters worse, in the areas where he has accomplished alot, he kept it hush hush. The guy is just trying extra hard to lose.

For most of us, the ones that are hard core supporters, it is really only a few months where the disappointment is starting to sink in. If you add 2 more years of that to the mix, he is going to be in very bad shape in 2012.

[defendandprotect]

138. Well, should we go and leave the Dem Party behind .... if we can't

remove the corporate/DLC influence -- isn't there some way to take the

Dem party with us?

[TheEuclideanOne]

235. I sure hope so.

I think that with better leadership. Imagine a president Obama who would actually fight for the same things that Senator Obama was fighting for.

[BzaDem]

31. Oh, what you think is the "base" will come flying back

It's just a question of when they realize it. Nader voters similarly said they were not going to vote for Democrats, until they had a nice little meeting of the minds with reality. 4 years later, they flocked to the polls to vote for pro-war Kerry.

The actual base (as distinguished from what you think is "the base") is solidly behind him. (86% approval among liberal Democrats.)

[laughingliberal]

41. True. But in '04, a lot of voters still had something to fight for. Today we have a whole bunch...

with nothing left to lose. This will be more true after SS/Medicare/Medicaid is cut.

[BzaDem]

47. After 4 years of a Republican President, they will have a tremendous amount to fight for

regardless of the Democratic candidate running. They just don't realize it yet.

They will realize that they lost exponentially more than they thought was possible.

[laughingliberal]

62. Uh huh. Really, people with nothing left to lose have 'nothing' left to lose.

I think there may be a fundamental misunderstanding here about what is meant by 'nothing' or, perhaps, still a lot of denial about how many people are in that place.

[BzaDem]

72. Anyone who is able to say "I have nothing to lose" has MUCH more to lose than they think.

The length of time it takes for them to realize it is another matter though.

So I would agree that there is a fundamental misunderstanding. Though I think the misunderstanding is on the part of the people you are talking about, not me.

[laughingliberal]

103. You obviously don't know many of those people. As soon as they cut SS which is my last hope...

for avoiding starvation, I'm one of them. Once that happens, I don't see anyone convincing me that there's anything worse that can happen.

I happen to believe those who have lost everything are in a much better position to judge how they feel than you are. I'm one of them and I'm acquainted with many of them.

[No Elephants]

228. You post as though nothing is lost when Democrats in D.C pull the entire nation to the right.

I thing the DINOs and triangulators and their ilk have been far more costly to the nation long-term than any single Republican President, including Dummya, many of whose worst policies Obama has cotinued.


And, as long as we keep voting for them, things will only get worsee, no matter which Party wins.


I don't know what the answer is. Sixties radicals who refused to vote at all later expressed regret about that, citing Nixon's election. SOME (By far, not all) Nader voters have expressed similar regrets. But America is circling the drain in so many ways, regardless if it's a Dem or a Pub signing repeal of Glass Steagall or "bailing out" health insurers, big PHRMA and big health.

[defendandprotect]

140. Randi Rhodes made an interesting point pre-08 election ....

which is the comment I really think caused them to take her out ....

She said AFTER Obama was elected that we should all get busy supporting third

parties even if we weren't going to vote for them -- and that we should work for

IRV voting --

without those things, we actually have no where else to go and the Dems know it!!

[truedelphi]

175. i didn't know she said that.

The Powers that Be, and that includes those who are in control of the media, hate the notion of third parties.

Why ruin a perfectly good two party system where almost everyone helps out the Big Corporations!?!

I watched C Span during the summer of 2008 and a caller on the independent line started a rant about how there isn't any hope unless we have somehow create a strong third party, and that elections were meaningless except for very local elections, and that if the media wasn't being paid Big Bucks by the Campaign funds, maybe we would hear that as a message.

I have never seen the C Span moderators so glad to cut off a caller.

[defendandprotect]

178. Yes ... not sure if just before or after the primary ...

as I recall it -- but it was pretty sure at that point that Obama had it --

and she was backing him --

Agree -- TPB don't want public thinking about third parties at all --

HOWEVER, I can tell you that the Green Party was definitely infiltrated by Democrats

looking to move Greens to the right!

Eventually, it was controlled or mainly closed down -- but not in contact recently to

know what is happening. They've been lucky in having strong candidates.

It would cost corporates more to have to try to bribe even more parties/candidates --

and sometimes people won't sell out. Though you can pretty much always find a "Judas."

Agree with the C-span caller -- and that we should be calling these campaign funds

"bribes."

There was a time when C-span meant something -- just watching Senate/House gave me a lot

of insight. However, always questioned Brian Lamb. After the Gringrich take over C-span

was pretty much finished -- completely intimidated.

Think Lamb would like to show much more -- he's an odd mix of "free press" and yet

IMO right wing thinking. Maybe it's just always people moving to the side of power.

But recently, I saw Lamb make a comment in a shocked way about ALL the union money going

to Dems!! It was unbelievable because it's somelike like a union's .10 cents for every

$1 -- or is it $100? that goes to GOP. This time around, it was a $4 billion election with

every $1 that went to Dems, $7 going to Repugs!!

But general Lamb plays it close to the vest -- I was surprised to see him actually reveal

so much!


The Dem hearings were just getting interesting -- they'll probably all be shut down now!!

Sad ...


:)

[No Elephants]

232. You know the modern Golden Rule? "He who has the gold makes the rules."

In this case, I would add, "He who has the green makes the rules, even for the Green Party."

Without big bucks from the Koch brothers, the Tea Party would never have gotten off the ground.

And both Republicans and Democrats join hand to make things hard for third parties.


Democxrats need to put their brains, time, organizational skills and money where their mouth is bc we have no counterpart to Koch brothers.

[truedelphi]

303. Thanks for the discussion.

Hope to see or hear Randi surface sometime - unless she already has somewhere.

[No Elephants]

230. "The left has nowhere else to go" is a refrain I've heard over and over from

Democratic pundits. They say it as though it is 100% factual and 100% unalterable And Obama's administration certainly has been speakinng as though they believe it, calling liberals fucking retards and drug addicts for publication.

[XemaSab]

68. I'm in my early 30's and I AM the base

I grew up under Reagan and the first Bush, then we got Clinton and he wasn't exactly the Great Liberal Hope many people were wanting. Clinton's lasting legacy is going to be NAFTA, Monica Lewinsky, and the Third Way.

Then we got Bush II and the democrats bent right over and went along with what he wanted.

Now we have Obama, who was elected as the great progressive hope, and he's still playing the catamite.

We've had 18 years of selling out to the man. Clinton's second election was the first election I was eligible to vote in, and I filled in the bubble for Ralph Nader as a protest vote.


Do the democrats really expect my vote for another 30 or 40 years if this pattern of behavior continues?

I'm starting to ask myself if John McCain would have been any different, and that's a bad sign for the Democrats.

[BzaDem]

76. Just because you say you are the base does not mean you actually represent the base.

The most charitable way I can put it is that you are in a tiny minority of the base. The fact that this isn't obvious to you is indicative of the bubble you live in.

"Do the democrats really expect my vote for another 30 or 40 years if this pattern of behavior continues?"

Yeah, they can, unless the Republican party somehow becomes more progressive than the Democratic party. Sure, you may "forget" that we live in a mathematical two-party system occasionally, but you will quickly be reminded of such by reality and you'll be back at the polls 4 years later.

"I'm starting to ask myself if John McCain would have been any different, and that's a bad sign for the Democrats."

I think it's more of a bad sign for you than it is for Democrats. Remember, when Democratic politicians lose, they get jobs that pay many times what they made in office. They don't suffer at all when a 3rd or 4th war is started, Medicare is voucherized, etc. You are the one that suffers (not them). So to the extent that you believe it is not worth voting for a Democrat over a Republican, that could only hurt you (not them).

[XemaSab]

87. Where do you live, anyway?

I'm a Californian. Yes, Californians tend to be more liberal than the rest of the country, but we're also a major tent pole in the national party.

My family is disappointed, my friends are disappointed.

Maybe a long time ago the democrats stood for something, but those days seem to be over.

[BzaDem]

89. That just means you, your family, and your friends are part of the ~14% of liberal Democrats who

don't approve of his job performance. Not sure why you think your family is a representative sample.

[dflprincess]

148. Last week at my (state) Senate District DFL meeting we went around

the room giving our opinions on what went wrong with the election and the one thing that came through was the disappointment with Obama and the Democrats in Congress and many expressed hope that both Obama and Amy Klobuchar would have primary challenges in 2012.

But I don't suppose the opinions of a roomful of long term party activists means anything either.

The fact the Democrats lost the House ought to wake you up to the idea that people are not happy with Obama's performance.

[defendandprotect]

152. it's just more denial to move the party to the right ...by Obama and Dems that is ....

but clearly there are a few here who would also like to read the election

the same way --

I agree with you folks -- we need challengers -- this time truly liberal ones!!

Maybe we need to get them to sign PLEDGES?


:)

[patrice]

191. It's not denial about who/what Obama is, that has been clear since 2000, it's the realization that

no matter who/what he is, we are who/what we are and we do what we do and how we, as Democrats do it.

The President doesn't determine who we are. We determine who we are. How could it be otherwise for Democrats, especially in states like mine, where ChurchCo just bought the governorship for Sam Brownback?

I know Obama is important, but he's not 100% of what happens, especially where the tire meets the road locally, so I just don't understand all of this Obama, Obama, Obama, inspite of the country being owned and run by a plutocracy, there's still a GREAT deal that can be done by strong, creative, committed, proactive Democrats.

I just don't accept all of this zero-sum simpering victimhood. It appears to be an excuse to cop out for some agenda that people aren't being up front about.

I'm the one who makes my Democratic values real, not Obama. And there are a LOT of people like me, because I met them in Dean for America.

[defendandprotect]

196. Obama/Dems aren't using election to move party to the right ....?

Or as an excuse for yet more compromises with the Republicans?

Or are you saying that we don't need liberal challengers to Obama in 2012?


What are you recommending that liberals do -- move on from Democratic Party -- or

move on and take Democratic Party with us and leave DLC behind?

What specifically are you recommending?

Who is saying that obama is 100% of anything?

Do you fail to notice constant references to "TPB"?


Since we aren't on a first name basis with the oligarchy -- and because it is Obama doing

things like making back room deals with Big Pharma and the private health care industry to

keep Medicare from negotiating on drug prices and keeping a PRIVATIZED health care system

in place by keeping single payer "off the table" -- it is Obama we are addressing.

It's also Obama who set up "The Cat Food Commission" -- and Obama whose name was on the

ballot and who made speeches many here believed.


I just don't accept all of this zero-sum simpering victimhood. It appears to be an excuse to cop out for some agenda that people aren't being up front about.

And I think that is quite disingenuous.

Isn't that the right wing mantra... left wing "victimhood"?

I'm the one who makes my Democratic values real, not Obama. And there are a LOT of people like me, because I met them in Dean for America.

Despite your values, Obama is the one setting up the "workshops" and "commission" -- setting

up the pins and knocking them down -- picking Goldman Sachs and Geithner, Summers, Wall St --

Paulson, Bernanke -- Arne Duncan -- on and on.

You may still be your own person, but likely still without universal health care and perhaps

even without Social Security.

We have a HUGE liberal voting bloc -- we should be doing something with it other than supporting

more of the same and expecting change!

[No Elephants]

265. I have no clue what you mean, in practical terms in rthe real world.

I criticize Obama, but I am no one's victim-no one's. I determine who I am, but I don't have much impact on who Democtats are or what they do. Hell, Senator Bennett was just caught on live mike saying "we" don't have anything to say about what will come up for a vote in the lame duck session-it's all rigged.

[defendandprotect]

153. Think you've got hold of some really wacko statistics there .... ???

Where are they from?

76% of the public supported single payer government run health care =

MEDICARE FOR ALL -- and still rising as Obama was making back room deals with Big Pharma

and private HC industry!!

Do you seriously think they're going to back Obama?

[Shining Jack]

154. "Not sure why you think your family is a representative sample."

And I'm not sure why you seem so sure that they are not. Do you know them personally?

[No Elephants]

234. you totally misread Xema's post.

[defendandprotect]

182. Weird about California being liberal ....

love that you have Jerry Brown now!!

But Schwartzenegger and Reagan ... how do those things happen?

Think the GOP has always been after the most liberal areas of the country --

attacking over and again -- like NYC --

Hartmann was suggesting recently that you split into North and South California --

what do you think?

He also thinks NY shoudl do same -- let the huge boroughs go as South NY --

and the more conservative parts in upper NY go as North --

He was talking about this because of the very poorly populated states which still

have two senators -- you'd increase your representation to four senators.

Same with NY --

What do you think?

He was also commenting that something like 40 Senators/? have only 16% of the population

but control the Senate -- don't quote me on those figures ... have to write this stuff

down when I hear it!!


:)

[XemaSab]

194. I think splitting California

would not work out the way most people assume it would.

The Bay Area and LA together keep the state blue, and I would worry that without LA, Northern California would be VERY red. :(

[defendandprotect]

199. The idea is to get four senators for California ......

does that represent any value for you .... even if it became a liberal and a right

wing California? Each with two Senators?

In reflecting on NY -- I'm a former New Yorker -- I think it would be worth it --

PLUS it might give the boroughs a greater control over their area and huge population

which right now doesn't exactly happen.


:)


Is the North all that right wing -- ?

[XemaSab]

202. I think the way it would go down

is you'd wind up adding two republican senators. :(

[defendandprotect]

204. Oops ... see what you mean ....!!

[No Elephants]

236. Ahnuld and Ronnie both ex-actors. That's very significant. GOP loves it some

candidates who were actors or sports heroes. Even Sonny Bono.

[patrice]

188. You know what, I work very hard with a bunch of Democrats who stand for something, a BUNCH of them,

maybe you're just not hanging out with real Democrats, but the ones I know are very Progressive and involved every day of our lives, so I feel it's acceptable to say that we take exception to what you just said. Or are you just telling us that what we DO doesn't matter?

[XemaSab]

193. Are you responding to the right person?

:shrug:

[No Elephants]

233. LOL

[defendandprotect]

142. Interesting ... and while we ended '08 with the Republican Party finished... notice ...

how it is now -- after only two years of Obama -- the Democratic Party

which is finished!!! Amazing, isn't it?

We now have one right wing party and one radical right wing party --

We need other options, imo!!

Looking for a liberal Democrat in 2012, at the least!!!

[BlueMTexpat]

206. While I can see a lot of your points, you lost me when you

started to ask yourself whether McCan't would have been any different. Yes, he would have and yes, it would have been MUCH worse.
Although there are literally reams of differences between McCain & Obama (and I admit that I too am disappointed in Obama's passiveness and capitulation to DLC types), I can sum up one of the major differences in two words: Sarah Palin. I can sum up one more in one: Iran.
No, thanks.

[XemaSab]

213. I don't seriously think McCain would have been the same

but I do wonder what McCain's relationship with his own right wing would have been, given that the teabaggers hate McCain as much as they hate Obama. :shrug:

[BlueMTexpat]

260. He went out of his way to woo the RW and TBers for his re-election in AZ.

I've been around long enough to know quite a lot about McCain - even spent a year living in AZ - and have never been able to see what any true liberal would ever see in the man. Ever.
This is the guy - and I have this from an excellent firsthand source - who would as a rule begin staff meetings by asking what issue(s) would get him the most news coverage - never which would be the most worthy or meaningful of attention. Just as Palin is all about Sarah, McCain is all about John.

[No Elephants]

241. Palin we know about. Iran we don't, neither what McCain would have done had he been elected, nor

Obama may yet do.

Yes, I remember McCain's "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" ditty. But what Presidential candidates say is not necessarily what they do if they actually become President.

[BlueMTexpat]

266. True - about actions being different from campaign rhetoric.

But do you really think that his mentor Lieberman, AIPAC, PNAC and the Cheney cabal, which still exists to an extent throughout the government, would not have been egging him on full force? It wouldn't have taken much to get him to do it since that was already his predilection.
Merely his choice of Palin as a running mate - without having vetted her in the slightest - showed what an abysmal lack of judgment he has. His "stopping" his campaign to "deal with" the financial crisis was nothing but a ploy to garner headlines - he never once offered a productive solution at any meetings with other Congressional leaders. And if you really believe that he would have suddenly shown himself to be a statesman and stood up to those Powers That Be that - still - want war with Iran, then we'll have to agree to disagree. Strongly.
I'm just extremely happy that neither of us will never have to know for sure.

[No Elephants]

310. Well, let's see.

I did not debate Palin. But, remember, before he picked her, he was looking like a sure loser and therefore very desperate. And PUMAs may have seemed ripe for the poaching, so to speak, if only he could find him a female running mate.

And, he was right--she did energize his campaign. He began pulling ahead--until news of the collapse and his erratic responses to it. Lets face it, most pols do whatg they feel they have to do to get elected. I guess the thinking is "I'm the best one for the country, but only if I get elected. So, I'll do whatever I have to do to get elected." Again, though, I gave you Palin immediately because we do know he picked her and my point was there's a difference between what we actually know and what we assume we know. We don't know for certain--and never will--what President McCain would have done about Iran, nor can we know right now for certsin what President Obama will or won't do about it before his term ends.


You'll have you point out to me where I said McCain would have shown himself to be a statesman 'cause that's feeling to me like a straw person.


As far as Lieberman's being McCain's mentor, I don't know who mentors whom in that relationship. I do, however, know who the junior Senator from Illinois requested as his Senate mentor and campaigned hard for against Lamont (as did Hillary). Yep, LIEberman.


As far as PNAC egging on McCain, DLC and PNAC may not really be all thay far apart. Please see Reply 258. And, I repeat, Obama's terrm is not over, so we don't know what Obama will do with Iran.

Again, though, the point of my post was there's a difference between what we actually know and what we assume we know. I think it important to be aware of thst difference and your prior post did not indicate that awareness.

[BlueMTexpat]

329. McCain really wanted Lieberman as a running mate - already

IMO, an abysmal lack of judgment, but one that would have made some logical sense, sealing his reputation as a "maverick" and looking as if he might actually listen to Dems, even if such "Dems" were in truth Rep-lite.
It wasn't just his selection of Palin - it was his selection of Palin after an absolute failure to conduct any sort of background check on her - particularly when there was already enough in the published media in AK about her (Troopergate, Babygate, etc.) to cast significant doubt whether she was all that she was cracked up to be that demonstrates such an abysmal lack of judgment that it boggles the mind. To me - and to any thinking supporter of Hillary Clinton, woman or not - the selection of Palin as a ploy to gain votes of Clinton supporters, which it patently was, was a true slap in the face to those of us who have been on the front lines all our lives, so to speak, and reinforced every negative male stereotype. I am a woman but my preferred candidates weren't in the running; I voted for Hillary in the primaries only because I could not NOT support the first patently qualified woman candidate for President.
I made my first contribution to Obama's campaign, and it was a sizeable one, immediately after I heard about McCain's selection of Palin as a running mate and there were more women like me than ever moved over to vote for Palin - much as some love to perpetuate the PUMA myth - any PUMA who voted for Palin was never a liberal Dem anyway. I would have voted for Obama in any event but I have pledged since 2006 not to contribute financially to the campaign of ANY politician who is not in the Howard Dean mold. I made an exception to my own rule then, but I have maintained that pledge since. I will provide, and have provided, volunteer effort but I will NOT contribute financially except where I am pretty sure that someone actually "walks the walk." Obama had better start listening to his base or he'll never get another $$$ contribution from me.
***
Again, we'll have to agree to disagree about McCain. I believe, however, that because I am now entering my 68th year, was born and raised a Westerner and one who actually lived in AZ for a time, have followed politics closely since the election of JFK, i.e., even before the internet existed, have been paying attention to McCain's political career since its inception - he has quite a long track record, after all - and have also worked within the DC Beltway "culture," that I have an extremely good and well-founded basis for my beliefs about his likely actions.
About Obama: I sincerely believe that he has enough common sense, and enough awareness of the world outside the US, that he will listen more to the Joint Chiefs than to the politicians. The JCs will NOT condone war on Iran, at least not without absolute proof that the country has manufactured nuclear weapons.
***
Sorry also for the lengthy post! :hi:

[No Elephants]

229. Re: Clinton's legacy. Add demanding repeal of Glass Steagall be on his desk for his sig ASAP.

Hello, collapse of 2008.

[intheflow]

326. Now, XemaSab, m'dear.

That's sheer hyperbole. You know damn well that whatever crazy shit Obama's doing, McCain would have been doing it 50 thousand times crazier. Consider the SCOTUS appointments Obama's made, for example: two younger women, one a Latina. Who do you suppose McCan't would have put in? I shudder to think of Christine O'Donnell somehow winding up on the bench!

This is not to say I'm all warm and fuzzy about Obama, because God knows I am very, very frustrated and p.o.'d about who I thought I was voting for and who I got. But give Obama due for putting the brakes on in some places. McCain would still have his foot on the accelerator driving the entire machine further into the ground.

:P

[Caretha]

124. That was before 911

:) Now everything is different

[Nite Owl]

6. Along with the lose of hope there is

also a lost of trust. That is hard to regain. He had better be forceful in his support and not wait until it's close to election because no one will believe him.

[Frisbee]

9. President Obama and Democratic congress people...

Ignore Dr. Dean at your own peril. My only nit-pick, you're not risking the Democratic party for years to come, I believe your are risking the destruction of the Democratic party and nearly everything it stands for. And that is NOT hyperbole.

[trud]

16. It's not just the Democratic party that's lost, it's the country and the planet n/t

[MedicalAdmin]

32. I wouldn't go so far as to say the planet.

Democracy and democratic ideals still exist.

Just not here. There are places that would carry the torch.

[No Elephants]

247. Two words: Global warming.

[Frisbee]

33. Sadly, I couldn't possibly agree more. n/t

[No Elephants]

237. +1 Welcome to DU.

[TroglodyteScholar]

70. I think perhaps...

...you mean, "...the Democratic party and nearly everything it used to stand for.

[kath]

115. I think you should have said "everything it USED TO stand for"- because it no longer stands for the

things it used to - you know, things that help the average working person and the poor. And that is the crux of the problem.

[defendandprotect]

155. Unfortunately, DLC has been making sure that the Democratic Party stands for corporatism.....

the ideals and values of the Democratic Party as many of us knew it have

largely been tossed aside and replaced with pro-corporate agenda.

[truebrit71]

10. I'll wager Obama pays as much attention to this as he did the fact that w/o Dean's 50-state strategy

...his desk wouldn't be in the oval office right now...

Obama, just like Clinton (Bill) ran as liberals and as soon as they were sworn in ran to the centre..The only difference this time around is that back then the Prez was running against Dole and Fukked Noizze didn't exist.

I think Obama is going to have a very very tough time getting re-elected in 2012.

[DURHAM D]

29. Bill ran as a liberal? That's news to me and I worked on his campaign.

He ran as a Democrat. Big and little D/d. Back then it meant something. It suggested a set of core values re: policy and positions.

Obama ran as a "personality". Not a liberal, not a progressive, not even as a Democrat. Just him. That is what we got.

[defendandprotect]

157. Bill ran as a liberal in comparison to the damage he did .....

and same is true of Obama --

just confusing ourselves to understand this any other way --

Bill destroyed 60 years of welfare guarantees --

Gave us the destruction of trade agreements --

Obama is doing the same -- undermining public education with charter schools --

trampled our best opportunity for universal health care by making back room deals

with Big Pharma and the private HC industry --

and is after what Bush couldn't get -- Social Security and Medicare --


And, certainly Bill was supporting universal health care .... even watered down

they threw it away --

Can't think of the name of the guy who was elected to the Senate who had pushed

health care - began with a "W" I think -- terrific guy and right wing got him out

of Senate as soon as possible --

Hillary is also part of DLC leadership --

Clinton did try to make Medicare eligible to those 57 and over -- don't recall how

energetically he fought for it --

Seems that existing programs can be increased thru recondiliation -- ????

But he didn't go that route --

[No Elephants]

243. He ran on liberal and populist ideals, like ending discrimination against gays in the military.

He governed center right. Even Republicans finally admit that, ffs.


Your working on his campaign means diddly, unless you mean an Axelrod level position.

[nckjm]

91. I don't think I can survive it....I'm not kidding

I thought I would not make it though 8 years of George Bush. I mean, it was really hard. Most of you know what I mean. Just gut-wrenching and a free fall of the American Dream. I think that is what makes the Obama presidency so hard ... I mean to have hope reborn as it was when he was elected ... and then to have to face up to the fact that I wake up once more every morning with the that same sick feeling I had during the Bush terms. I don't think I will make it two years and to comtemplate four more Obama years is beyond despair. I'm 55 years old; my job just eliminated in October; a mortgage payment and looking at a $600 a month COBRA payment or face no insurance (have a pre-existing condition to boot). 2014 might as well be a lifetime from now as far as health insurance help goes. How can I survive another Obama term? Why are we still standing behind this president/ When will Progressives announce their plan for 2014? America is under seige and we are all just sitting around. When will we organize and get behind a candidate? I have to have something to hope for....

[PassingFair]

111. Welcome to DU, nckjm....

Hang in there, I know it sucks right now.

Here in Michigan, the job situation is grim, too.

I'm always a week away from ruin, and I have one
kid in college and one that graduates next year.

:cry:

[xxqqqzme]

114. All apologies to my fellow upthread Californian ,

I think you are the base.

[FirstLight]

145. delete-dupe

oops!

[FirstLight]

146. that sick feeling...exactly

that sinking feeling that no matter what, my life is not going to get any better, even after voting for someone I thought would change things. Now i see we are all just Owned, chattel, and whether or not my family eats or not makes no difference...

been unemployed since jan 08, single mom of 3, foodstamps and welfare, i live on less than $700 a month...don;t know HOW, but we do.

I even took a year's worth of classes at the state university, sponsored by the workforce investment act - but still no job, my certificate isn;t worth the paper it is printed on in this economy.

i know that sinking sick feeling, it's been creeping in since summer 2009 and the whole healthcare debaucle, at that point i realized things were not going to change as drastically as i had hoped, and that fact meant we were screwn.
...so i am focusing on what i can do LOCALLY, forming neighborhood cooperative sustainability movements, etc...growing food and supporting eachother, people to people...the govt/corporatocracy can crash & burn for all I care, I will have my tribe to support me after all's said & done. ...and hopefully it won;t be felt so badly here in CA with Jerry Brown as Gov!

[No Elephants]

245. Oh, my heart goes out to you. I think you are doing good things as far as

local, grass roots solutions. I wish you success in those endeavors. Maybe you can even make some money teaching others how to do the same? Selling a newsletter? Wish I knew what to say.

[No Elephants]

239. I hope things turn bettert for you soon. That's all I can say.

I hope you can go into business for yourself, using your skills and interests. Maybe you can explore that while you are on unemployment? In any case, I wish you all the best.

[GreenTea]

11. Howard Dean is correct but Obama doesn't care!

Obama believes by catering to big banks, corporations & the republicans this will get him money and endorsements for his re-election bid in less than two years -Shameful!

Obama better not allow the tax cuts for the rich to be extended.

ALLOW THE NO JOB PRODUCING - DEFICIT RAISING TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHIEST EXPIRE!

[Mimosa]

12. I hope Obama listens.

Thanks, ProSense. :)

[defendandprotect]

159. Obama hasn't listened from the moment he was elected ... why would he listen now???

The people who have Obama's ear are the corporates - Wall Street --

private health care industry -- Big Pharma --

and Alan Simpson!!!

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

39. utterly classless.

:puke:

[mitchtv]

14. Dean is a team player

but any more weakness at the helm will cost us dearly. I see no evidence that the President will behave like a strong Democrat, since he cedes his bargaining points before negotiating as a general rule.I am not happy with the President's performance is as kind as I can get.

[howmad1]

55. Screw the team playing, Howard.

God dammit Howard, RUN in 2012. At least if we lose, (doubtful) you will have put up a damn good fight. Not pretty speeches, but a damn good fight.

[defendandprotect]

162. How about Sen. Bernie Sanders .... an outsider who could run as a Dem ....

[jwirr]

15. He will definitely get primaried if he does not step up for his supporters.

[No Elephants]

242. Maybe. Maybe not.. Politicians tend to look backward at politics.

Our history: Sitting Presidents who face serious primary challenges tend to win the primary anyway, only to lose the general. See: Carter-Kenendy. (Remember: sitting Presidents have a lot of advantages over primary challengers: controlling the DNC, name recogition, "the devil you know," ability to get press and TV time almost at will, etc.

Yes, there may be other factors. Yes, 2010 is not 1979. But, as I said, the tendency is to look backward. Another tendency is to take the wrong message aaaway from votes--or to pretend to.

Besides, DNC is pretty much indistinguishable from the DLC these days, not literally, but in terms of politics. I don't see us getting a liberal nominee.

[closeupready]

17. He could reclaim it, in theory. BUT,

it's going to be reclaimed at a much greater cost than it would have been if he had been doing the right thing all along. That is, he's going to have to clash with Republicans and DLCer's constantly over the next year or so. Anything less will not be good enough.

[mazzarro]

66. From All Indications So Far

I doubt he has the gut to stand up to DLCers let alone the rethugs. He is President "Compromise" Obama after all!

[XemaSab]

71. Stand up to the DLC'ers?

Hahaha.... that's like Goebbels standing up to the Nazis.

[No Elephants]

253. He's a New Democrat. If you know of any significant differences between New Dems and DLCers,

please pm me as I know of none.

[closeupready]

18. Wow, I just now realized who posted this story.

I'm truly astounded.

[TBF]

22. It's starting to dawn on them that he's not going to be re-elected.

No surprise that they are trying to shore up the waters, just surprising it took them so damned long to figure it out.

[ProSense]

25. .

:rofl:

[NorthCarolina]

26. Obama will likely get the cuts to Social Security through in this term.

Perhaps that is 'Mission Accomplished'.

[laughingliberal]

65. Yep. nt

[BzaDem]

35. He'll lose in your wildest dreams.

Not so much in reality though. His approval among Democrats beats any previous President in 50 years. You live in a very small bubble.

[TBF]

38. Will bookmark this, though I'm sure you'll be long gone by the time

we get the election results.

[BzaDem]

84. My guess is you'll the one that will be gone

dazed that Obama got re-elected with over 90% of Democrats voting for him.

[Le Taz Hot]

256. ". . . 90% of Democrats voting for him."

Are you aware that, in California and many other states, the fastest-growing political affiliation is "Decline-to-State?" Many Democrats are also less likely to support, either with activism or money, the auto-corporo-Dem candidates anymore without question. The Democrats also just lost their ASS because the overly-coveted Indies voted Republican. You think you can get Obama elected JUST because 90% of Democrats vote for him?

[dflprincess]

149. You are aware that we lost the House, aren't you?

And a big reason for that is the 18-30 year olds didn't show up. Obama can't win without them and he's not doing a whole lot to keep them or any other traditionally Democratic group in his corner.

[defendandprotect]

163. Agree -- and ever more so .... a lot of young voters were also lost over Dean's swiftboating....!!

[donheld]

177. His approval among Democrats

What is his approval rating of Independent voters?

[ima_sinnic]

272. bookmarked

I'm broke and could use the money -- care to make a very LARGE wager?

:rofl:

[dionysus]

40. pass me some of what you're smoking please....

:rofl:

[jefferson_dem]

102. "them...they...them..."

Cute. Why not "us"?

[TBF]

122. I don't support the DLC. nt

[defendandprotect]

164. Same here -- we are fighting corporatism/fascism ... why a DLC????

[ProSense]

24. Not everyone is afraid of information. n/t

[closeupready]

28. Never thought you were.

Seriously. It's to your credit that you bring criticism from our side of the aisle to light here, for discussion purposes. :)

[No Elephants]

261. Who's afraid of info? You start a lot of intersting threads and I appreciate that, even if we

often disagree about Pres. Obama's performance.

[leeroysphitz]

291. Yeah but if you had waited untill somebody else had posted this then

you could have at least unrec'd it or posted a 2 terabyte rebuttal complete with links...

[emilyg]

109. A miracle,

[Autumn]

121. I saw this, read it and recommended it,

never noticed who posted it. This is the first time I have done that LOL

[asjr]

19. I'll stick with Obama. He already has enough

wackos throwing knives at him. McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, Kyl, etc. Obama didn't gain the presidency with the idea he would sell us out. He cares more about this country than the entire Republican party.

[eridani]

52. You're right about caring for the country

Just goes to show that we are really, REALLY fucked.

[rury]

117. Thanks asjr

you're DAMN right!!

[defendandprotect]

166. It will be nice one day to see Obama show that "caring" in meaningful ways .....

Like NOT doing back room deals with Big Pharma and the private HC industry --

and trampling our best opportunity yet for MEDICARE FOR ALL --

Like NOT setting up Alan Simpson to do damage to Social Security --

Like NOT bailing out corrupt and criminal corporations/Wall Street/Banks --

$12 trillion -- one of the greatest financial coups of all time.

[TBF]

181. Obama cares about his elite bosses - and that has nothing to do with the average voter. nt

[politicasista]

317. +1 n/t

[WatchWhatISay]

20. Run, Howard, run!

I can't think of anydody else I would trust as much.

[ProSense]

23. He's not going to

From the WSJ:

<...>

Dean, an adviser to the Washington, D.C., law firm McKenna, Long & Aldridge, was in New York as part of the firm's panel discussion of the impact of the Supreme Court's so-called Citizens United ruling. The ruling, passed in January, cleared the way for unlimited and largely anonymous corporate spending in campaigns.

<...>

He is a senior advisor for a lobbyist law firm. That's not something he would do prior to running for President.

[martymar64]

95. Take a look at Brian Schweitzer , Gov of Montana

He gave an awesome barnburning speech at the 08 Convention.

He is more of a Democrat than Obama could ever be.

[defendandprotect]

167. Wasn't that Obama's MO . . . impressive speeches?

Don't really know why so many people had such confidence in Obama --

however, think we all need our BS meters turned up waaaaaaaay higher!!

[martymar64]

324. Touche

You're right on your last point. I voted for Obama like a good democrat but I was smelling that whiff of bullshit back then, my posts from that time reflect it. I feel that many of us were played for chumps but are slow to admit it out of embarrassment.


I'm gonna delve into Schweitzer's record as Gov. my next research project. I'll try to post some of what I find out for informational purposes. I have a good gut feeling about him and I want to see if his record will justify my backing him as a primary challenger. I felt really betrayed by Edwards (my choice after DK or Dean)and I won't give my unqualified support to a candidate ever again if I don't know their record or any skeletons.

[BzaDem]

34. Dean's incorrect assumption is that Obama somehow lost "the base." Obama's approval among Democrats

is the highest of ANY President in 50 years. And his approval among liberal Democrats is even higher (at 86%).

People who think otherwise are living in a very tiny bubble.

[laughingliberal]

42. Yes, yes. And in March of '09, polls showed spending was a big concern of voters.

Obama hung his hat on that and threw in with the deficit hawks. It should have been obvious to anyone that by 2010 jobs was going to knock spending off the radar.

Sure enough, jobs was polling as the #1 concern of voters, spending had sunk to #4 and #5 on the list of voters' concerns and we lost the House.

It would be good to exercise some foresight.

[pokercat999]

44. If true, all that says is that 86% of liberal Dems are as blind

as about the same percentage of conservative rethugs(meaning they vote for their "darling" regardless, also). Being one of the 14%ers I will vote against Obama in the primary and if he is nominated I will not vote for him in the general. I will sit out or vote 3rd party, I just don't care any longer, we WILL get the government the majority of Americans deserve. Too bad for me I'm in the minority.

[BzaDem]

90. There was a study that showed when people have wrong beliefs and are confronted with evidence that

shows those beliefs are wrong, they often double down and believe their incorrect beliefs even more.

Your post is a perfect example of this phenomenon. Rather acknowledging that you might be wrong, you think everyone ELSE is wrong.

"I will not vote for him in the general."

Perhaps. That's what Nader voters said in 2000. 4 years later, they ran to the polls to elect pro-war Kerry. Reality has this way of forcing you to eventually become rational. You'll be back in 2016 voting for Ben Nelson if that's what it takes to throw the Republican you enabled out of power (even if you don't yet realize it).

[Tansy_Gold]

45. And that's exactly why the Democrats made such huge

congressional gains in the 2010 election. They had such broad support. . . . . .


Oh, wait. . . . .

[BzaDem]

94. I didn't say they had broad support. I said they had solid support from their base.

They certainly lost moderate independents. But if you think that foreshadows 2012, then you should say that Obama needs to reclaim the middle (not the left).

[laughingliberal]

106. Well, since that's where he's heading, I guess we'll see how that works out. I'll bookmark this. nt

[No Elephants]

286. A lot of Democrats did not vote.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. You keep typing that same thing, without bothering to change the

wording. Repetition does not make it true, it just annoys and makes you seem limited in your possible arguments. You could add some links. Some photos, a graph, something, anything to break the monotony.

[BzaDem]

92. Oh, I'm not saying repetition is what makes it true. It is true independent of what I say.

Of course, if people continue to post the same bullshit over and over and over again, I am going to continue to respond. Not sure why you think this is surprising.

[Caretha]

133. "Bullshit:"

Is all in the eye of the beholder...get my drift :)

[eridani]

53. That's just what we say to pollsters

I say it all the time on the grounds of not wanting to give aid or comfort to Repubs, but I think that we are well and truly fucked anyway.

[NorthCarolina]

63. Well, I guess there's nothing for you to worry about then,

right? He'll no doubt just skip back into the White House....since he's so popular with Dems as you say...at least in the 'bubble' you're living in.

[BzaDem]

93. See, that's the thing. I'm looking at data from a representative sample. I'm not the one living

in a bubble of people who disapprove of Obama, who thinks this bubble is at all representative.

[jefferson_dem]

101. Word.

Lots of squeaky wheels - out of step with reality - in this thread too.

[Caretha]

131. Do you have any idea

how ridiculous you sound? No one is fooled, your constant "spam" may make your quota, but it sure and hell doesn't make "reality".

[FedUp_Queer]

200. Actually, you're quite wrong.

His approval rating among all Democrats is only 81%. The trend among all groups is dropping and has dropped since he took office. Liberals generally he is at 71%, moderates at 54%. In fact, his 86% approval of liberal democrats (from November 1 to November 7) has dropped to 81%, not statistically significant in just a few weeks. The trend is clearly downward. Moreover, that is down from 88% during the last week of October. At this rate, he will have no independents, no cross-over GOPers. His approval of among 18-29 is now at 53%. That is the only demographic who supports him, and they don't vote...at least they won't in near the numbers in 2012. Admittedly, Obama's Democratic approval rating is highest of Carter, Clinton, Kennedy and Obama, but he has the lowest among all for independents. The biggest problem is that from 1939 to 2009, party identification of the Democrats was 41% in 1939 to a high of 51% in 1964 to 35% in 2009. Independents were at 18% in 1939 to a high of 36% in 2009. No matter how you stack it, Obama is in trouble. He IS, in fact, losing the base. The latest election results from 2010 demonstrate that democrats are staying home in record numbers and base (which are young voters) did not turn out at all. I think your problem is that the "base" (liberals) is going down and his "base" (young voters) is lost.

Sources: http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx; http://people-press.org/party-identification-trend/

[GentryDixon]

36. Let's hope the President listens.

Our democracy depends on it.

[defendandprotect]

168. How can you fail to see who the president listens to? Summers, Geither, Alan Simpson ... !!!

Wall Street -- Goldman Sachs --

It's right before your eyes ---

Our democracy depends upon defeating corporatism -- and right now we have

a Dem president who is pro-corporate -- !!

And a party which is also largely pre-bribed and pre-owned by corporations ---

and a very active DLC-corporate wing in the Dem Party!!!

Essentially we have one right wing party and one radical right wing party!!

[wackywaggin]

37. Dean is correct!!

as usual. I am beginning to think we picked the wrong guy/gal for the president.

Heretic Wack

[Le Taz Hot]

257. Just a reminder that it was the DEMOCRATIC PARTY

that undid Dean. The PTB wanted Kerry (who managed to lose to the worst. president. ever) because he was more, shall we say, malleable.

[No Elephants]

268. Dean didn't run for 2008.

[floriduck]

309. Absolutely. I have been thinking

that for some time now.

[Roy Rolling]

43. Same ol' same ol'

The narrative has to change...it is not "conservatives" (who are really liberal corporate shills) versus "liberals" (a label that has been re-branded by the other side to mean "anti-business socialist). In reality, you cannot change people's minds as evidenced by the base that has already changed their mind on Obama and is moving on. The argument needs to be rebranded, the narrative needs to be redefined---it is greed and neglect of the majority versus reason and concern for the well-being of the nation. The battle line is between corporate insiders and excessively rich "frat boys" like Bush and middle-class working men and women of moderate means. As long as Republicans are allowed to define the battle lines as "conservative versus liberal" those who oppose them will lose. We must change the narrative and not let them define the argument by lies like calling budget-busting Republicans "conservative"---that is a flat-out lie. They spent more liberally than any Democrat ever did. In fact, Clinton was a deficit CONSERVATIVE because he balanced the budget.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[callous taoboy]

51. Love Dean, but DAMMIT when will EDUCATION be noted as a neglected cause?

I'm as pro-gay as any progressive, but why does DADT trump education, at least in this piece? TEACHERS made up a huge portion of Obama's base, and he has absolutely lost this teacher's support.

[XemaSab]

81. Everyone has their pet cause

I'm crushingly disappointed with his environmental record, but I stand with my gay friends and my teacher friends too.

[eridani]

54. If Social Security is cut, Dems are finished as a party

When it comes to resisting the conservative assault on Social Security and Medicare, any compromise at all has a possible consequence of the imminent destruction of the Democratic Party.* http://www.strengthensocialsecurity.org/lakepolling
http://socialsecurity-works.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/SSWElectionPoll.pdf

Lake Research Partners released a new poll Thursday with dire implications for Democrats should Social Security cuts happen on their watch. And once again, the economy and jobs combined whomped the deficit as the primary concern of voters, 42 to 6.

Overall, of the 1,200 likely voters surveyed, 82% of respondents oppose Social Security cuts to reduce the deficit, including 83% of Dems, 78% of Independents, 82% of Republicans, and 74% of Tea Party supporters. Tea Party!!!! TEA PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!! (Note—this reflects observation of many of our Democratic ground-level doorbellers.)

The implications for Democrats are serious.

According to national exit poll data, Democrats lost seniors by historic proportions—21 points—in the November mid-terms. Even in 1994, Democrats only lost seniors by 2 points.

The survey reveals Democrats no longer have the advantage they traditionally have enjoyed on Social Security. However, candidates who made Social Security an issue often saved their seats, and voters who say Social Security was a top voting issue voted more for Democratic candidates.

As we have seen in previous work, voters see little relationship between the deficit and Social Security. (Which, of course, there isn’t)

[FloriTexan]

58. If they cut social security....

then I will sue to get all the money I've paid in that will never ever make it back to my pocket.

[TroglodyteScholar]

74. You and me both

I've only been in the work force for a bit over a decade, and it's depressing to look at how much I've paid in.

[eridani]

80. Shouldn't be depressing--you are fucking ENTITLED to get it back!

I wish we weren't fighting our own party on the issue.

[TroglodyteScholar]

83. I agree that it shouldn't be depressing.

That's the point.

[FloriTexan]

287. I've been paying in since I was 15 years old ....

since I began working part time. I've never had more than 1 month without a job/paying into SS. I am 50 now.

[whathehell]

248. Me too...I seriously do NOT intend to let them steal my money..and it IS my money! n/t

[laughingliberal]

64. +1000 nt

[still_one]

69. The other lie is that social security is broke, it isn't. Money has been borrowed from it, which

MUST be paid back.

[defendandprotect]

170. Social Security has run HUGE surplusses for decades ....

[AnneD]

59. If Obama REALLY wants to get some of the liberals back.......

follow the progressives and put Elizabeth Warren in charge of the Consumer Protection Agency or get rid of Timmy and but her in charge of the Treasury. I could forgive much if I saw at least one progressive face in his cabinet.

Other than that, there is scarcely a nickels worth of difference between the parties. The Dem's have moved so far right I forgot why I vote for them. They are not speaking for me.

Obama has failed to dance with those that brung him...as we say in these parts.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

73. 4 Issues that are non-negotiable

Any cuts to SS, Medicare/Medicaid

Any extension of the tax cuts to those making over $250,000.

Any surge of troops in Afghanistan, expansion of the invasion further into Pakistan or invasion into other countries.

Failing to repeal DADT.

I don't care if the economy improves, if the jobless rate goes down to 4%, without the above I'll vote third party or
for the first time in my life opt out. Some fake economic bubble, will not buy my vote. I'm sure that's what's in the works.

[cyr330]

86. I never thought I would say this. . .

But I, too, am very, very, very angry. I have never refused to vote for the Democratic Candidate, but as angry as I am right now, I frankly don't know what I'm going to do. I suppose it's good for Obama that elections aren't going to be for another two years, as everybody I know is furious with him.

[Caretha]

134. You summed it up

right nice & neat.

May I add...defund the TSA

[defendandprotect]

171. Btw ... tax cuts ... here you go --

There was no consensus on whether to keep Bush era tax cuts in place for the middle class and wealthy alike. But the eight bipartisan congressional leaders and the president agreed to break through their differences by appointing a working group to negotiate a tax cut agreement.

The president appointed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and budget director Jacob Lew to the group while party leaders will appoint their own representatives. Obama said he expects to hear back from them within the next few days.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_congress

A gimmick begun a long time ago -- and always useful!!

[orbitalman]

77. Obama: You'd better listen to DEAN !! n/t

[ProudDad]

78. Define "Progressive"...

He never HAD most of the Progressives I know... :shrug:

Most voted for the lesser of two weevils...

[No Elephants]

258. That really does depend on the definition of "progressive."

Exhibit A:

Will Marshall, cofounder of the DLC, signer of the 2003 PNAC memo--and President of Progressive Policy Institute.

[RoccoR5955]

79. I voted in the Primary for Kucinich.

He's our "base." I voted for Obama in the general, because the alternative was deplorable. I am finding Obama to be more and more of a disappointment day by day. Though he has accomplished much, he has caved to the Right way more than anyone else in his base might have.

[cyr330]

82. Wow

This is pretty strong stuff, and I'm happy to see it! Thanks so much for posting it.

[David Zephyr]

96. He should have been the nominee in 2004.

He'd have beaten Bush.

[laughingliberal]

107. +1 nt

[ProSense]

113. He couldn't beat Kerry n/t

[wackywaggin]

118. You are right !!

Kerry would have made a great president. The "Swift boaters" did him in. Plus, I was very upset over the seemingly huge lack of support he recieved from the Democratic Party as a whole. At the same time some Hypocrits flashed "Support our Troops" bumper stickers, while they plunged the dagger into a Vietnam vet Kerry's backside.

Heretic Wack!!

[defendandprotect]

120. No one wanted Kerry ... he was weak from beginning and only pushed by TPB....

[No Elephants]

282. And supported a draft dodging, AWOL going maroon and his 5 deferment running mate.

POPMA

(Party of Patriotism, my ass.)

[politicasista]

314. Shh! He stole Iowa

:rofl:



:thumbsup: for post.

[slay]

183. Only because the media assassinated him with the "Dean Scream"

hey look i can do n/t too. N/T.

[No Elephants]

284. Someone sicc'ed the media on him.

[David Zephyr]

297. Yes, anyone familiar with what took place in Iowa knows the media created a false narrative

to destroy Howard Dean. They did the same to Jerry Brown in 1992 just before the New York primary.

[YOY]

270. Oh Pro! Always so very very very right!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShBKQD7tgVE

[politicasista]

313. Facts never get in the way of Kerry/Obama bashing

Me is not giving up on Obama just yet.

[No Elephants]

277. IMO, he wasn't the nominee in great part because the DLC did not want

him to be-and neither did the media.

[hourglass1]

97. Draft Dean!

Dean/Kucinich 2010

[Shining Jack]

150. +1

Wow, that would be awesome!

[XemaSab]

201. Kucinich threw his caucus votes over to Edwards

Don't look for Dean to do him any favors anytime soon.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

104. Obama won't accomplish that by "partnering" with the GOP.

It's his decision, entirely. Either the "progressive base" matters to him, or it doesn't. My guess is that it doesn't.

[defendandprotect]

119. Presume Howard Dean will now be shunned on DU for this truth telling?

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has a message for President Barack Obama: Reclaim progressive voters or risk both re-election and the future of the Democratic Party for years to come.


I put up a poll based on his question which seems to have been removed ....

Nonetheless, it remains a very interesting question --- !!

[Lorien]

129. If his goal all along was to turn the New Democrats into the Old Republicans, then

mission accomplished. He won't run again-especially if he achieves the Right Wings goals with SS and Medicare. They're playing a good game of "good cop, bad cop" and people are falling for it.

[defendandprotect]

135. Agree ... and many are falling for it --

but looks like a lot are also waking up -- especially on DU!!

:)

[wackywaggin]

130. Persistence!!

Put up a new poll in it's place... I wholeheartedly disagree with you on Kerry...Dean in 2012!!

Heretic Wack

[defendandprotect]

136. Why don't you try one .... ???

Just look at the huge amount of interest in this thread and agreement with

what Dean is saying -- calls for a POLL -- !!

I'm waiting to hear why it was taken down --

and presumably they'll tell me what I'd have change to get it

put back up again?

Kerry was never under attack by Dems/DLC -- only by GOP ---

as I recall it he started off at .03% in the polls -- was calling it

then that he'd end up on top after the primaries!

Everyone else that everyone wanted was immediately elimianted -- and

there was Kerry --

Howard Dean was also conveniently taken out -- the same ole, same ole!!

:)

[Dinger]

123. Prosense, I'm Curious What Your Thoughts Are On This Are

Seriously.

[Mosaic]

126. It's not bad advice for a while

The president would be wise to listen to Dean, but he better act quick because two years will pass in no time. Otherwise plan B, a real Progressive challenger will become vital.

[BrklynLiberal]

128. I think it may already be too late....

[abelenkpe]

143. ... he would not mount a primary challenge

Well that's unfortunate.

Dean is right though President Obama does need to work his ass off to reclaim progressive voters. Cause if he caves and extends tax cuts to the very wealthy, doesn't extend unemployment to the very needy and guts social security as it appears he is poised to do he will sadly be the one term president the tea-partying nutjobs were hoping he would be because too many democrats and progressives would feel betrayed.

[yurbud]

144. ''dance with them that brung ya'' the problem is, Obama might feel more brung by

Wall Street than actual voters.

[Creative]

147. Obama to Dean: Don't forget, I did what you couldn't do.

I won.

[defendandprotect]

173. Obama to Dean .... I'm doing what Bush couldn't do re Social Security .... !!!

[BzaDem]

208. Actually, Dean says anyone who won't consider cutting Medicare and SS is not serious re the deficit.

[Creative]

327. The "doing" to Social Security was done along time ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Amendments_of_the_1960s

"The government adopted a unified budget in the Johnson administration in 1968. This change resulted in a single measure of the fiscal status of the government, based on the sum of all government activity.<45> The surplus in Social Security trust funds offsets the total debt, making it appear much smaller than it otherwise would."

[No Elephants]

288. Obama to Dean: Don't forget. I did what you wouldn't do.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

151. He lost the base a while ago ...

He's done in 2012.

Too bad, there was such potential for real change. Instead, we got another four years of Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush. We were once a decent country with potential, now a decaying empire being looted by the rich and their toadies.

[harvey007]

156. Remember?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmUUYo9o9eg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-J0FL31cKw

[Amonester]

207. We sure don't want to participate in the politics of enriching the

already obscenely wealthy, at the expense of the constantly impoverishing working class.

We sure don't want to participate in the politics of always compromizing our principles just to appease the stoopid Right (they NEVER will be appeased, no matter what Obama says or does).

We sure don't want to participate in the politics of IMPERIAL WARS OF AGRESSION to transfer the wealth to the oligarchs.

BTW, do you know where is his speach where he stated he would not govern for the lobbyists and their special interests?

[creon]

158. A question

First of all, I agree with Dean. The WH and Congress should have been much more urgent and aggressive in passing laws. The WH and Congress acted with no urgency or sense of priority. They acted with utmost unconcern and real lack of seeing what was primary. Overall, a weak performance.


Question:

I know very few people with any interest in politics/current affairs. And fewer Democrats. Apathy is endemic.
Reading here, people show a real anger with Obama; it seems to be at a level little lower than the anger that Republicans show about him. Maybe I am not just an anger type.

Is this pov commonplace amoung Democrats?
If so, who can be nominated other than him?
In 2008, it came down to Clinton or Obama. neither are very liberal or progressive. Edwards self destructed. That left those two.

As for third party: the system is rigged against it. It is difficult to get on the ballot, difficult to create an party structure, difficult to get money. More important, is: 'first past the post'. We do not have proportional representation, which defeats the purpose of a third party. Voting third party appears to be 'making a statement'.

If nothing is done, we will see years of stagnation and decline as the people get more poor.

[defendandprotect]

174. You're summing it up quite well ... if we have two right wing parties ....

actually one right wing and one radical right wing --

then there are few options --

as you note third parties are blocked by the two parties with one wing --

and no IRV ....

So, what are you suggesting --

I'd also say there is anger because so many recognize the needs of so many Americans now!!

And undeniably this is class warfare --

Many are losing their homes -- many more will lose jobs and eventually their homes.

We need Americans to unite -- and to act together -- however, even seniors aren't united --

except thru AARP -- an insurance company!!

[Nay]

218. That's how the Soviet Union did it for 70 years--you got to vote, but

it was between 2 candidates picked for you from the same party. We used to laugh at them when they held their sham elections.

[creon]

227. yes

I do not regard it as a matter of principle or doctrine. It is a matter of rational problem solving. Problems are not being solved.

people seem to be cut off, as if society has been atomized. Not marching in lock step, but just walking around individually.


people have to unite.

I see two options: build a third party from the ground up.

Take over the Democratic party and get progressives nominated.

218 members organize the House. Progressives of whatever party need,, at least that many members.

[No Elephants]

293. It never came down to Hillary or Obama. Obama was anointed before that.

Voting third party appears to be 'making a statement'.

maybe. So?


Perot ran almost exclusively on fiscal matters, esp. the deficit. He did not come near winning, but made a damn good showing for a third party candidate in modern times.

Clinton, a Democrat, left office with a small budget surplus, yet, AAIK, Democrats were not then known for fiscal responsibility. Coincidence?

In any case, those who "only" sent a message by voting for Perot seem to have gotten more of what they wanted than they likely would have gotten if perot had not made much of a showing.


Please see also, Reply 228.

[AsahinaKimi]

160. Thank you

Dr. Dean, ganbatte ne!!

[No Elephants]

279. 245 recs, net, so far, despite many unrecs. (I saw 254 recs only a short time ago.)

I think he is doing okay.

[True_Blue]

165. Can we get Howard Dean to replace Tim Kaine?

[Alcibiades]

238. I've been saying that for a while now

I was never a Deaniac, but Dean did a great job at the DNC. Under him, we won. Under Kaine, we have lost.

Dump Kaine and replace him with Dean.

[No Elephants]

285. Fat chance, It's Obama's call. Kaine delivered Virginia for him, so he

got to head the DNC, even though he was still had a year to go as Governor when he replaced Dean. Go figure how his state felt about THAT.

Obama seems to have no use whatever for Dean.

[wackywaggin]

169. Calling a conservative bluff!!

I'm in the lower middle class making abround 50,000.00 per year between my wife and my employment. So, go ahead, end the tax break.It makes little difference to me and if it will help other folks by me giving a little more, so be it.

Heretic Wack :0)

[INdemo]

172. Run Dean Run

We need Howard Dean to launch a campaign with 6 months ..yes he could challenge Obama and win.

[unkachuck]

179. you know I love ya Doc, but....

"Reclaim progressive voters or risk both re-election and the future of the Democratic Party for years to come."

....I humbly disagree....the corporatists know they 'risk' nothing....both parties are corrupt, corporate owned and paid for, the electoral system is corrupt, corporate owned and paid for, the government is corrupt, corporate owned and paid for....

....Obama only 'risks' re-election without unlimited corporate cash and he'll be swimming in unlimited corporate cash by election day 2012....

....stay home? We could do that but, the corporations win....vote for a losing third party or candidate? We could do that, but the corporations win....unfortunately, we put all our chips on Obama....take to the streets? Well,

....Americans don't take to the streets, Americans take it up the ass....and then the corporations win....

[madrchsod]

184. well duh...but will he?

[4dsc]

185. The Democratic Party NEEDS Dean badly.

He should get back into the spotlight with the Democratic party and do it soon.

[whathehell]

278. But did Dean really suggest cutting Social Security and Medicare??

If so, I may just have to re-consider him.:think:

[U4ikLefty]

186. What's the saying? "We hoped for FDR, but got Bill Clinton"

Too bad he was only the "good cop" in a game played by our corporate masters.

[craigmatic]

187. Dean is nicer than he should've been under the circumstances.

[Name removed]

189. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[inna]

210. fucking vile.

:puke:


Dude, seriously, in what fucking bubble do you live if you blame all and any criticism of the Admin on racism??? :wtf:



Fucking crazy shit. :nuke:



ETA: and yes, racism is flagrant and widespread, i'm not trying to minimize the issue in any way, shape or form.

(Look at the social indicators across the groups.) It's just that your falsely accusing progressives of racist motives behind criticizing Obama is... well, completely fucked up and counterproductive.

[DimplesinMI]

214. Well, it is easy to play the "race card" BUT,

The point is that President Obama is not doing the job he was elected with a overwhelming mandate to do. This is NOT about him being African-American, HECK I am African-American. It is about that Barack Obama has failed to support the causes of those who supported him in 2008.

Inna, I agree, is is totally vile to play the "race card" when Democrats of ALL RACES fairly criticize this President.

Total FAIL!!!:wtf: :silly: :crazy: :grr: :thumbsdown:

[ProSense]

250. "This is NOT about him being African-American"

This has to do with people not being able to get over the primary.

Dean's comments aside, and he can shoot them from the side, this President has racked up a tremendous cache of historic achievements.

The problem here is that people continue to confuse smacking down Republicans in the media with governing and getting things done.

[No Elephants]

306. Yeah, that must be the only problem.

[politicasista]

316. +1 n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

190. Obama just just ignore the Republicans

the Republicans are not significant

[farmboxer]

192. Dean Made It All Possible

but after he got elected he got really bad advice. Republicans did not elect Obama, Progressives did!

[Xicano]

197. The trust has already been violated.

Now for me to even consider an Obama 2012 ticket he'll have to play hardball with the repukes to gain a public option, have to "fix FISA", investigate Bush/Cheney, drop NAFTA, drop shrub's tax cuts, implement disincentive tariffs on imports from businesses who outsourced American jobs, reinstate necessary regulations to bridle wall street, extend social services to the millions desperately in need. That's just for starters. Short of that and he'll have not gained back my trust or support. Sorry..

[panzerfaust]

216. ending our eternal, illegal, immoral wars on Islam would help too

Come what may, after how the Republicans acted during the Bushyears, I will never vote for any Repub again no matter what the office ... but unless Obama gives some evidence that he actually shares, and is willing to fight for, any of the core values of the Democratic party I do not see myself voting for him.

As it stands now, he is the weakest president of my life-time (which goes back to Truman) and likely one of the weakest presidents in our history.

Peter Principle in action: The successful candidate has become a failed office-holder.

[No Elephants]

307. I have a sneaking suspicion I voted for his campaign advisors.

[AllyCat]

198. Agreed. I'm so frustrated with all of this I could just scream

On the one hand, we have the Republicans we KNOW will screw us and on the other, we have the Democrats who probably will, often by virtue of standing idly by, handing the sand to the vaseline jar holder.

[Peggy Day]

205. It makes me want to run away from home

Only I don't know where to go-I love my country, but can't stand to see it overrun by crooks. They're all a bunch of carpetbaggers!

[inna]

211. sorry, no sale.

[xchrom]

212. recommend

[tomp]

215. so, you're admitting obama has lost the democratic base?

i suppose you're going to tell us yes, but it's all the fault of the progressive base.

unfortunately for this progressive, it's like closing the barn door after the horse is gone.

and frankly, dean should know better, and in my opinion, should mount a primary challenge.

some actual progressive should, anyway.

[democrank]

223. President Obama could learn a few things

from Howard Dean.

[maddogesq]

246. No S&*T Doc. And we need you back as DNC leader too! NT

:)

[tavalon]

249. The fact that Dean even had to state he wouldn't mount a primary challenge

gives a clear signal that Obama is in trouble with progressives.

[bread_and_roses]

252. Let's stop talking about "the base" and start talking about "the people"

Dean should know better, seems to me. Every time we frame the issues in the media as the D vs R "base" and "voters" we are playing into two destructive world views: one, that the real, important, interesting issue is the horse race between Ds and Rs and two, that it is ONLY "the base" that is harmed/angered by the acceptance/implementation of regressive policies.

How many people supported the public option?

How many people support protecting Social Security?

How many people support the rich paying a fair share of taxes?

How many people support environmental protections?

How many people support tax penalties for off-shoring corporations?

etc etc etc

Last I remember reading, a majority supported all of them.

By framing everything as Obama vs his "progressive base" we lose. The issue is what the people want, demanded, voted for, poll as supporting and who supports them and who doesn't. Unfortunately, Obama is not supporting them (us). Thus the anger. Thus the last election - in which the framing of everything as a contest between Ds and Rs (most of whom are clearly on the same side anyway - the Corporate side - something glaringly obvious to most of us, as witnessed by the approval polls for both Parties) resulted in a "vote the bastards out" for the majority Party. After all, isn't that what people are told will change things?

[ProSense]

255. Exactly, and I would add

based on these comment by Bernie Sanders, that in this environment, one man cannot unite the Democratic Party. There are too many people with ulterior motives and agendas, and they're all focused on one man, the President.

Consider what Senator Sanders said.

"the republicans have an agenda. they're pretty open and honest about it. they've rallied their troops. what the president and the democratic leadership and all of us have got to do is rally our troops. we need a tea party of progressives who are going to demand the democratic leadership and the president fight for the middle class and for working families."

The only rallying the troops this statement appears to have done is to rally people who want to believe he's denouncing the President. He said, "what the president and the democratic leadership and all of us have got to do is rally our troops."

Bernie Sanders is a strong supporter of this President's policy achievements, from health care reform to Wall Street reform, and he knows more can be done. Everything is a foundation to be built on.

Rallying the troops does not mean attack the President and call him names, it means organizing and putting pressure on Senators and the President. It works, it worked with the foreclosure bill. It's not going to work in every instance, but that's how it is.

[bread_and_roses]

267. excuse me, but Obama is not even trying - excepting an occasional sputter

I am not defending the President. He has been an abysmal disappointment and I see no evidence that he learns from experience. Once in a while he makes a noise or two - I think the last one was about Wall St. And then absolutely fades away. He does not call out his opponents. He does not even try to make clear that the working class in this country is under total assault from the Banksters and Insurance Vampires. He ignores the unemployment crisis. He had secret meetings with - a la Darth Cheney - with the Insurance Vampires, on and on and on.

No, Obama is NOT doing his part to tell the truth to the American people, and he is reaping the whirlwind. I was knocking doors this last election - I have never seen such rage.

There's an adage I read somewhere long ago: depression masks anger masks fear. People are terrified out here and Obama has been worse than useless in addressing their very real fears.

[ProSense]

275. deleted dupe n/t

[ProSense]

276. I didn't read it as defending, I was agreeing

with this:

Dean should know better, seems to me. Every time we frame the issues in the media as the D vs R "base" and "voters" we are playing into two destructive world views: one, that the real, important, interesting issue is the horse race between Ds and Rs and two, that it is ONLY "the base" that is harmed/angered by the acceptance/implementation of regressive policies.

How many people supported the public option?

How many people support protecting Social Security?

How many people support the rich paying a fair share of taxes?

How many people support environmental protections?

How many people support tax penalties for off-shoring corporations?

etc etc etc

Last I remember reading, a majority supported all of them.

[Javaman]

254. Easy, Want to reclaim the base? Hire Dean. nt

[Name removed]

259. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

298. What are you implying?

[goforit]

264. Time to start a new PROGRESSIVE CONSTITUTIONAL PARTY!!!

The DEMS have been historically tooooo weak.

[BREMPRO]

269. if he holds to principle on no tax cuts for wealthy, extend unemployment benefits and START treat...

he'll win a lot of support back.

[ima_sinnic]

271. this is "news"?

or is the news that Howard Dean might be getting tired of being polite and politically correct and is simply stating what everybody has known for some time?
For some party loyalists, it has taken longer.

[robcon]

273. Why does he need the progressive base?

The election will be won by whichever candidate captures the independent voters.

[No Elephants]

289. No. You have to have most of your base voting for you AND some indies.

When any significant percentage of you bases stays home or votes for someone else, you lose.


But, you knew that, didn't you?

[robcon]

292. It's not important to get committed Dems to vote for the Dem candidate.

It is, in fact, unimportant: there are few committed Democrats who would not vote for President Obama in 2012.

It's FAR more important to get independents to vote for President Obama.

[No Elephants]

311. We disagree. Registered Dems outnumber registered indies -- and some

registered Indies ARE committed lefties. For example, I was registered Indy (really, unaffiliated), all my life until 2004, yet I never once in my life voted Republican.


Most voters in Massachusetts, however, ARE registered Indies, yet most of them are obviously dyed in the wool Dems. Coakley lost to Brown bc Boston, the most liberal part of the state stayed home, while his base was energized.

Registered Dems also outnumber Republicans. So, if you can get registered Dems to vote for you, you're in good shape.

But, you've now slid in the word "committed," which was not in your original post. I confess I don't have much patience with thst kind of thing. Still, I'll stsnd by what I said.

[Blue Owl]

274. Best heed the Doctor's advice

n/t

[Name removed]

280. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

296. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tom_paine]

320. Wait until you've been watching this "Harlem Globetrotters vs. Washington Generals" show for years

then see how you feel.

Sometimes, you just have to laugh because the truth is too awful to contemplate.

I like Dr. Dean very much, and the Democratic "Leadership" has treated him horribly. Not that it's very surprising, because Dr. Dean plays to win, plays like he actually gives a shit about us filthy unwashed Plebeian nobodies.

Thus he is incompatble with our new "Circle D" Democratic Party, Inc., and from the first moment he made that clear he was destined to be used until no longer useful, then discarded. A tragedy for our party and nation for sure, but national tragedies, or national tragi-comedies in the blackest of the "Dr. Strangelove" sense, no longer move me much. Criticize me now, if you will, but see how you like it after a decade or more of "Harlem Globetrotters vs. Washington Generals" where our role is that of the sappy clowns both sides despise, even though the Washington Generals like to pretend we're their biggest fans and they ours.

You may yet come to understand where I am coming from as the years pass by and the Titanic lists some more. For further information, please read "Defying Hitler" by Sebastian Haffner, particularly how a majority of Germans was prepared to stand agauinst Hitler and the Nazis in mid-1933 but basically suffered a "national nervous breakdown" when all elements of opposition "leadership" allowed themselves to be coopted or neutralized by the Nazis without so much as a whimper, instead of harnessing popular discontent and fighting either politically or physically while there was still a chance to do so with any hope of success.

=========================================================================================

Read in the fast lawyer-tones at the ends of radio commercials: "Democratic Party, Inc. is a licensed trademark of Plutocratic Oligarchs, Inc. and a subsidiary of Republican Party, Inc."

=========================================================================================

You have no idea how much it saddnes me to say any of that. But I can not and will not deny reality simply bcause it's too painful to acknowledge.

[whathehell]

322. I've probably been watching what you describe for more years than you..

So you can stop patronizing.


If you are possessed of so much "sadness" and world weary cynicism, do you post here only for laughs?

[tom_paine]

332. And what is your conclusion after 30 years of keeping our powder dry?

Patronizing is as patronizing does. I merely responded in the exact tone to which you responded to me.

If you don't want to be patronized, don't patronize. See how easy that is? (hint: I am patronizing you with the second statement, but not the first, though I am sure your ego won't let you see it as such)

I have more than earned my right to post here, both with words and deeds. In every single even-year election from 2002-2008, I have busted my ass and wallet for the Democratic Party. A party, I might add, that has shown nothing but contempt for the FDR Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party for decades, though it has only become truly grotesque this last decade.

I have taken off work on more than one election day to work, phone, drive, and/or canvass for Democrats. In 2008, I spent 10 hours walking miles and miles criscrossing two towns in SE PA, with armloads of Obama literature as part of GOTV. Two towns with a recent history of KKK activity (crosses burned on African-American lawns about five years ago), and we won those towns, much to the surprise of the campaign. I had some small part in that victory. Small, but more than the vast vast VAST majority of people, which is a sad commentary on the state of our party and nation.

In the last decade I have easily spent more than two hundred hours working for the Democratic Party and well more than $1,000 supporting them at all levels.

How'd you spend Election Day 2008? 2006? 2004? 2002? No really, don't be shy. Do tell.

So you see I am perfectly justified in claiming I have earned my right to post here, if such a thing actually mattered somewhere outside your own mind.

I seriously doubt you have been watching this going on longer than me. And even if you did, you likely watched it through CNN's eyes and the eyes of our now diseased joke that passes for National Cable TV Conventional Wisdom. (hint: it's been a joke for at least three decades now, but also has only grown truly grotesquely obvious in the last decade)

As anyone who has lived in authoritarian states or free nations transitioning towards authoritarianism (as ours is) could tell you, watching through the eyes of National Conventional Wisdom could hardly be classified as watching at all.

Patronizing enough yet? Just giving you back some of your own. If you want civility, start with civility. It's not too hard to understand.

But if I know the vast majority of human beings, even if you understood intellectually, you won't be able to see yourself as having done anything uncivil like starting this off by calling me a dumb mofo. You just won't. Almost with 100% certainty, especially knowing that someone alerted and removed your offending post, so you cant see what you said. I wish they hadn't, not that it would matter. It is almost certain that you could stare right through that and STILL not hold yourself accountable for starting the patronizing incivility between us.

I don't really know you, but I do know that virtually every human being, including myself, has these flaws and more. So I feel pretty safe in guessing that you are not that remarkable. Few are. I'm not.

Noticing that you are something of a "Conventional Wisdom-Head", it wouldn't benefit anything to explain futher, like trying to explain the color blue to a blind person.

[whathehell]

334. Oh my....

for one who doesn't hesitate to "dish it out"...You can't really take it, can you?

Sorry if the above is A. Too insulting or B. Too "conventionally wise" for you, but if A, you can always have "someone" delete again. If B...Well, I'm afraid you'll just have to "deal".....Judging by the list of absurdly "off" assumptions you've made about me on the basis of a thirty word post, I'm sure I could go down the alphabet to list all of your grievances..

That being said, I think I'll pass..:eyes:

The "tone" of my first response was in answer to your "know it all", equally "offensive" comment...and hell, I just asked you why you posted here, a question your long-winded "response" still doesn't answer.

BTW, I never questioned your "right" to post here, I simply asked why, with all the knee-jerk negativity, you bothered to do so...Despite your insistence that you're "not remarkable" either, your listing a not particularly unusual or excessive set of volunteer actions accompanied by a "challenge" to me in terms of the same. tells me you think otherwise, something I find kind of sad, as I'd bet MOST here could boast an equal or greater set of actions around the mid-terms.

FWIW, I'll tell you what I "did on Election Day"...I phone-banked for eight hours for a candidate that got beaten by a tea-bagger by less than 300 votes....Prior to that I donated more than I could afford, put up signs, signed petitions, sent emails, yada yada...Is that good enough for you?

Two Things: A. You're not the only "suffering" here.

B. True cynicism requires a tougher skin than you've exhibited here

[hughee99]

290. "Reclaim" them from whom?

One of the problems the progressive base has, and one of the big reasons they are being neglected, is that they're not going elsewhere. There are many ways to get someone to turn out and vote if they're thinking about staying home, but what you don't want is people that will turn out an vote for someone else.

[robcon]

294. I would define that problem as a 'need to be needed'.

The progressive base is unlikely to go anywhere in 2012.

Dr. Dean 'wishes' there was a problem with the progressives' votes, IMO, to get Obama to swing more towards progressive policies.

[No Elephants]

312. The Dem base doesn't have to go anywhere to defeat a Dem. It just has to stay home

The more a Democrat (or Democrats) behave like Republicons, the more likely Dems will be disheartened and stsy home.

aIt happend to Coakley in January and to many in November, 2010. Something similar happened to Republicans in 2006.

"Dispirited" was a term we heard over and over about Democratic voters leading to November. As a whole, Dems were energized in 2006 and 2008 and dispirited in 2010 and the election results tell the story. Obama's best chance, if nothing else changes, will be a Republican ticket as scary as McCain Palin.


Have no clue what you mean by "progressive," though. (Please see Reply 258.)

[robcon]

333. Three responses to your post::

1. Progressives are unlikely to stay home on Election Day. More likely to be unenthusiastic with money and time on the campaign.

2. The far larger and more 'gettable' (in terms of additional votes) independents are what the president needs to attract.

3. Thus, following the progressive line will result in fewer votes for Obama in 2012.

[h9socialist]

301. Obama is not beyond redemption -- but he better start redeeming pretty quick!

I felt an awful chill when I heard that the President told the Republicans he hadn't listened to them enough . . . I've listened to them plenty . . . and what I heard was both ridiculous and terrifying!

[No Elephants]

315. I don't usually pay a lot of attention to the number of net recs, but we are nearing Kennedy's memo-

rial thread-and my guess is this thread has had many more unrecs thsn did Kennedy's thread.


I rec a thread if I think people should see it, wether or not I agree with the content of the OP article. However, I think many of the recs on this thread do signal agreement with the content of the OP article.

As for me, Obama began disappointing me with his appointment and his choice of Warren for the Inauguration invocation. And it went on and on, environment, extraordinary renditions, response to FOIA requests, Monsanto--too, too many to liat.

But he really got to me with "sliver," partly bc my son's good friend died bc he could not afford insurance. (RIP, David.)

What will I do in November, 2012? I know I won't be voting Republican.