I'm not an Obama basher -- But he needs to be pushed away from the Corporatist Democrats

[Armstead]

I have been called an Obama hater, an Obama Basher, a whiner, a reflexive critic of him, etc. because of some of the posts I've written lately expressing my dissatisfaction about the direction he has been taking.

Well, let me set something straight. I can only speak for myself, but I think a lot of people here (and elsewhere) share this view.

I am very glad Obama is President. I was thrilled when he was elected, and I had several occasions of watering of the eyes and lumps in the throat during the high points of the campaign, election and inauguration. I believe he has good intentions, is obviously as sharp as a new tack and is a breath of fresh air.

He has done a number of things I support, and I agree with his basic messages. I also believe he has the potyential to become a Great President.

I also realize he has a very difficult task, and I have not expected miracles. Although I am a staunch progressive, I am a moderate one, and I would be more than satisfied with incremental progress.

HOWEVER.....(You knew there was a 'however' coming, I'm sure)....

I am very worried about other aspects of his presidency. More specifically, I worry that he is in danger of taking us back to the morass of Corporate Democratic Leadership that is epitomized by Bill Clinton and the DLC. I worry that he is succumbing to the same conventional wisdom that neutered the Democrats since the 80's with a pale version of Republican Free Market Conservatism....The same version of Democratic leadership that empowered the Republicans and the CONservative philosophy for so many years.

It accepts corporate interests as the Fourth Branch of Government. That "Centrist" conventional wisdom says that what is good for the Corporate Powers, Wall St. and other Oligarchs is good for the country. It does not recognize the difference between a "growing" economy and a healthy economy. It dismisses liberal and progressive values and goals as "naive." It sees those who do not share the view of the Wall St. Corporate In-Crowd as "out of touch." They are the Democrats who lionized Alan Greenspan and dismissed Paul Wellstone as a fly in the ointment.

They buy into the spin that the country is inherently "center right," and that those boobs in the hinterlands will not accept liberal and progressive policies that actually deal with systemic inequality and abuses.

Some members of the DLC crowd sincerely believe this. Some have been corrupted. Some are chickenshits who find it easier to take the path of least resistance rather than actually challenge the status quo.

Obama seems to have a foot in both the Liberal/Progressive camp and the Corporate Centrist Camp. I believe his heart is truly progressive BUT I also believe his "pragmatic" side tells him to listen to the Corporate Centrists.

I believe he can go either way, and take the Democratic Party with him. He could either become an inspirational and effective leader who takes the country into a new progressive direction. OR he could become another Bill Clinton -- a good guy who makes us momentarily feel good, while giving the car keys to those who are in cahoots with the oligarchs while we aren't looking.

I could get more specific about policies and actions, but this is too long so I'll wrap this up here.

In summary, I support Obama and want to believe he is taking us on the best path. But I don't believe we should give him a pass to return us to the glory days of the DLC and Corporate Democrats and the stuff they spawned like NAFTA, deregulation, gutting of the safety net and the passive acceptance of the Corporate State.

[msongs]

1. eternal war is good for business nt

[Ozymanithrax]

2. I can count the non-corporate Democrats on one hand, wihtout using all my fingers.

Obama is not one of the non-corporate Democrats.

[Armstead]

3. There are numerous ones, but they have been surpressed and hidden from view

[niceypoo]

4. My complaint with Obama..

Is his failure to take strong stands on issues. Why wont he actively drive for a public healthcare option? Why isn't he actively defending gay rights? He seems scared to make waves, as if he wants to be all things to all people. He needs to let go of the incompetent Democratic obsession with bipartisanship. Democrats always end up giving away the farm only to be kicked in the balls in the end like happened with the stimulus and is happening with healthcare. One republican vote isn't bipartisanship and it isn't worth the toothless bill that would result. Whoever is advising him to be meek needs to be fired.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. He needs to tak ethe bull by the horns

[Why Syzygy]

6. You know what the RW nutters are saying?

After all this dancing with the bipartisan song, the nutters are saying that who knew 'bipartisan' meant shut up and do what we tell you! They are BLIND to the extended hand. It is such a waste of resources to attempt to work with fools. Leave 'em in the dust. Quit trying to incorporate the lowest common denominator. It sucks all of us down.

[John Q. Citizen]

100. Saying he's "biartisan" gives him cover when he does the corporate bidding.

it gave him cover while he cut deals with the insurance industry and big pharma.

[Vincardog]

51. I believe Obama wants to be seen as "Above Politics" while working his magic behind the scenes.

Unfortunately the reality seems to be that he is an appeaser and would rather make wrong decisions than make enemies. We do not need any more concessions to the Corporatist and radical Reich wing.
WE need REAL Progressive leadership. Whoever is advising him to be meek needs to be fired. I am afraid he would have to look in the mirror to see "Whoever is advising him to be meek".

[ProSense]

7. Interesting.

Obama seems to have a foot in both the Liberal/Progressive camp and the Corporate Centrist Camp. I believe his heart is truly progressive BUT I also believe his "pragmatic" side tells him to listen to the Corporate Centrists.

I believe he can go either way, and take the Democratic Party with him. He could either become an inspirational and effective leader who takes the country into a new progressive direction. OR he could become another Bill Clinton -- a good guy who makes us momentarily feel good, while giving the car keys to those who are in cahoots with the oligarchs while we aren't looking.

Before deciding to support Obama in the primary, I thought about this. Then I decided to support him because I saw, and still do see, signs that he is going in the progressive direction. The rest is called governing. And you know why he has to do it? A significant chunk of the Democratic Party believes the Clintons are the best thing that ever happened to this country. You cannot convince them otherwise. The Clintons are centrist Democrats. Hillary was a member of the DLC leadership. And then there are even more conservative Democrats.

So how does one govern and try to push a progressive agenda in that climate? People think the Clinton machine is just Larry Summers and crowd. They're everywhere, scattered across the political landscape. Want proof: John Podesta and the Center for American Progress, Robert Reich, etc. These people, even when they criticize from the left, are still somewhat loyal to Clinton and anything he does. They have to be to some extent because their own accomplishments are tied to his legacy.



edited typo

[Armstead]

9. Overcoming that is part of what wouold make him a great leader

Part of leadership is persuasion and setting a course. It is also getting people to overcome their inertia or resistance and inspiring them to what they may recognize in their hearts.

Sometimes that requires ruffling of feathers. FDR had to ruffle a lot of feathers to get Social Security through over the attitude that many had that it was "socialism." Most great leaders have had to do that.

But it also involves honey. Obama does not have to demonize Clinton or repudiate what Clinton stood for. But he can make clear that it is time to "move on" and adapt new approaches to meet the demands of current times.

That's what I'd like to see him do.

[ProSense]

13. Not the same dynamic.

You cannot compare FDR's situation with Obama's. FDR had a compliant Congress for much of his Presidency and didn't have to deal with a Clinton-style machine.


73rd Congress (1933-1935)

Majority Party: Democrat (59 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (36 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Farmer-Labor

Total Seats: 96

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

74th Congress (1935-1937)

Majority Party: Democrat (69 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (25 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Farmer-Labor; 1 Progressive

Total Seats: 96

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

75th Congress (1937-1939)

Majority Party: Democrat (76 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (16 seats)

Other Parties: 2 Farmer-Labor; 1 Progressive; 1 Independent

Total Seats: 96

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

76th Congress (1939-1941)

Majority Party: Democrat (69 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (23 seats)

Other Parties: 2 Farmer-Labor; 1 Progressive; 1 Independent

Total Seats: 96

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

77th Congress (1941-1943)

Majority Party: Democrat (66 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (28 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent; 1 Progressive

Total Seats: 96

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

78th Congress (1943-1945)

Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (38 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Progressive

Total Seats: 96

[Armstead]

40. History never repeats itself exactly...And FDR could have taken a different tack

FDR could have been a Coolidge 2. Or he could have taken a lazy "centrist" approach and avoided any attempt at change, or use the Depression to perpetuate the systemic problems in the Gilded Age economy that led to it.

In any case, there are always barriers in any situation. If it were easy, positive change would be undertaken more often. (That's a point Obama makes that I actually agree with...I just wish he'd follow his own advice more often.)

[Captain Hilts]

57. FDR had a learning curve. He saw what HH did and knew something new was needed. But he did sell

out to conservative southerners - as on the anti-lynching bill - and to fiscal conservative in early 1937 when he imposed tight money policies that made unemployment jump again.

He put a nasty anti-Semite - Breckenridge Long - in charge of the refugee board, so many lives were lost because of FDR's naming of Long to that job.

He made no effort to aid anti-Franco forces in Spain for fear of losing the Catholic vote.

[Armstead]

98. I did not say he was a saint or infallible.

Most great people have a dark side too.

But, for all his faults and scheming, FDR did a lot of things that changed the country for the better, and did take a leadership role when he could have just coasted. That was my point.

One might say the same thing about LBJ. He had massive feet of clay, (including that little matter of Vietnam) but on certain difficult issues, he led the fight for progress.

[Captain Hilts]

110. I completely agree. nt

[inna]

10. "Liberal/Progressive Camp"?? Who, Obama???

i fucking wish.


no such luck, unfortunately.

[Armstead]

12. I said "one foot in each" and believe that...Otherwise I'd just dismiss him now as Clinton 2

[MNDemNY]

41. Clinton 2 is a very apt description.

[bvar22]

83. Where is the foot that is in the Liberal camp?

The Progressive Caucus has been so marginalized that they have to write letters to the White House.

[Cha]

38. Yes, it's true.

[Captain Hilts]

55. What's progressive about a secret deal with the pharmaceutical firms?

[Cha]

60. You're zeroing in on one thing and making a

big Cover of it for all the other progressive actions he's taken.

"Appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East peace

Order the closing of Guantanamo Bay

Prohibit use of torture

Obama Orders Secret Prisons and Detention Camps Closed

Obama Sets Bold New Principles for U.S. Energy, Climate Policies

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act

Omnibus Public Lands Management Act

Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program Act of 2009

Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 or FERA (PDF)

Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009

Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 (Kerry-Lugar includes funding for Obama's global poverty initiative)

Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009

End of 22-Year Discriminatory Travel Ban

Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act

Stopping Conflict-related Sexual Violence Against Women and Children

The UN, Women & Girls

New policy steps towards Cuba

Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia

Strategy to address the international nuclear threat

For the Media: "30+ Reasons Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize"

Russia on Nobel Peace Prize: Obama thawing 'second cold war'

World Reaction to Obama Winning the Nobel

Turkey, Armenia sign historic accord

Why the Stimulus Worked

Green jobs for real people: The story behind the recovery numbers

Obama's Plan: Financial Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation (PDF)


Requiring Strong Supervision And Appropriate Regulation Of All Financial Firms (pdf)


Strengthening Regulation Of Core Markets And Market Infrastructure (pdf)


Strengthening Consumer Protection (pdf)


Providing The Government With Tools To Effectively Manage Failing Institutions (pdf)


Improving International Regulatory Standards And Cooperation (pdf)


House Panel Moves Derivatives Toward Obama’s Proposal

FACTBOX: Major U.S. financial regulation reform proposals

Obama says Senate bill on tax havens would stop abuses

Statement by President Barack Obama on House and Senate Introducing Legislation to Crack Down on Overseas Tax Havens

Obama to chair historic U.N. council nuclear meeting

G20 to Become Forum for Global Economic Cooperation

Next comes Obama's budget, health care reform and more."

[Captain Hilts]

64. Hey! You can cut and paste. I like a lot of what he's done, but he's not a progressive.

The financial bailout is another example. Arne Duncan, Sec. Treasury, Emanuel, Fed Chair, etc. are all corporatists. Who are the progressives around him?

[Cha]

65. HEY If I didn't bring this on then you could just

go on whining your head off without any rebuttal.

I know one thing..if Hillary had gotten in then the so called Left would be whining about her and you would be defending her..so don't give me any of your bullshit.

[Captain Hilts]

66. Potty language!! I don't think Hillary would have done a whole lot differently than he has.

That's why my heart's with Clark.

But look at FDR. He was not always a progressive. He took shortcuts he should not have taken.

But we know he had progressives around him and advising him; Eleanor, Ickes, Perkins, Hopkins, Wallace, etc. We know there were progressives tugging on him. Who does that around Obama?

I don't have an emotional attachment to either Obama or Clinton. YOU DO. Learn you some history, girl!

[bertman]

76. Cha, that's a great list, but unfortunately there are CAVEATS to so many of those "accomplishments"

that it reduces the list in many cases to sort-kinda accomplishment.

Order the closing of Guantanamo Bay. It's still humming away just like '08.

Prohibit use of torture. But don't prosecute the torturers or their commanders or expose their deeds to the American public.

Obama Orders Secret Prisons and Detention Camps Closed. But allow rendition for "certain" types of detainees.

Obama Sets Bold New Principles for U.S. Energy, Climate Policies. Cap-and-trade is just another Wall Street windfall for traders to work like a scam while polluters do jack shit.

It's generally recognized that the so-called protections for homeowners who are "under water" were too weak and had little effect in providing relief for the "little people", while the big bucks went to bail out the folks who created the problem in the first place.

What has the Inspector General for TARP done to curb the rampant abuses of recipients of TARP funds?

Certainly there are many things that President Obama has done that are worthy of our praise, but many of those accomplishments are feeble attempts at change that appear to be designed to garner good p.r. rather than to provide substantive change.

[JuniperLea]

135. And he has nothing standing in his way of all that, right?

:shrug:

[bertman]

139. HE made the decision to hire Robert Gates as SecDec. HE made the decision to make

Rahm Emanuel his COS. HE made the decision to jump in bed with Summers and Geithner. HE decided to keep as the Number Two man at CIA the man who was the prime mover in the rendition business and the use of "enhanced interrogations". HE was the one who decided that Single Payer should not even be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations for healthcare reform.

Need I go on?

[JuniperLea]

134. If it were such a big secret, why do we all know about it?

:shrug:

Do you know the details?

[tblue]

8. What evidence is there that his heart is truly progressive?

I don't see it. Anyway, who knows what's in his heart? Does it make any diffference? Not being snarky, honest. But I think there's a projection of liberal values we put on him but I don't kmow why. He's a left-centrist and above all a pragmatist, if you look at his record.

I hate that people who challenge Obama have to qualify their comments or get attacked for saying them. We all want him to succeed, and that might should be a given at DU. But I don't think anyone should have to follow a party line for Obama or for anyone else.

[Armstead]

11. I believe it is -- There are many I wouldn't say that about

I was being straight about my support for him on a basic level.

From what he has said, and many of the things he has done, I do believe his instincts are progressive. But I worry that they may get lost in the pursuit and keeping of power, and by his desire to be liked and accepted.

I also believe that progressive and pragmatist are not mutually exclusive. There is nothing more pragmatic, for example, than raising and protecting the overall standard of living of everyone. That ultimately is much more pragmatic than bankrupting the majority to enrich the few.

The tricky part is selling that notion as an alternative to the variations of "trickle down" nonsense too many democratic leaders have bought into over the years.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. Numerous statements he made before he got into national politics

[katandmoon]

101. I don't believe Obama is progressive at all. He barely seems to tolerate progressives.

[PurityOfEssence]

103. Exactly. He IS a corporate Democrat.

The mental contortion spent trying to disprove that he's precisely what his voting record proves is breathtaking. Those who thrall at his very being flatly REFUSE to believe that he's anything less than the prince of goodness and light. The premise is simply WRONG. The reason it's so hard to square the corporate appeasement with the image is that the image is incorrect.

He's PROUD that 90 percent of the stimulus will be spent through private enterprises. This is lunacy, and beyond simple sucking-up to corporatists; it betrays a true belief that this is necessary, when it's pretty obvious that an immediate shot-in-the-arm is best done directly by the government through programs like the WPA or CCC. Can't have bolshevism like that, though, it has to be done through private capitalism even if it takes forever and gets siphoned off to the point of sheer sluggishness. Can't REALLY take on Medicine, Incorporated; that would mean that the profit motive isn't NECESSARY for EVERYTHING.

Somehow many have accepted the given that he's precisely who he's not, and they'll do anything to prove this contention rather than examine their idiotic premise. It's like the celestial mechanics used by the church to disprove Copernicus and Galileo: planets have to stop in their tracks, reverse course, and move in bizarre paths, but it CAN be proven if the contention is known to be true. Cult. Cult. Cult.

More and more seem to get it with time, but it's a mind-boggling choke-hold on rationality for so many, and it's just plain tiresome.

[Cleita]

14. I agree with

Thom Hartmann that he needs to stop being a Senator trying to get a consensus and start being a leader like a President should be. I hate to say it but even George W. Bush had figured out that concept.

[salguine]

15. I believe it won't be long before some genius answers you by typing "FAIL". But

thanks for your well-thought-out post.

[OHdem10]

16. I believe you are on to something. I am not defending the Media

but they appear to be slowly turning on Obama. This was the
pattern with Bill Clinton. Fairly or unfairly, the Media seem
to see Bill Clinton as being so enamored with Wall St and the
rich and he is supposed to be a Democrat. In other words they
see him as "slick" and is not genuinely concerned for the Middle
Class and Poor (base of Democratic Party). When it is down to
a crunch he will go with WS and Rich.

Since historically the GOP has always been the party of busines
it is expected they will look out for business interests.

Now, I have picked up remarks here and there they are beginning
to discern this pattern just starting in Obama. I do not believe
Obama to be a chameleon. One person with the Rich and Powerful
while "appearing" to be for Middle Class and Poor.

I am basher number one of the Media. However, I do realize they
are with the President and Congress more than we can ever be.

You are correct, Armstead. Obama should avoid leaving such impressions.
Hang out with other than the usual sometimes.

Did you ever wonder why the Media seem to be harder on Democrats??
Maybe they find it hard to trust people who are not true to their
constituents. Just a thought.

[ProSense]

17. You think the media is just looking out for our best interest?

Did you ever wonder why the Media seem to be harder on Democrats??
Maybe they find it hard to trust people who are not true to their
constituents.

They are bloodsuckers.

[OHdem10]

18. I said I probably bash the Media as much as the next person, maybe

more than most.

This does not mean the Media is always wrong.

Most in the Media are somewhat idealist. They were some of
Obama's biggest swooners. They have problems with what they
may perceive as hypocrisy. Sometimes they slip and say
Trust me, I know these people referring to Congress.

No matter how you dice it Corporate Democrat exudes hypocrisy.

Corporate Republican does not because they were founded as
the Big Business Party.

[bertman]

77. OHdem10, I think your idealized concept of the media is way off base. The media is

controlled by five or six large corporations who benefit from the status quo. They rarely promote any kind of agenda except that which perpetuates their power, their ability to control the political "debate", and their ability to make money money money.

The corporate media hacks who are TeeVee "personalities" like Blitzer and the other talking heads are so immersed in the Washington elite lifestyle and glamour that they have no frickin' idea what is good for the country or the people.

Fifteen years ago "Corporate Democrat" may have exuded hypocrisy. Nowadays many of them wear that label like a badge of pride even though they still try to convince us that they are looking out for the voters.

[Armstead]

29. You have a good point about the media.

>>>"Did you ever wonder why the Media seem to be harder on Democrats??
Maybe they find it hard to trust people who are not true to their
constituents. Just a thought."<<<

I think the media is largely to blame, but the Democrats have been either complicit or given the media material to bash, because of their inconsistency and lack of a clear compass.

[TheWebHead]

19. with unemployement set to break 10% either friday or in 30 days

he needs to be pushed towards corporatist democrats, and perhaps recruit more from the non financial sector CEO arena to run for office... otherwise a tidal wave will hit the party in November 2010 and all these things people on DU are bitching about not getting done will instead by about trying to block what Republicans would want to do... or at least put Obama in a compromised position to veto popular legislation to go along with the will of his base.

[Armstead]

31. What? Who do you think helped to push unemployment so high?

If Democrats had not been complicit in enabling corportists, we would not be in this mess.

They helped the corporatists hollow out the American economy and job base by pushing for "free trade" globalization and pushing American jobs and investment overseas. They stripped regulations and opened the door to the excesses that led to the crash of tghe financial system.

Are you saying the Democrats should do nothing to reform this mess, and turn to the same people who put us here?

The economic morass did not start with Bush Jr. If the Democfrats had not been so corporate in the 90's, Bush would not have had such an easy time putting the final n ails in the economic coffin.

The only way tro avoid a "tidal wave" in 2010 is for Democrats to take a stand on the side of average Americans against entrenched corporate oligarchs and mean it.

And before you trot out the "can't be anti-business" mantra, I emphasize that I include small and decent medium sized businesses among average Americans who are getting steamrolled by Corporate Oligarchs and policies that work against true free enterprise.

[dkf]

20. Corporate, non corporate, whatever.

All I care is that he concentrates on jobs jobs jobs or we will lose lose lose.

[Armstead]

39. There's jobs and there's jobs

A corporatist wants to put us in McJobs.

A "non-corporatist" recognizes that we need to redifrect the ecnomy to actually rebuild tyhe middle class with job s that pay a decent livable wage and provide opportunities for upward mobility.

[roody]

21. He needs to stop trying to bust the teachers' unions.

[joeycola]

24. With Arne Duncan at his side, I do believe there is lots of trouble

brewing (behind the scenes as the media has not focused on education much).

[roody]

37. union busting and militarization of schools eom

[Fire1]

63. Union busting and "privatizing," you mean. I'm waiting to see

these salaries comparable to the "brightest and best."

[gtar100]

22. Very well said.

I worry too. A good reputation in the world can be erased by one ill intention. As much good as Obama has done and is in the process of doing, pandering to the ultra rich and the military industry is revealing a fundamental weakness in his leadership. Essentially he is abdicating his leadership to the modern day aristocracies.

The stark contrast between the campaigning Obama and President Obama is really disappointing, sometimes more heartbreaking than I care to admit as I believe it is causing major disillusion in many young people who voted for him in 2008. He is one smart guy but in my mind, he just doesn't get it. The only rational explanation I have for this is a threat held over his life and his family that he takes seriously. As much as we would like to say we've got his back, we can't when it comes to day-to-day protection against assassination. We have some serious evil to kick out of this world.

[cleveramerican]

23. The middle is where the most votes are.

Same as it ever was.

Bill Clinton, you mean the first two term democratic president in 30 years?
He is somehow bad for the democrats?
This type of passive aggressive self-loathing that so many here just love drives me absolutely nuts.

In Politics: There is no glory in being a principled loser.
In order to affect change,first you must win.
Its a numbers game and it always was

This is a cold bucket of water in the face to too many pie-in-the sky progressives.
The big lie is that if you win, you must have sold out somebody.
Success at the polls is bad in this fantasy story.


Just let me say I am glad the far left exists, Its like the north pole, I set my compass by it, but like most people I have no interest in going there.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. Getting the most votes is not an end in itself

It is a means to an end or it is meaningless. Reagan had to deal with Democratic Congresses. George W. Bush either had narrow majorities in Congress or was dealing with a Democratic controlled Senate when he passed his tax cuts for the rich, got us into the Iraq war, gutted environmental regulations etc.

There is literally no purpose in piling up large majorities, any majority at all for that matter, if the goal is not to accomplish something meaningful.

[Hippo_Tron]

47. It is an end in itself for politicians

That's something people don't seem to realize. People don't go through two years of grueling campaigning to become President so that they can "do good". They do it because they want to be President of the United States. Hopefully the things they want to use their power for are at least somewhat in line with ours, but at the end of the day their primary goal is to obtain power and keep that power.

What this means is that a solution isn't actually a solution unless it is politically a good option for the people who have to implement the solution. If people would simply accept that fact, I think their efforts would be a lot more constructive.

Take single-payer, for example. Most people here probably think that in terms of fixing the health care system it is the best solution. But politically it is problematic and people get outraged because politicians aren't implementing what is obviously the good solution. They start saying things like "Democrats need to grow a spine" or "Democrats are tools of the corporate masters".

What they should be saying is, "Why is single-payer not a politically viable solution and what can I do to change the political calculus so that it is a politically viable solution?"

[Tom Rinaldo]

113. Very interesting comment

I have several reactions beyond just agreeing that there is a lot of truth in what you said. First it's a heads up to voters; choose carefully who you support for office. On the national level we are talking about less than 550 individuals total to be elected, counting both houses of Congress and the Pres and VP. It's not like having to recruit a half million police officers to keep our nation's street safe. It is only a tiny handful being talked about here. We need to demand more from the people we elect to the highest of public offices. We need to demand character as well as intelligence, and we need to learn how to recognize character and integrity when we find it. It is not enough to be content voting for people who say what we want to hear while they are campaigning for our votes. Some individuals put a higher premium on serving the needs of the people vs promoting their own personal agenda than others. We need to find them, and be loyal to them.

As to turning real solutions into politically acceptable solutions, yes we have a critical role to play in that, but we can't do it by ourselves either. I am reminded of a quote from Zapata; "If the people lead the leaders will follow." I believe that, but we need "leaders" who at least are willing to follow, not ones who drag their feet every step of the way or outright fight our efforts to make real solutions politically acceptable. The health care reform battle this year is very instructive. We fought hard to make a "public option" not only politically acceptable, but politically popular with a clear majority of Americans. And we still keep meeting resistance.

It is said that a real leader can't get too far ahead of those s/he is leading or they will lose their connection. OK, so being ten steps ahead of the masses can be problematic, but one step isn't too much to ask for. It should not be too much to ask of politicians who want our support that they champion good causes, even if they ultimately are unwilling to walk the plank over them.

[cleveramerican]

71. not getting the most votes...

is always worse for your agenda, every time no matter what.

[Tom Rinaldo]

111. Two comments

One, I disagree. Usually I think you are correct on that, but not always. Sometimes a politician or a party has to "hit bottom" in order to reevaluate the course they are on. If that course in hindsight turns out to have been misguided, than in the long run a defeat that forces a readjustment can be turned to something ultimately more positive. Bill Clinton says he learned a lot from losing his first bid for reelection as Arkansas Governor.

Two, to accomplish what needs to be accomplished in a democratic form of government you need to have "enough" votes. Usually that means a majority but it could mean either a plurality or a super majority depending on specific circumstances. I was talking about something that could be called "vote hoarding"; an effort to accumulate ever larger majorities by not risking alienating potential voters by taking controversial stands.

A little tid bit factoid from early American history. The guy who established one of the earliest natural history museums in America died of starvation but he kept his musuum intact, including the largest collection of assorted world coins to that date then assembled in America. Almost all of them could have easily been spent on food.

[cleveramerican]

145. His widow may have different view

[rhett o rick]

91. To this poster winning is everything. The ends justify the means. you have to win first and keep you

your principles second. This is not a liberal, or progressive. This is not a Democrat. He/she speaks from the far right and claims to be middle. BS

[cleveramerican]

106. the president. the vice president, the secretary of state

as a matter of fact, every elected democrat, sees it closer to my way than yours.


you see it like Focus on the family sees it,
its all about you.

[rhett o rick]

109. Your hatred of the left isnt becoming.

you said winning is more important than principles, or did I get that wrong. And I say that a Democrat believes in principles over winning.

[cleveramerican]

117. The irony is that we probably agree on the large broad goals.

But don't let that stop you from vicious personal attacks,
It speaks volumes.
I'd rather be pragmatic and and compromise than lose graciously.

I'll absolutely cop to be more a pragmatist than as idealist.
I surely don't hate the left, thats you twisting my position to fit your narrative.


I would rather compromise and work toward my principles in the halls of congress
than keep them and meet with a few other true believers in some church basement.

[rhett o rick]

129. And we were having such a good discussion. But you had to accuse me of

"vicious personal attacks". I only questioned you about your obvious disdain for the left. Did I misunderstand your statement: "I am glad the far left exists, Its like the north pole, I set my compass by it, but like most people I have no interest in going there."

I only ask for you to explain how you differ on issues from the left. Is that a personal attack?

[cleveramerican]

142. I may have mistook you for another who called me a ring-wing nut

if that is so I am humbly sorry

please point out where I spoke of "hate" for the left.

your response #90 & #91 seemed a wee bit vicious and personal.

[rudy23]

27. Lots of strawmen there. It's not b/c he won, but b/c of his positions and who he's appointed.

Perhaps you haven't noticed a certain healthcare reform effort, and that Obama has been squarely in the Blue Dogs' camp fighting against progressives? Or that he's appointed Geithner, and the guy from Monsanto among others?

[Bluenorthwest]

28. Define the 'far left' as you see it

You stick in the mud so called moderates as I define you are compromised and bigoted, unprincipled and constantly negotiating the position you will hold for a day, until the next shift, when you measure the distance you are standing from Glen Beck and inch just slightly to the left, and call that 'moderate' for not being as right as Beck. Those who have criticisms for 'the far left' like you, Hannity, Beck and the rest, are obviously a band of brothers, pragmatic when you are not faith based, leaning right when you are not fully bending over.
But how do you define 'far left'? In the US there is no such thing. But your 'moderate' theory about it would be entertaining. Do you also break down and cry about it, like that other critic of the far left? Or is the lexicon all you have in common?

[PassingFair]

30. There IS no "far left"...they're called "Greens".

I've never met a "Leftist Democrat" in my life.

I, too, would like to here the poster's definition
of the "far left" of the party.

[cleveramerican]

69. Dennis Kucinich

would be the best example, wildly poplar with an tiny narrow section of the democratic party.
Loves to throw himself on the sword of some pet issue, that stands no chance

He thinks its "principled" but its closer to shouting at passing cars and wondering why they don't stop.

[Armstead]

73. If you bothered to look beyond the stereotypes, you might find that he often makes a lot of sense

Setting aside his personality (and his flaky side and flowery rhetoric), if you botehred to learn more of his actual positions and what he has tried to do you might find that he really is pushing for basic good old bread-and-butter liberalism. His positions have often proven to be absolutely correct in time.

He only seems like he is "far left" because so many other democratic politicians have sold out and/or moved too far to the right.

[cleveramerican]

104. I used him as an example...

to the posters who said there is no such thing and a left end of the democratic party.
I think this notion is absurd on its face.

I would say he is indeed left of say.... Evan Bayh

you may disagree, but I Think he is indeed left of
Sectratary Clinton ,
the president,
The vice president,
The speaker of the house and
the Majority leader of the senate

I am very familiar with his positions and how successful he has been in garnering widespread support for them.

[Armstead]

115. I was referring to your dismissiveness of his positions

I am agreeing that Kucinich is an example of the left wing of the Democratic Party. But what I responded to was your characterization of his positions, and equating them with his own political shortcomings. Blaming the messenger.

In terms of substance, Kucinich's views, values and goals are shared by a substantial segment of the Democratic Party -- and many Independents -- including those who would consider themselves to be mainstream liberals. This would include many in Congress, and many who keep getting re-elected.

It is NOT a marginal fringe.

Kucinich has obviously not been personally effective in getting many things done. Some of that is due to his personal flaws and tendency to throw himself on the sword to make a point.

However, in terms of his actual positions on issues...They would not really be seen as outside of the mainstream if they were to be coming from someone who was personally more palatable to the general public and had the necessary charisma for leadership.

Apart from the tendency to dismiss him personally, his stances and what he usually fights for are exactly what many (if n ot ,most) mainstream bread-and-butter liberals and reasonable progressives actually believe in and support.

The only freason it is considered "far left" today is because of those Corporate Democrats and other Conservadems have over the years pushed the party so far to the right -- to the point where politics today is between the highly conservative Republican Party and the mild conservative Democratic Party.

[cleveramerican]

146. I was speaking of his utter failure of tactics

[Armstead]

32. Anyone to the left of Evan Bayh is "far left" to some people

[cleveramerican]

70. "constantly negotiating a position that will hold for a period"

is called governing,not talking about governing, but actually governing.

Building consensus is what political leaders do, the good ones anyway.


How can you say there is no far left and then place yourself squarely to the left of the leaders of YOUR party?
You rail against people you probably celebrated when they were elected, because they don't see it your way on every single issue?

Its just silly to say that there is no range of opinion is a party as large as ours.

[Enthusiast]

123. The PUBLIC OPTION is not some

crazy leftist idea. Polls show overwhelming public support. The range of party opinion should at least reflect what we want in terms of health care reform rather than the wishes of the corporations.

[cleveramerican]

144. even on healthcare tiny incremental steps are better than....

utter failure to reach any consensus of any kind.

I am enough of a realist to know we have to get what we can RIGHT NOW, from this group of democrats,
not some other, better, more "principled" group of democrats we wish we had.

this is pie-in-sky thinking that hurts us today, RIGHT NOW.

Polls and pollsters don't vote in congress, but this group does.


You dance with what brung ya.

[Enthusiast]

150. I hardly think some

minimalist public option is 'pie in the sky'. Why shouldn't the legislation reflect the will of the electorate?

If you have a Democrat over here accepting campaign money from the insurance industry for his opposition to HC reform then he should be voted out of office.

[cleveramerican]

153. it absolutely "should'

but even if that is unfairly beyond our grasp at this moment, with these members... I will not turn on my own party.
I will not take my bat and ball and go home.
I will pick myself up, dust myself off and start all over again.
Thats how important I think it is.
I will re visit the places where we went off track by my measure.
and redouble my efforts to prevent it from re-occurring.

[noiretextatique]

78. +1

a well-deserved :spank:

[treestar]

61. Right. And it would be no more fair for the far left to rule than the far

right. The center is defined by the extremes. And it takes up most of the country. We live with these people. They aren't on DU and they aren't on FR. They may not even do that much. They are generally OK with things as they are. Any movement on health care moves the whole country slightly to the left, if it works out these people are OK with it and it stays.

The Tories come to power sometimes in the UK, they don't dismantle the healthcare system. The Repukes couldn't do it either. It would become part of the fabric of what people who are not on the extremes (and much more numerous) accept.

[cleveramerican]

108. The center is where consensus lies

by its very definition.

this type of proud to be a martyr thinking is the very thing that stops democrats from ever arriving there.

If you don't fail you must have sold out thinking is very punk-rock, and very childish.

[rhett o rick]

90. You speak like a right wingnut. nt

[cleveramerican]

105. and you sound like Tom Delay

"your just a right winger", "freeper" ,"corporatist", et all; sounds a lot like the "you just hate America",
I used to get from the right wing nuts during the last guys term.

[rhett o rick]

116. If you hate the left so much, please tell us what issues do you specifically disagree.

To quote you: "In Politics: There is no glory in being a principled loser. In order to affect change,first you must win." That plus your attacks on the left make me question where you come from. What specifically about the left do you hate so much?

And is winning more important than principles? Not to a Democrat.

[cleveramerican]

118. I am a pragmatic liberal Democrat

if you don't win
you and your sacred principles are all dressed up with no place to go.
I didn't come to this party yesterday, I have arrived at my views across decades of political fights.


Your are like the Admiral who follows all the rules and his ship still sinks

I am more the first officer who will bend any rule, use every trick experience has taught me, to save the ship.

We will both face the consequences, I will take my chances that success will be an adequate defense.

We are on the same side, you know.
weather you believe me or not I cannot control.

I have been pushed around by way tougher foes than you.
And I am still here.

[rhett o rick]

121. If you disagree with the left, on what issues do you disagree. nt

[cleveramerican]

143. I disagree with the all or nothing mentality of the OP

if its not what I want
I am going home
is my beef.

I will accept any and all incremental steps
I will form any alliance, accept the support of anybody at any time.(dlc'ers and even... gulp!.. republicans)

I accept that even a minuscule step in the correct direction is better than no step at all.
to me this makes me a pragmatist.

If to you that seems un-principled, I can even accept that.

[rhett o rick]

122. If you give up your principles merely to “win”, you will have won nothing. nt

[demhistorian]

126. I'm curious as to what "principles" you are referring to

And what principles have been give up.

[rhett o rick]

130. I was responding to post #23.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8733956&mesg_id=8734043

[demhistorian]

148. I realize that, and my questions still stand.

[rhett o rick]

151. Integrity, honesty and fairness are a good start.

I didnt understand your second question. The poster said that winning was more important than maintaining one's principles. At least that's what I read. I disagree. I would rather go down in defeat and maintain my principles. He suggests the opposite.

[demhistorian]

152. where did the poster say "winning was more important than maintaining one's principles?"

And why do you assume everyone has the same principles as you? Could it be these winning politicians stuck to their principles, just not YOUR principles?

[rudy23]

25. I've said it before---he needs to be asked if he renounces Milton Friedman, from his U of Chi. days

That school turns out the worst of the worst. How do we know Obama isn't a bigger corporatist than the advisers we blame his corporatism on?

[phleshdef]

36. Because his life history prior to 2004 shows practically ZERO corporatist tendencies.

Which is why I laugh my ass off at the overdramatic fools who are labelling him as a corporatist.

[Lautremont]

45. Uh, except for the above-mentioned Friedman sympathies.

[mochajava666]

33. You aptly summarized the frustration that

many of us 2008 Obama supporters and activists feel. I now am torn between the school of thought that he is progressive at heart (as in his book), but pragmatic to a fault; or the school of thought that he is a human Rorschach test that I, as a far lefty, saw a progressive in him that wasn't there.

[Armstead]

34. He reminds me of my brother -- A moderate liberal who can't acknowledge that problems are systemic

My brother and I get into endless debates sometimes over the cause of our problems.

He is basically a liberal with decent instincts. In his career he did a lot of work to deal with problems related to poverty.

However, he frustrates me because he refuses to see that the problems we have are a systemic result of concentration of wealth and power and the dominance of corporate power that have resulted from the policies of the last 30 or 40 years.

He is so "reasonable" that he is always looking for a false equivalency. Therefore, he accepts crap that is contrary to his own values, such as the corporate line that the "free trade" policies will help the average worker by shipping their jobs overseas. Thus he can't look outside the box.

Sometimes Obama reminds me of that with his insistence on being "reasonable" with forces that are unreasonable.

[mochajava666]

46. Reading "Audacity of Hope"

I really thought that he had keen insight as to our problems being systemic in nature. He now seems to be arguing the same false dichotomies that he was so against prior to his swearing in.

[Captain Hilts]

58. The 'system' has served Obama pretty well. nt

[rudy23]

74. "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel"

Robert Frost. Except, I've seen nothing to indicate that Obama is a liberal.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

35. Agreed.

eom

[ej510]

42. I love to see Obama toughen up against the Aetna side of the

party. This would be the first step to a successful Presidency.

[insanity]

43. We will never be fully satisified

We have to win elections, which means sometimes sacrificing common sense and our progressive sensibilities. What we have to do is keep pushing this country back to the left, so that over time, our views become more of the political mainstream. In the last 40 years we've been pushed towards (and by) the right so much so that 25% of our population or so actually thinks Sara Palin is competent.

Given that, I think Obama is doing the best he can given all of the circumstances he faces. Not only is he the first black President, he also has the worst Presidency in history to fix while attempting the most radical overhaul of our nation's (broken) healthcare system. We're also not going to rid the party of the corporatists until we get judges on the Court who overturn corporate personhood. I mean money is power in our system, and if the lesser of two evils needs to succumb to it to remain in power I don't like it, but I accept it as the most prudential move.

Our job is to hold his (and the party's) feet to the fire sometimes, but we have to accept the framework we are given and work within it to get real change. Right now we have a big battle on our hands... we have to get some form of government run health-care that is available to everyone. If we can get that then Obama's term(s) are already worth it in my mind. If we could get 1-2 more Justices on the Court it would be a huge win (even better would be if we can get one of theirs back). Besides those two, his foreign policy has been mostly excellent and the cherry is that he is so damn likeable.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I never expected change overnight, I've always known that to actually get this country into the rational world is going to require a lot of work.

[mochajava666]

48. I don't understand why WE have to make sure that he holds

to his basic principles and promises. Shouldn't he try to enact the bold and dramatic change that he saw was needed so desperately in this country? That would be leadership. Even W understood that. Shouldn't it be our job to lobby candidates that aren't convinced that Obama's "bold" policies and programs are in the best interest in the country? Instead, we have to think boldly in order to try to push Obama in the liberal direction? Isn't it his job to lead, and our job to support his "bold" leadership?

I'm sorry to disagree with you again, but if we get watered-down national health care, and two more liberal/moderate supreme court justices, and that's it, we are in a world of hurt. IMHO, Bush screwed up so badly, we need much more leadership that we are getting.

[insanity]

49. I would like to agree here

The reality is that we have the most juvenile opposition (maybe ever), who are willing and eager to throw any shit they find until it sticks. We have to accept a quarter of Americans like Sara Palin. The right-wing of this country has become so mainstream that Glenn Beck (a complete and total moron) has good ratings. Too many of the 'moderate' democrats are politically right-of-center. Obama does need to step up to the plate a bit more, but we do have to recognize that its hard to go to bat when your team isn't going to help you. Bush could blindly 'lead' because his team and some of ours were all to eager to get in line and follow.

If we get national health care that can compete with private insurance we will get universal coverage one day. If we get 1-2 more liberal/moderate justices we may actually get a reversal on corporate personhood. In my mind those are two of the biggest prizes out there for the left.

[mochajava666]

53. I totally agree with your assessment of the GOP

as well as the corporate media.

However, my priorities are global warming and campaign finance reform. To me, if (when) the planet has a huge climate change, then famine, disease, and war will all be the higher priorities than health care, or the SCOTUS. Campaign finance reform is necessary for our government to function. Without it, politicians spend too much time fund raising, AKA getting bribed. I would venture to say that if it wasn't for money's influence on politics, we would have had health care reform under Clinton, or maybe even Truman. Getting rid of corporate personhood would be a great start for campaign finance reform, but it's just a start, IMO.

[insanity]

59. The SCOTUS issue is related to CFR

We won't have campaign finance reform until we overturn the notion that corporations have inalienable rights. I want publicly financed elections with room for limited individual contributions.

The climate change victory should be a victory for common sense. Obama should step-up here as it will require huge global leadership. I'm hoping that we tackle energy and climate soon, and without interference from the people profiting off the destruction of the Earth. I totally agree that this is an area he can lead on too.

[mochajava666]

68. I think we have a chicken vs egg thing here

I said that corporate personhood is a start, since I think there are broader problems with campaign finance reform, ie the problem that TV time costs so much money and that 30 second TV spots that are negative seem to give the most bang for the buck. Essentially, money's influence on our political system is destroying our democracy, which is what I think we both believe.

As for global climate change, you are asking for idiots in the GOP to rise above their ignorance. These guys aren't even attending the meetings on a climate bill. Al Gore is still being ridiculed by the left as well as the right. Obama has shown little leadership so far. In fact, I think he has supported some very weak proposals that protect business but appear as if something is being done. We need strong leadership to enact effective climate change legislation. If he compromises on climate change as he has on health care, we are leaving a disaster for our children to suffer through. Little else will matter.

[Armstead]

50. You make good points, b ut i disagree with some of what you said

I basically agree with your assessment.

Except I would go farther by pushing to scale back corporate power NOW. That is job one, because all other issues flow from that.

No that can't happen overnight, and we should not put other things on hold. But that framework is important to do the rest. At the very least, Obama and the democrats need to stop the messages and behavior that enables the lies that corporations and the right wing promulgate and instead offer an alternative vision that places the interests of the majority over those of the oligarchs.

For example healthcare. If we pass some halfassed version of "reform" that further bolsters the insurance indistry -- and holds us hostage to it through mandates -- then that's a loss in my opinion. Most Democrats (and many independents) know that strong regulation of insurers and a public option is the only reform that would begin to make a difference. The only reason it is being watered down nis due to the power of the insurance industry. As long as kowtowing to corporate ingterestsd is a high priority for democrats, nothing will get done.

As for the the loony right who think Sarah Palin woukd be a good president. Well, there will always be a segment of the population who thinks like that. Screw 'em and forget them. The real job is to convince people in the middle that the Democrats are protecting their interests through progressive policies -- and mean it. The swing v otrs will be convinced if they actually see positive results.

[treestar]

62. +1

The "corporatists" wouldn't even have allowed the bills to get this far!

[rollingrock]

52. For that to happen, he would have to fire 90% of his administration

so, not gonna happen.

Obama is a DLC corporate dem, through and through and his administration is run by DLCers.

[Captain Hilts]

54. Perhaps he IS a corporatist Democrat. He's got enough around him. He chose them. nt

[xchrom]

56. kick

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. I believe that he IS a corporatist, only one who temporarily put on a populist mask

As early as 2007, the corporate media were acting as if H. Clinton and Obama were the only two Democratic candidates, even though four or five other people were still in the race and not a single vote had been cast.

That's when I knew that the fix was in. For all the primary war bloodshed here on DU, I knew that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the policies of the two and that both had been anointed by the corporate media for two reasons: 1) Neither of them would rock the yachts, and 2) The press could have a lot of fun with the question, "Are you a racist or a sexist?"

Nothing Obama has done while in office has indicated that he is anything but a standard-issue corporatist.

[Skittles]

82. I saw it too, Lydia

and the people surely fell for it, huh :(

[bvar22]

86. Nailed It!

Now they are having a good laugh.


(screen cap from the DLC Website)

[Armstead]

95. My opinion of him a is somewhat higher than that...I do think his loyalties are spilt

I think gthere is a side of him that is truly progressive. But I also think he ignores those instincts too often and goes with the path of least resistance -- or likes the glitz of the corporate crowd.

That's why, IMO, he could be better if he were pressed to hang around with a better crowd of people.

[pecwae]

149. Of course he is.

The tragic part is that voters buy into the 'change' campaign slogans with stars in their eyes. They continue to rationalize and make excuses for the mask wearer long after the true identity is revealed.

[mdmc]

72. YOU LIE!

hehe...:)

[rhett o rick]

92. cute

[theFrankFactor]

75. In My Opinion You Are Reality Based... So Be Careful!

I submitted evidence of Obama's governing bent by pointing out his cabinet pics and the financial shmucks he's assigned to dole out the welfare. Also, the bulk of the democratic party is and has been sucking corporate wee-wee for over a decade. Look at the committee chairmanship appointments... Baucus? Really? WTF? Pelosi and Reid suck, have sucked and will continue to suck.

They get away with this shit because we are infested with enablers.

A majority should actually mean something. For Democrats, it doesn't! For Republicans it doesn't matter, Democrats are designed to pretend to fight with them and then surrender. I's a obvious as the fact that Dick Cheney is a war criminal.

[Thickasabrick]

79. Agree. I don't think President Obama will do anything to rock the

boat until his second term.

[EVDebs]

80. Obama needs his 'John Perkins moment'

Obama's first job out of college,

Business International Corporationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_International_Corporation#Barack_Obama

a CIA front.

[Skittles]

81. lol, pushed away?

he is where he wants to be

[Grinchie]

84. Good luck with that. His platform crumbled less than 2 weeks after he was elected.

I have no faith in the Obama anymore, simply because he has no other choice than to Soldier on with his DLC thugs. If he were to clean house at this point, his DLC buffoons would be untoucable and excommunicated, and sadly, that's the power base at the moment.

[Duval]

85. I agree. Would also like

to add the rest of Congress!!

[Armstead]

93. Some of Congress

There are a lot of good real Democrats in Congress....But they are overshadowded by the schmucks, or get forced into much more compromising positions than they would prefer.

[natrat]

87. it's a lost cause -the banks and corporations and bilderbergs own washington end of story

[lib2DaBone]

88. Pushed away from the DLC..and SOON!

.. or he could lose control of this country...

[BillDU]

89. Jeez

So I guess your somebody who has moved to a region like Central Alaska and is living off the land and has nothing to do with corporations anymore?
If not....
Then why would you expect Obama too?

[Armstead]

94. Sigh....It';s so boring you people who.....

don't recognize that here is a vast area between selling out and so-called ideological purity.

[BillDU]

96. So....

So your address in a place like Central Alaska ( free from corporate influence ) is????.......

[Armstead]

97. You are being thick as a brick....deliberatly?

I suppose you don't want to bother responding to my contention that it is not a matter of either/or.

FYI I live in the lower 48, and I actually am involved in the business world in my career. That does not mean I am a corporatist, however.

What part of the concept of a "wide area between extremes" don't you understand?

[BillDU]

99. Dancing with the devil is being with him.

I think you answered your own question. You live in the lower 48 however you think yourself not a corporatist.
My answer is the same.
If you were not a corporatist, you would have already moved, and be living in an area, absent of corporate influence.
What part of that don't YOU understand?

[Armstead]

102. Then you are the purist

and you're using the Internet which makes you a corporatist too

[BillDU]

138. You think that's me...

Oh I'm anything but pure!
You have an option is what I'm saying, and yet you choose of your own free will to remain where you are.
What does that make you?

[Armstead]

140. what does that make me? Confused by what your point is

[BillDU]

141. My point is...

If you truly were offended by corporate influence you would simply live somewhere outside of that influence which is an option at your command.
and if not...sorry my friend, you are a co-conspirator.

[demhistorian]

107. Awesome post! You remind me of --- ummm --

Doug Hoffman!

[Armstead]

114. That's clever...You remind me of Creigh Deeds

[demhistorian]

120. If you're going to compare me to a Virginia politician, at least ----

make it Mark Warner or Tim Kaine - two who know what it takes to win - unlike the Tea Party wing of the Right and the Wine Party wing of the left (or is that whine?)

[Armstead]

124. If you're going to compare me to a northern politician in the podunks....

make it Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Is Whining any worse than Whimpering Surrender?

[demhistorian]

125. the difference is Warner or Kaine could win in Vermont. Sanders couldn't in VA

Bizarro world you live in where winning elections equals "surrender."

[Armstead]

127. Your assumption that successful progressive politicians are losers says much

Your assumption reflects what is wrong with "centrist" Democrats.

Vermont is not some hippie utopia. It has many hardasses, and conservatives. And Bernie has had the ability to win their loyalty and wipe out all competitors for years.

But rather than look at why and see what he is doing right, people like you prefer to assume that what they stand for is automatically unwinnable because they don't fit the mold of tepid Conservative Democrats.

[demhistorian]

128. I've made no such assumption

But I will say successful progressive politicians (at least the way you appear to define them) are rare.

[Armstead]

131. "the difference is Warner or Kaine could win in Vermont. Sanders couldn't in VA"

Remember writing that? Sounds like an assumption to me.

[demhistorian]

132. of course I do. But he is ONE politician. You said "politicians." (plural)

And I'll comment on them one by one should you mention them. And, I'll stick by my original statement. Bernie Sanders would wash out in in red or purple areas.

[Armstead]

133. I haven;t time or patience for word games....But I'll say this.

I will concede that it is possible that Bernie may be too "ethnic Yankee" and calling himself a socialist may be too much for the more bigoted redneck segments of Virginia (the ancestral state of my family where i lived for a number of years).

However, I am also pretty confident that a WASP with a drawl and Bernie's down to earth honesty who advocated the same economic positions and message as Bernie could do quite well in Virginia and possibly win.

[demhistorian]

136. after several dozen replies by you to your own assumption-filled OP

...you first accuse me of making assumptions about progressive politicians, then practically concede my "assumption" is probably accurate.

The problem with people who think like you - on both sides of the political spectrum - is you believe there is some invisible majority who are withholding their votes until the ideologically pure candidate comes along.

[Armstead]

137. With people like you, one can't even try to be reasonable

I did not totally concede your assumption -- which was an assumption. Rather I tried to be intellectually honest and ac \knowledge that on a stylistic level Bernie's success may not translate well to the segment of Bible belt Virginians who are not comfortable with a certain type of Yankee.

Would you prefer I just stick to my guns for the sake of it and say "No damn it, Bernie would win Virginia" just to be stubborn?

Contrary to your narrow minded stereotype, I do not assume an invisible majority is witholding their votes waiting for an "ideologically pure" candidate.

However, I do believe that Democrats are supposed to stand for certain basic progressive populist (liberal) principles that are very mainstream. In my opinion, when Democrats actually offer progressive populism it resonates with many "average" voters, including those who are socially conservative. (Dismissing the hard-core wingnuts and teabaggers)

Furthermore,I also believe that too many so-called centrist Democrats have abandoned those principles and become pale versions of Republican conservatism. That is why Democrats fail to accomplish much, and were on the ropes politically for so many years while the GOP ran roughshod over us. Faced with phony imitation conservative-lite Democrats, it is not surprising that many people have been conned by the phony populism of the GOP.

The Democrats won because the GOP and Bush screwed the pooch so badly, and because the corporate economic policies of both Republican and Democratic conservatives imploded.

Given the opportunity Democrats gained in the last electionb, why keep offering the same old gruel that got us in this mess?

[demhistorian]

147. Reasonable? We've just seen how a purist can lose an election for the GOP

Yet you fail to learn the lesson and think it doesn't apply to the opposite end.


Hey - you've suddenly found a lot of time to reply.

[cleveramerican]

154. take a closer look at the '08 winners.....

you will see that the moderate types are the majority.

The very same democrats you rail against brought you today's majority.

If you think'08 was a huge affirmation of progressive impulses, you should go back and look a little closer.

[demhistorian]

119. .

posted in wrong place

[xchrom]

112. kick

[BillDU]

155. My Point Concisely.

So anyway..
If we are not willing to actually separate ourselves from corporate influence then how can we expect to separate the President Of The United States from that?