What do you think about this Robert Parry article posted here?

[balantz]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4783635

Why is it that something bothers me about it?

Is this just more party propaganda?

[saracat]

1. It seems to be crap and very slanted as a "pro-Obama " piece

with little objectivity. The party is NOT impressed with the small donors but with the masive influx of lobbyist money to the Democratic party. I know this from several state treasurers.If anything Dean has been promoting Obama since he was part of the original "Dean Dozen" .He was the one who brought Obama to the 2004 convention when he was a lowly state senator and had him greeted with thousands of Obama for president signs that are identical to the ones used today!

If anything, there has been a war on the Clintons. Dean hates them and the feeling is mutual. He has been working over Clinton loyalists till they crumble.

[balantz]

2. Thanks. that was my thinking. I didn't think the small donors, while impressive as a phenomenon,

were actually that huge in importance in the overall money scheme. The wave of small donations that add up are a temporary part of the created phenomenon.

It's sad and funny(?) to see that the liberal leaders of the party are really not liberal.

This has been really tiring for me to learn that our party is not what I had thought it was. And I am new to this activity of learning about and involving myself in politics. I can't imagine how horrible it must be for you who have been active for years to see things not only NOT change for the better, but slide into a more solidified form of Right-wing appeasement.

[bpeale]

6. the small donor thing was impressive when it was JRE don't you think?

i think it was pretty amazing from grassroots & all

[unc70]

10. The small (under $100) is not financially significant; participation is important

I posted an analysis a week or two back that was better than what I just saw on KO.

The ratio of small to large donors for Obama is distorted because Obama includes all the buttons, etc. in the campaign; most of the other candidates outsource that to a third-party and avoid having to report every t-shirt and bumper sticker. Even so, over 90% of his donors contribute less than $100; about half of these give $20 or less. If you do the math from things they announced in their PR, you see that about 3% donated over 75% of all the money, and the 90% contribute less than 10% of the dollars. (The typical rule of thumb is the 80/20 rule (Paredo)).

The distribution of dollars vs. donors is not that different for Obama vs Clinton or Edwards.

I first commented on all this when the media were claiming that most of Clinton's donors were tapped out. My analysis at that time showed that the distribution of tapped out, significant available, and insignificant donors was being exaggerated in favor of Obama.

The general ability of "outsiders" to raise money, in general, is the concern in DC. Obama has actually raised much of his money from "traditional" sources. The participation by number of donors through the internet has replaced the direct mail operations developed initially by Richard Viguere and the Jesse Helms Congressional Club.

[raincity_calling]

3. So what is your take on Dean?

I was a Dean supporter. In 2003 he inspired me to get active again, and I have remained so ever since. I support his 50 State plan for building the Dems presence in every state. I much prefer this strategy to that of the DLC, of which Clinton belongs (note, I do not currently support either Hillary or Obama; I have strong reservations about both as being able to take back the WH).

Saracat, since you have been so involved, have you seen any efforts by the Dems at a local level to develop any plans to try and thwart voter suppression tactics such as knocking people off voter rolls or making sure those that register actually get on the rolls?

[bpeale]

5. Dean is a tool IMO

[saracat]

16. Actually I have seen a bit of effort in that direction from my local state party.They have a very

active voter integrity group that has done a lot. But they really weren't given much encouragement to begin with and that was partially because there were some loons attached to it but the sanity prevailed and the reasonable people were able to make progress.They get zero assistance from the national party.

[bpeale]

4. i agree. slanted, crap ... what you said!

[raincity_calling]

7. He is a politician after all,

but don't you think his 50 state plan has benefited local party organizations to build a grassroots movement? I mean we are still at the beginning stages of a movement, but I think his focus on local organization is a good one. He certainly has not taken strong positions on issues like I would like (especially GOP election fraud and voter suppression tactics) which continously plague the Democrats ability to win elections.

[bpeale]

8. agreed. but at what price? the loss of the base is acceptable to him for that?

i don't think so. he has thrown all of us under the bus in the process. i'm sorry. i can't support what he & other democrats have done. not with my vote and certainly not with my money.

[raincity_calling]

9. I am not trying to defend Dean here, I am justing trying to

understand people's positions. So when you say he "threw us under the bus" what are you referring to?

I suspect he had a role in Edwards dropping out;is that what you are talking about? If so, I definitely feel conflicted there, and angry.

[bpeale]

11. yep, there you go. i, too, suspect him in JRE's untimely exit

[bpeale]

12. BTW, i also think he has sacrificed the base for all these NEW obamites

so he cares more about their concerns than the concerns of the base.

[raincity_calling]

13. It is interesting, the Democratic Party rarely

plays to its base, while the GOP almost always does. Its the base that are the worker bees for the party, yet they never give us much consideration.

[balantz]

14. What are the numbers I wonder on this "base"?

I'm not up on that. I mean there seem to be scads of "dems" supporting the "O", and quite a number supporting the "C", and then you have supporters of more populist candidates like Edwards. I don't know how to gauge all of this because how do you get an accurate count of certain "dems" from polls that are skewed by the media. How many would have been counted as Edwards supporters had they been able to hear his message? And then there are hordes of people who could really use a progressive/populist party but don't even bother to vote because they have lost faith, or never had it. So when you say us, the base, are you saying there are greater numbers who want populist type reform and are not represented by the party?

[bpeale]

17. that's exactly what i'm saying. they simply do not care about their base

they see all these hordes of "new" voters who may or may not be around at election time, and they pander to those folks & ignore the base who does everything for them. their worker drones if you will. dollars to donuts those "new" voters will not do any volunteering or donating of cash or anything else because they "have other priorities." so who does that leave for the dems to work with? i'm tired of being USED by the democratic party but otherwise ignored. i didn't leave the party. the party left me. that's why they can't get the party to walk in lockstep like the republicans do. because they let go of what they have to grab the new & improved stuff thereby alienating those they let go of (if that makes sense). i saw my own mother throw my sister & i under the bus (we were her total financial support for 20 years) for 4 worthless siblings who never did a thing for her ... in fact, hid from her for 20 years. i don't have to have a train hit me anymore to get the message.

i will NEVER not vote, but the democratic party does not OWN my vote. whoever wants my vote will have to EARN that vote. it's no longer a given that i will vote democratic. i will vote for the person i feel is best for the job & if that person does not happen to be a democrat, then so be it. they have thrown their base under the bus for these new & improved voters ... and they have let us know in not so subtle ways that they are simply not interested in hearing from us or about us or our issues.

[balantz]

19. I really do pray that the party splits.

As we can see, we've been thrown under the bus, sold down river. Is it the socialist component of the party that isn't allowed to thrive with the corporate agenda? It seems simple like that to me.

[bpeale]

20. i HOPE for a complete party breakdown & all out war within the party

and these 2 candidates are the candidates to do it i think. meanwhile, i will be over at the other site helping them to create a platform that perhaps we can get locals to run under to get it going. hope to see you there. i am posting as foolme1s (appropriate don't you think?).

[balantz]

23. Great name!

I have been to the site once. I had already been involved with the splinter site from here started by fellow DUers, but there is technical difficulty(?) going on there. So I will probably be seeing you at the site you mentioned. I am looking for radical, but sane discussion. A gigantic leap must be made or the progressive movement is doomed to wallow in the misery of being on the fringe of a party that really hasn't much for them.

[bpeale]

25. at least there you can discuss issues rationally without being attacked

for feeling differently. i like that.

[bpeale]

21. BTW, this was a great discussion you started! love this!

would that the rest of DU would discuss like this as well. those 2 candidates supporters have been allowed to destroy democratic underground's forum completely. and i doubt there will be any healing of the rift once the nominee is decided. there are a lot of desperately unhappy democrats out there that i hope we can steal away from here!

[saracat]

15. Not so much. I could tell stories of those he hired that are unbelievable. But I have a quirk.

I believe that the DNC should do its best to secure competent individuals to do a good job and not outsource "patronage " positions to the local offices. But that is what Dean did.When I had the audacity to question this, I was told that it wasn't the responsibility of the DNC to vet them thought they paid the salaries and sent their employees to the state parties who did not have a say in selection.Huge salaries were paid to people who did nothing and weren't competent to do anything.That was the flaw of the 50 state strategy, the concept of which I do support.

[bpeale]

18. mark my words, Edwards, Kucinich, Biden supporters etc. have all been sacrificed

for Dean's 50 state strategy. in the process, they have thrown us under the bus. that's why reforming the democratic party is not an option. what needs to happen is that a viable third party platform needs to be developed where people get heard. that third party would be made up of those who are entirely forgotten by both parties. and there are a lot more of us than there are of them.

right now, i don't see a whole lot of difference between the republicans and the democrats, except when the republicans do their schtick, they are entirely in lockstep & they sacrifice no one. the dems are disorganized and they are willing to sacrifice anybody that they perceive they don't need to accomplish their mission. at least the republicans have a platform they believe in ... all of them ... that they are willing to get down & dirty for. the dems can't quite get it together. and have not learned that they NEED everyone. they can't afford to sacrifice anyone. you may not like the republicans, but you have to admire their machine. i know i do. they get what they want no matter how they have to do it. the dems can't get past shooting themselves in the foot.

at the new JRE blogsite, they are planning a platform based on John Edwards populism, that they want to launch. i'm going to be a part of that. that seems like a worthwhile project and something better than here that i can devote my time, money & support to with like minded individuals.

[balantz]

22. It's important to check in here so others who may be lost otherwise

have someone to help sort this out.

I wonder if the reason the Democrats are disorganized is because the splitting of the party has been going on for some time. Now it is becoming much more clear that the lies of the party won't cut it for us true liberals anymore. In the meantime there has been this whole big party containing two partys. Now there is emerging on the political landscape the Right, the Middle and the Left. How could we have fooled ourselves for so long that it could be otherwise?

[bpeale]

24. well, i don't consider myself a liberal per se, but more of a progressive populist

the two current parties have a vested interest, along with the media, to keep viability from any third party because they know they will lose a lot of people. i have been a democrat because i felt some, but not all my values were represented by them. i no longer feel that way. and the republiks don't do anything for me either. too much religious crap there (there's beginning to be too much religious crap with the dems too). so where does that leave me? my values put me more in line with a progressive agenda with liberal leanings. i believe in doing what's best for the population as a whole, not only those that can afford to buy influence. that's where the 2 current parties go wrong. they have been taken over by those who can afford to buy influence & that has to stop.

i read The Progressive Populist & believe almost entirely in what i read there. those are my people. that is the newspaper that i believe was founded by Russ Feingold. and from what i read there, Edwards is a progressive populist as well. he was never a good fit for the democratic party, but ran there because there is no viable third party to run under.

[balantz]

26. I'm new to politics and these labels.

I will need to read up more, but surely I'm with you. What is liberal compared to progressive/populist? Anyway, I have it in my bones where there is no label. I intuitively know that liberty and justice and such spiritual values should be had by all, and that we help our brothers and sisters share in the wealth of our nation, and promote peace throughout the world.

[bpeale]

27. there you go. i believe that too & it seems to be more in line with progressive/populist

themes

[bpeale]

28. The Progressive Populist is published out of Iowa, and is called

a Journal from America's Heartland that believes in the Bill of Rights and that the truth shall make us free. Published by John Cullen. It's $37.95 for a 1 year subscription, in newspaper form. i'm sure you can find it online and read a sample before buying.

From their ad:
Progressive populists believe that people are more important than corporations, and that government should be of the people, by the people, and for the people. The Progressive Populist speaks for those Americans who want to reclaim our nation from those who would take power from the people and reserve it for an elite few. They report on issues of interest to workers, small businesses and family farmers and ranchers.

They carry articles by Jim Hightower, Amy Goodman, Garrison Keillor, Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson, Joe Conason, Arianna Huffington, Robert Borosage, David Sirota, Gene Lyons, just to name a few. All these people are well known writers & contribute regularly to this paper.

[balantz]

30. That's great.

I have wondered thought why these people didn't get strongly behind J.E.? I was waiting for the ednorsements of some of those people you mentioned who contribute to the magazine. Progressive/populists should have seen Edwards as our best choice and rallied strongly behind him. I saw that as a failure when it didn't happen.

[bpeale]

31. actually, before Edwards dropped out, that's all you read in that paper

was their rally for Edwards. i have no idea what happened to it.

[balantz]

32. That's good to hear.

Having not read the paper I didn't know that. I was refering to Hightower's site and Democracy Now!. I guess they needed to stay neutral for their wide audience?

[bpeale]

29. I just posted one of my favorite articles from The Progressive Populist

by Ted Rall called Politics of Dopes: Barack Obama, Empty Suit. that is the type of articles that appear in that publication if you are interested. can you imagine the reception this would get in GD?

[kelligesq]

33. Sounds like an 0 supporter to me - ppropagandizing - today

Clinton campaign reports it has just raised 35 million from grassroots.....so what is this stuff she went to big pacs - lobbyiests for money?