Marianne Williamson: Where Does A Democrat Go From Here?

[happy_liberal]

What the current administration is giving us is minimal change. And not because the President hasn't had the time to do better; if he had truly wanted to make fundamental change, he would have gone in there fast and done his own version of shock and awe in the first hundred days. And not because he didn't realize how mean all those Republicans can be, either; Obama knew what he was getting into, and if he didn't, then he was as unprepared for the job as his opponents said he was. I see so many people now -- many of them men, interestingly enough -- tangled up in an almost school-girlish, co-dependent, apologetic relationship with this President. As though "poor baby" should be tacked onto the end of every description of his failures....

I remember Bobby and I remember Martin. I remember when there was a moral force
at the center of the Democratic Party. I see it sometimes still, in a Sherrod Brown, a Dennis Kucinich, an Anthony Weiner. But they're not reflective of the general tenor of the Democratic Party anymore, and I think we would all do well to wake up to that fact. We elected Obama and then he sort of became someone else. He's doing a lot of good things in various areas, but he's certainly not changing the new bottom line: that corporations get to run the world.

He bailed out the banks, but he didn't stipulate that they had to start lending again. He got us health care, but he wouldn't say a word about single payer and he wouldn't raise a finger for the public option. He won the Nobel Peace Prize, but accepted it with a speech that was an apologia for war.

Democrats seem to have no idea what dark wave is rushing towards them in the form of the 2010 mid-terms. They have no idea how many people will be too depressed to go vote, who'll be thinking, "We tried so hard last time, and what did it get us?" They have no idea how many people are thinking, as I am, that it's time to face the facts, no matter how painful they are. If Obama doesn't retrieve his spine and retrieve it soon, then his Presidency will go down in the history books as one of the biggest disappointments in American history.

read more
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marianne-williamson/where-does-a-democrat-go_b_408557.html

[niyad]

1. 3...2...1...

[donheld]

26. 1...2...3...

[Freddie Stubbs]

73. ...0, -1, -2...

[villager]

2. Good opening paragraph to that piece, too:

"It's hard to own the disappointment I feel over our moderate corporate Democratic President. The whole Obama phenomenon brings up memories from my distant past: the good-looking guy who talks real good, whose line you don't buy immediately but whose charm is so dazzling that he gradually convinces you that this time it will be different.

"Yeah. Right. Really different..."

[G_j]

25. agreed

well said

:thumbsup:

[jbnow]

33. I wish it were that simple. That false talk I get.

Obama's speeches didn't charm me into supporting him... my research on him did before (I heard him speak.

I knew almost nothing about him and I was surprised how much info I found about him as I researched the candidates. It went back many years... before he was "the" Barack Obama or known nationally. The attention was that Harvard Law review thing I think, it got him more attention when he when back to Chicago, whatever he did. I kept digging up more.

By the time I heard him speak after Iowa primary his speech made sense to me...it was like a beautifully phrased description of what he had walked and talked for years.

He DID stand up when it mattered before. Like those 120+ present votes he was mocked for (and never explained well). Those not done with a group as part of a strategy often took standing up. He might be the only vote against a bill (well present which is a way of saying they support bill in essence but object to some part), sometimes it would be against one he sponsored but the wording had been changed enough to turn him against it. He always gave a floor speech saying exactly why he was voting as he was and what his objection was.

It was often a constitutional issue, he'd talk about some part of the bill being against some part of the constitution or a round about way to challenge some right. I loved the constitutional geek in him.

He did get things through in bipartisan way and would do it the way he said he'd do health care (minus the c-span part). Everyone did have a seat at the table, not just senate but community voices from all sides. He did adjust things after hearing someone out and in the end everyone felt heard and respected...but he would not back down on major things.
(Of course he wasn't doing the negotiating as president)

Well I won't keep going into his past but he wasn't some guy with empty charm...there was a lot of reason to believe him.

That makes it all the harder

[BuelahWitch]

3. The second comment is interesting

"...I also feel that something very weird is going on behind the scenes. First Nancy Pelosi let us down with no impeachment, and now Obama has let us down with a great piece of fiction."

[glitch]

15. I also very much feel that something very weird is going on behind the scenes.

And that's when I am feeling especially generous.

[rwheeler31]

4. So we should have voted for McCain are you nuts?

[happy_liberal]

8. of course not! are you nuts?

It is what it is at this point and we need to see what they are doing and work to stop it.

We are being set up for a Newt Gingrich 2 take over of the House and Senate. I don't want to support what Obama is doing nor do I want to bash him lending to the idea that Dems are mad at him so that's how the Republicans won(stole) the elections again.

What we need to do is put so much pressure on Obama that he does what we want. We need to make Obama give Dems a reason to vote next time around.

We could start by joining Cindy Sheehan in her protest beginning in March, people camping in DC and not leaving.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

28. I disagree with the premise that we are being set up for a "Newt Gingrich 2 take over..."

First off, there is NO *Newt Gingrich* for the Repubs to rally around like in 1994 let alone any set of ideas/proposals that people seem to want. Second, as (supposedly) unpopular President Obama and the Dems are, the Repubs are even MORE unpopular. The Dems will certainly lose some seats- in keeping with historical trends- but the Repubs will likely lose a few seats as well and when the dust settles, the Dems will STILL be in the majority after next year, albeit with a diminished one.

[dflprincess]

32. Who needs another Newt Gingrich when we have the DLC and Blue Dogs?

They couldn't get anything meaningful done with the majority they have now losing seats will give them a great excuse to "compromise" the middle class totally out of existence.

[laughingliberal]

51. That's how I see it nt

[happy_liberal]

34. they still own the media and own the election systems

they create whatever reality they want. We have to do something about our voting systems and the media or we are screwed. Right now they are all about creating the propaganda needed to steal the elections again.

Are the real Democrats going to just watch this happen all over again?

In the words of our former pResident "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you, fool me twice you can't get fooled again"

[snot]

37. Seconded.

[Armstead]

12. No that;s not what she is saying

[IndianaGreen]

13. That's a red herring and you know it

[Jamastiene]

17. Who said that?

I don't think that was the point of the article.

[Lorien]

24. OK. Just STOP IT. Seriously. STOP IT NOW. For the last time: when someone says that

they are DISAPPOINTED in your hero THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WANTED HIS OPPOENENT INSTEAD. Stop this intentionally obtuse bullshit once and for all. We expected a Democrat to bring us change, not a corporate apologist to bring us more of the same shit that we voted against. Got it??

[loudsue]

43. Thank you!!! I'm sick of that line of bullshit, too.

Where do these idiots come from?

[Individualist]

72. +1

One has to wonder what it's going to take for them to realize that people don't buy what they're selling. :shrug:

[emilyg]

27. Yawn. That line doesn't work anymore.

[laughingliberal]

50. Again with that straw man

One more time: there are choices between voting for McCain and getting out our pom poms to pretend everything the President is doing is hunk dory, lovey, dovey by us.

[fascisthunter]

52. try not being so simplistic

[depakid]

5. "...then he sort of became someone else."

While this is a common sentiment (and something the administration would have been wise to be more responsive to) an objective review of the record, public statements and positions on the issues would have seen a center right consensus builder- as opposed to a principled advocate and hard nosed reformer.

In retrospect, given the situation- and the nature of the Republican opposition, not really the right person to get the jobs done on the domestic front.

But- looking at the candidates at the time, probably the best choice among those running (though one does suspect that Hillary wouldn't have catered to- and been pushed around by the likes of Nelson and Lieberman, et al).

[villager]

7. Interesting point about Hilary.

Obama is her centrist/corporatist twin, as it turns out.

But she might have had a marginally better line in the sand with the hostage takers in the Senate...

[IndianaGreen]

14. A President Hillary would not have kissed Lieberman or Ben Nelson's ass

and there wouldn't have been a deal with PhRMA, or a Stupak amendment in the House.

[keep_it_real]

19. We never know what they are going to do until they get in office

[karynnj]

21. or a passed health care bill, if all that is true

Why do you think the Congress would have been more conciliatory. Do you remember that once she was not inevitable, most of the moderates and most of the liberals in the Senate backed Obama.

Remember 1993 - she said that she learned that being inflexible doesn't work. That means reaching out to Nelson.

[dflprincess]

22. They didn't pass a health care bill

they passed an insurance company profit protection act.

[highplainsdem]

23. +1

[villager]

29. +1

[MisterP]

31. as long as there's enough cartoons labeling it "historical" and "something awaited since Truman,"

they'll think it's justified; criticizing the bill itself is unfair, because it's SOMETHING

[karynnj]

35. So you say

The fact is that it is landmark legislation that will provide subsidies to many enabling them to purchase insurance. It is not perfect, but it is a big step forward.

[laughingliberal]

58. uh huh nt

[dflprincess]

66. That's right they can purchase "insurance" from the for profit crooks who broke the system

and, with any luck, they'll be able to buy insurance that doesn't have out of pocket expenses that are so high they still won't be able to access care.

Odd are, however, that they'll go from being uninsured to be being underinsured (as more and more of us are doing).

If you haven't seen "Sicko", rent it. If you have seen it, watch it again and this time pay attention. Most the people in it are people who had "insurance". Most medical bankruptcies are filed by people who thought they had "coverage".

[laughingliberal]

53. +1

[chimpymustgo]

78. Oh, you said it!

[sabrina 1]

44. I think she would have done exactly what Obama is doing.

She is friends with Lieberman also and is from the same wing of the party as we have found out, Obama is. That is why I did not support her in the primaries. I wasn't sure about Obama, there were a lot of things he said that raised questions, but he had the advantage of being an unknown with little record for people to go by.

One thing he had going for him as far as I was concerned, Rahm Emanuel and the DLC wing of the party stayed in the background until after the election. I know that Hillary had the support of the DLC.

I don't think it mattered to those behind the scenes, which of the two won. That's what democracy now means in the US. The candidates are pre-selected, and only those who can be depended on will reach the primaries and general election.

Imo, the only hope is in Congress. I don't think it matters who is in the WH, looks like that branch of the government has been completely co-opted. Which is why I would support Obama in 2010 because we'll get a few crumbs from him at least, they have to do that to keep up the appearance of a two party system. But if Congress has a majority of real Democrats, it would be much more difficult for whoever the president is, to ignore the Democratic Wing of the party they way he can now.

[fascisthunter]

54. I have no doubt about that...

her rhetoric actually was more honest compared to Obama's... I knew she was DLC.

[Generator]

64. I know things are bad when people are pinning for a Hillary presidency

Yep, even Al Sharpton is looking mighty fine right now. LOL. I mean really. But at least we knew pretty much what we'd get with Hillary. I have never liked Bill Clnton so much as I do right now. Strange days.

[JTFrog]

65. Hillary, Leiberman and Bayh have been in bed together for years.

You can have an opinion but you can't erase history. Hillary Clinton is a conservative, pro-war Lieberman Democrat. She teamed up with Lieberman and the republicans on many issues.

Why do people keep trying to pull this Hillary wouldn't have kissed Lieberman's ass shit here?

[Raineyb]

82. Yeah right.

I didn't support Clinton because I already knew she was a corporatist. I doubt she'd be any better on this score.

[pissedoff01]

6. Next campaign slogan: VOTE OBAMA OR WE'LL SHOOT THIS DOG

[keep_it_real]

20. Too violent

[laughingliberal]

56. Okay, How about, "We're just like the Republicans but better looking" nt

[HipChick]

9. Marianne Williamson? I always thought of her as a New Age peddler..

I attended some A Course in Miracles workshops..interesting ..politics is a multi-dimensional aspect..

[happy_liberal]

10. She also has a book about politics

" Healing the Soul of America: Reclaiming Our Voices as Spiritual Citizens "

also an empowering book "A woman's worth"

[BuelahWitch]

11. She hosted at least one fundraiser for Kucinich in '04

A friend of mine went to see them in Santa Maria, CA (or somewhere close by there)

[Stephanie]

36. Precisely

I don't think she gets to lecture Obama, after all those years of peddling a "channeled" text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Course_in_Miracles

[BuelahWitch]

55. What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

She's a US citizen, she has just as much right as anyone else. Prejudiced much?

[laughingliberal]

57. Oh, just the kill the messenger deal for anyone who is not jumping for joy over the actions of this

administration. SSDD. Just another day at DU. lol

[BuelahWitch]

59. Indeed. It was Huff Post who printed her article

Ire should be directed at them. But I guess I should be surprised it took more than 50 posts for someone to denigrate Marianne.

[laughingliberal]

63. True but it is Monday. Message discipline a little slow on the uptake nt

[Karmadillo]

16. Very powerful. K&R. He seems so eager to do the bidding of our Corporate Masters that it seems

unlikely he'll have much interest in fortifying his spine in order to act on our behalf.

[happy_liberal]

18. It is time for protests again!

PROTEST CIA DRONE ATTACKS in LANGLEY, VIRGINIA January 16
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7388239

Camp-In Protest Begins in DC March 13-Stay as long as it takes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7388303

We cannot just watch the Republicans and their corporate media take the House and Senate 2010 then install Cheney 2012- We have to demand that they answer to the will of the people if there is any hope in stopping this mess.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

30. So, what is the answer to her central question?

Damned if I know, but I take comfort in knowing I am not the only one struggling with the question.

[uponit7771]

38. Obama promise meter (aka some facts) disagrees with the "became someone else" shit

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

[snot]

39. I find it discouraging how few comments here even attempt to respond to her central question. It's

time to start:

Draft another candidate (would Dean or Kucinich run against Obama?)

Third party?

The sooner we start serious work on the alternatives, the sooner our concerns will get taken more seriously.

[happy_liberal]

40. personally I think we must protest, we must force the Democrats to act on our behalf

There are protests coming up and I think this time the media will cover it(because they love it when people are unhappy with Obama) and more importantly I think Obama might actually listen.

...then we must fix the voting systems and the media.

Big job I know, but it is obvious to me they are setting us up to steal the elections again, and people that are unhappy with Obama are helping with their propaganda.

WE must demand Obama do things that will help people get behind him again.

I know one thing that would help, go to New Orleans and make sure they are getting the help they deserve(I know they are not currently) It would do a lot to give us little people the idea that the government has some compassion and useful purpose.

[sabrina 1]

45. Focusing on the presidency is not the way to go, imo.

Bad as it is, we are still better off with a Democrat in the WH. I would focus on Congress now, not put too much effort into the presidential campaign other than making sure a Republican doesn't win.

But raise funds and put all the energy that went into electing Obama, into getting a majority of real Dems in Congress. Even a Republican president couldn't get his agenda passed, if Congress refused to go along.

We have two elections coming up to do that. Anywhere it's possible, get rid of Republicans and Blue Dog DLC appeasers. I know there are some states where that might not be possible, so focus on the ones where it is.

But to continue to just go along with what has become of the Dem. Party is no longer acceptable. The real Dems in Congress need support and the best way for them to get it is to provide them with more members who will back them up.

Maybe we need to form another organization, as the DLC did. There is no comparable organized Democratic wing of the party. The DLC is the Republican wing of the party, and we badly need to stop accepting them just because the are the lesser of two evils. I'm not even sure that's true anymore regarding War and accountability for war criminals and REAL Health Care reform etc.

[laughingliberal]

60. I like the sound of Feingold

but, for now, is there anything we can do to push the president we have to the left? Any ideas out there?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. Which is why I vote issues and principles rather than party. K&R

[Qutzupalotl]

42. "He bailed out the banks" -- Wasn't that Bush?

October 2008, right?

[happy_liberal]

46. Bush started it

Obama finished it.

[Qutzupalotl]

48. He had to clean up Bush's mess.

Actually it's Phil Gramm's mess. Time to reinstate Glass-Steagall.

[laughingliberal]

61. Yes, and when asked about restoring Glass-Steagall Obama passed saying that was a different time

My response to that is that, yes, it was a time when the working and middle class were growing and the bank robbers weren't working in the banks.

[Carolina]

67. Actually the Commodities Modernization Act which

overthrew Glass-Steagall may have been Phil Gramm's wet dream but President Bill Clinton made it a real orgy when he signed it into law in 1999! As some rightly predicted, we reaped rotten fruits of that disaster 10 years later.

Then and now, our corporate Dems aid and abet repuke schemes to dismantle the New Deal and Great Society.

[Qutzupalotl]

68. He had to sign it.

It was inserted into must-pass legislation.

[dflprincess]

69. Bull

a bill that included the seeds for destroying the economy was a "must-veto". He could have requested air time and taken the case for the veto to the public, regardless of what else was in the bill.

[Qutzupalotl]

70. My mistake.

I was thinking of a different piece of legislation.

However, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed congress with a veto-proof majority:
On November 4th, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8,<12> <13> and by the House 362-57
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

So I'd still lay the blame on congress, and specifically the Republican majority and Phil Gramm.

[Qutzupalotl]

71. If he had vetoed it, congress would have overturned the veto.

The final bill passed the Senate 90-8, and by the House 362-57.

[dflprincess]

74. But his hands would have been clean

instead he went along with it.

[Qutzupalotl]

75. And the economy still would have been wrecked.

My point is that at the time a majority on Capitol Hill thought it was a good idea. No doubt now they see the consequences, but at the time they didn't.

[dflprincess]

76. They knew just what they were doing and so did Clinton

They were making their big money backers happy, so what if the working and middle classes took the hit for it?

[Qutzupalotl]

77. Do you have a link for that assertion?

I don't think anyone knew it would wreck the economy like it did, or it wouldn't have passed so overwhelmingly. I don't remember anyone saying so at the time, but I'll be happy to read whatever sources you have.

[dflprincess]

79. No I don't have a link, I've just been paying attention.

Given the actions of "our" elected officials over the last 30 years I think it's become pretty clear who most of them represent - and it isn't us, no matter what letter they have after their names.

If Ross Perot was able to figure out what disasters like NAFTA would do to the country, I would imagine someone as smart as Clinton knew he wasn't doing us any favors signing that and rolling back regulation on the banks and Wall Street. But Bill has done pretty well since he left office so he got his reward while the rest of us go down the tubes.

[laughingliberal]

83. Byron Dorgan knew

'I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930's is true in 2010,'' said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota. ''I wasn't around during the 1930's or the debate over Glass-Steagall. But I was here in the early 1980's when it was decided to allow the expansion of savings and loans. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/05/business/congress-passes-wide-ranging-bill-easing-bank-laws.html?pagewanted=1


Clinton denies Gramm Leach Blilely is responsible for the meltdown but here is a quote that disproves the notion he was forced to sign it:

Bill Clinton (Sept. 24): Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill. ...You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame . This wasn't something they forced me into.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html

[Faryn Balyncd]

47. k and r. thanks for post.

[truedelphi]

49. Obama may not have raised finger concerning Single Payer and Public Option

But his right hand man, Rahm, raised a defiant middle finger to Us Consumers, in favor of the Corporate elite.

[laughingliberal]

62. Yes, the crux of the problem. Not just not working for our causes but openly opposing them nt

[branders seine]

80. If you remember 'a moral force at the heart of the Democratic Party,'

you must be as old as I am.

I agree. Obama is either incompetent, a coward or part of the enemy.

[EndElectoral]

81. Excellent and accurate post