'Lesson 1: If you’re going to let yourself be characterized as liberal, you damn well better be one'

[Bluebear]

by Kerry Eleveld, The Advocate


The turnout and voting patterns were a symptom of the fact that during his first two years in office, President Barack Obama and his White House delivered nothing short of a true progressive’s most fiendish nightmare: He governed from the middle but failed to enlist enough GOP help to tag them with partial responsibility. Then he simultaneously left the substance of his centrist policies to be framed by the right, who naturally painted his initiatives as dangerously liberal and even socialist in nature.

The result of that toxic formula is that progressives didn’t get much of they wanted and yet the population as a whole has been left to believe that America has jumped off the liberal deep end.

In short, Obama didn’t govern as a progressive but was painted as one. Therefore, progressives didn’t get what they voted for and yet the rest of the country was led to believe the “progressive” agenda had pushed us down a dark path to nowhere.

Here’s lesson 1: If you’re going to let yourself be characterized as a liberal, you damn well better be one; otherwise the base that elected you won’t turn up at the polls to get your back once you’ve given a bad name to everything they believed in but never actually got.

http://www.advocate.com/printArticle.aspx?id=158279

[DearAbby]

1. HELL YEAH!

[leftstreet]

2. K&R

Good article

[LoZoccolo]

3. I can see that he's really disappointed some people.

You, for instance, used to really like him, and it's not like you gave up on him overnight over offense at one or two things he did; it's been two years of slow erosion when big disappointment after big disappointment shows up.

[Bluebear]

4. You're absolutely right. And the article writer is absolutely correct.

Right-wing people at work I chat with, for instance, insist Obama is a huge socialist/liberal/lefty when that is not at all the case. In trying to placate all, he has lost many.

[sabrina 1]

10. I liked him very much also. I so wanted him to succeed.

But, issues are more important than politicians. Maybe he didn't realize that. Whatever it was, he squandered the mandate, the support he had from the people who elected him by moving to the right. That is what people voted against. So, he lost the Independent vote and over time, the enthusiasm of those you need most to stay in power.

However, sometimes a rude awakening is a good thing for the people. We all fell for the 'lesser of two evils' for far too long. Settling for less we see now, gets you nowhere. It was a bad strategy. For that I am grateful. There will be no more 'lesser of two evils' elections.

[ChiciB1]

83. Boy Oh Boy... You Said It For Me! After THIS Election I've Been Trying To

figure out in my head just WHAT TO DO! As LIBERALS, we've been blasted from pillar to post! I'm just not ready to get back in the ring just yet, still need to figure out what to do.

A group of of us "liberals" and a couple of left leaning Independents got together about a week ago and talked for hours about what we could do, or where we should turn. My son-in-law wanted to go right out and pull a Sarah Palin operation thinking it would be effective. We had to tone him down because of WHERE we live first, and WHO we are next. Trying to make him understand that Palin was given a "National Platform" by McFalin, she was able to go literally "rogue" against most of what he once stood for.

WE, on the other hand have NO platform to start from, especially living in Florida AND in Sarasota County. But, he DID go to work last week an give it a try, talking up the whole mess and what we can do. A person he's been friends with for a very long time, and one who he found out was actually a Repuke, called Obama the "N" word! That did it, friendships is DEAD! Even though he was gung ho in working hard and gung ho when we worked hard to get him elected, my son-in-law feels as so many of us do, DEFEATED.

We still feel so let down, more rudderless than before and looking for a direction to move toward. So we sit and wonder some more.

[txlibdem]

119. What to do? Howard Dean 2012, a true Democrat.

Let's make Howard Dean our candidate in 2012 and let professor Obama go back to his cushy corporate job(s) he's been lining up for the past 2 years.

We need a true Democrat in office, not a center right Republican dressed as a Democrat.

[LibraLiz1973]

92. I think if he wants to be elected again, he needs to realize that.

he needs to stop trying to make the republicans happy too. They NEVER will be. They hated him before he took office, and nothing he did was ever going to win them over.

[pezDispenser]

103. If he wants to get elected again...

He needs to get unemployment under 8% and home prices at least stable. The voters in this country who decide elections, the ones who voted for Dems in 2008 and Repubs in 2010 don't care what label the policies get. They can either be 'progressive' or 'conservative', as long as they work. Its that simple. As a liberal, I hope he chooses more progressive policies, because I believe those ideas are the ones that will work.

[Jackpine Radical]

21. Self Delete--Dupe.

[Jackpine Radical]

22. That pretty well describes my history with this too.

I always thought Obama was a little too far right for my tastes, but I certainly supported him in 2008, and was only driven into alienation by one after another action that felt like a betrayal. Things like having him claim that the public option was viable long after he had bargained it away to the health insurance industry. In fact, that whole bill was pretty much written to the specifications of the insurers, and ended up very much resembling the old Republican plan. And the toothless bank regulation legislation. And the drones. And claiming the right to essentially murder American citizens. And the renewal of the Patriot Act. And the enlargement of the Afghan war. And the failure to actually provide much relief to common people while permitting the gloating bankers to reap record bonuses. And Kyoto. and so on.

Sure, the health insurance bill helped some people. And he got a minimum wage bill through. And extended unemployment. And some other things. But the total of those things just doesn't make up for the rightward course he has maintained overall. One gets the feeling he is much too smart to have let all this happen by accident, which implies that it happened at least with his complicity, and some would say by his design.

Tough talk on occasion, but everything he has done has been pretty corporate-friendly. As I said at some point, I guess he's the furthest-left President that TPTB are about to let us have.

[TBF]

67. Corporate Friendly, Complicity -

I think that is the key to this. I know many on here don't like to hear it, but it's going to take more than a voting booth with fake choices to force change. And force it we must or one by one we will all be suffering from this economy, many to the point of losing their jobs/homes etc.

It's going to take real work, and some guy picked by corporate America isn't going to do this for us (he laid it all out in his audacity book - go back and read the part about his visit with Buffett).

It's going to take millions of us in the streets pushing back.

[Divernan]

79. The true believers add insult to injury

by posting lengthy treatises claiming that the ONLY reason anyone criticizes Obama is racism - that no black politician can succeed because of racism. To those true believers - here's a quarter - buy a clue: Obama had enthusiastic support from a majority of the American people - do you recall the mobs at his inauguration? Obama's problem was that that support was NOT because of his race, but because of the progressive platform, programs and changes upon which he campaigned, many of which he has sold out in his first two years. That is why his support has dropped.

I'm well aware of the difference between words and deeds, and don't listen to his speeches anymore. I judge him solely on his actions. He's a very smart man - he doesn't appoint advisers, Cabinet members, Marine Corps commandants, unless he knows they will do what he wants them to do.
Fool me once, shame on me, etc.

And thanks for the EXCELLENT OP.

We need another LBJ.

[WVRICK13]

81. He Alienated His Base

and left himself standing alone. That gave the racists a louder voice because there aren't many voices countering their attacks. When you don't give your base what you promised you give your enemies what they want. A weakened and ineffective leader who can only react not be proactive.

[rhiannon55]

95. "When you don't give your base what you promised

you give your enemies what they want." I wish he could understand this.

[bobbolink]

88. I'm glad to see you are understanding what we are feeling, and more willing to listen.

I hope this spells the end of the ugly division that has existed here for so long.

We really are good people. :hi:

[superduperfarleft]

108. And I'm just so glad that you're being completely sincere for once.

I'm glad you've decided to stop with the constant trolling, snark, and sarcasm. I wanted to let you know that your threads are always a source of inspiration to me, and I hope to one day be as valuable a poster at DU as yourself.

[OHdem10]

5. Have the name, just as well have the game.

[tblue]

6. They called him 'far left' no matter what he did.

So he may as well have gone ahead and been it and he'd be no worse off. In fact, he'd have solidified his base and impressed even some of the Republicans who did actually vote for him. Americans like sweet and simple. They don't do shades of gray.

[OHdem10]

7. He should show them what Far Left is, and people will see just

how far right the RWers are.

[Myrina]

64. +100

:applause:

[msongs]

8. obama has willingly cooperated with republican bullying by going along with it.

his endless desire to find bipartisanship with people who have told the entire planet they hate his guts and will do NOTHING to cooperate, ever, makes him look weak, which in fact in this issue, he is.

[readmoreoften]

9. +1

[LWolf]

16. +2

[Bluebear]

19. +3

[SammyWinstonJack]

23. +4

[Richard Steele]

27. +5

[Poll_Blind]

29. +6

PB

[Lorien]

30. +7 nt

[Gold Metal Flake]

33. +8

[Bozita]

35. +9

[grahamhgreen]

37. +10

[Lasher]

46. +11

[a2liberal]

50. +12

[Enthusiast]

53. Plus 13 nt

[The Uncola]

70. +14

[peace frog]

72. +15

Truth.

[QC]

78. +16

[de novo]

84. Plus me.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

115. ...and me. +

[Scuba]

11. If you're going to pay the piper, you might as well dance. n/t

[Pooka Fey]

12. K&R

[Poboy]

13. Fucking right. He let his opponents define him, and abandoned

everything we believe as progressives to stand for. Monumentally STUPID.

[Lorien]

31. But he's like his many mouthpieces; the more they're proven wrong, the more

they cling to their monumentally stupid ideas...either that or he and the GOP have a whole "good cop, bad cop" game going and we've all been had.

[ibegurpard]

14. dead-on assessment

[Jamastiene]

15. K&R

The aftereffect is that the country will now move further to the super whacked out Tea Party right.

Yet...Obama is STILL talking about "compromising" with the Republicans as if that is some new strategy he hasn't tried before. His damn ego and resistance to learning from past mistakes is going to further destroy our party, maybe irreparably.

By 2012, we won't stand a chance. He will have conceded so much to the Republicans and the Teabaggers that the "center" will be moved further to the right than Falwell and Robertson. Hearing how the few Bluedogs who are left are talking right now, I think the "center" is already there, because you KNOW the Bluedogs will still have a "seat" at the table...translated: get whatever they demand.

[WVRICK13]

82. Is Our President Insane?

When he chooses to keep doing the same thing like trying to compromise with the Republicans and expecting different results one has to ask the question.

[rhiannon55]

96. I have strongly supported him, but now I wonder...

It takes a large ego to run for president, and maybe he defines himself as capable of charming his worst enemies. Maybe he can't see out of that box. Everyone has weird personality quirks. Maybe that's one of his.

[glitch]

17. Perfectly nailed. k & r nt

[Howler]

18. Spot On!!!! K/R n/t

n/t

[Naturyl]

20. K&R. We've taken the full beating for liberal government without getting any of it.

Rip-off to the max.

[TriMera]

24. That's not all.

He's also shot to hell any chance at a viable liberal movement for years to come. That will be his legacy.

[Gold Metal Flake]

34. +1

[Enthusiast]

54. Maybe that was all part of the BIG plan.

One can't help but entertain such thoughts.

[peace frog]

73. The possibility can't be dismissed

and seems more likely as time goes on.

[Skittles]

25. I never bought what he was selling

but I still get the results :(

[bobbolink]

90. Sadly, I am there with you.

And being on the bottom of the ladder, the results are worse.

[MissDeeds]

26. Yep

That about sums it up.

K&R

[woo me with science]

28. Pretty much correct. nt

[Shrader]

32. Agreed n/t

[Starbucks Anarchist]

36. That doesn't make any sense.

Obama's supposed to embrace a label he essentially rejected?

[grahamhgreen]

38. Then he needs to say it. I am not a liberal, I am a (whatever he is)

[Starbucks Anarchist]

39. Like how he says he's a Christian and some people still don't believe him?

And if liberals are so disappointed in what they perceive to be centrist/conservative policies, isn't it obvious they think he's not a liberal? So who exactly is he addressing here?

[grahamhgreen]

41. Point taken, but it would sure help.

[liberation]

44. Interestingly, he has reaffirmed his religious leanings multiple times...

... he has not done so when it comes to his political leanings.

Which is ironic, because we're electing a president not a pope/rabbi/dalai lama...

[grahamhgreen]

48. Another good point.

[Enthusiast]

55. Hey, good thinkin'....nt

[trud]

57. one reason for being demonstrably religious

is that it appeals to the right more than to the left. Not that there aren't plenty of religious people on the left (more truly religious, I would say) but we tend to believe actions rather than facades, and are more interested in whether a person is a good person regardless of his or her religious beliefs.

[Egnever]

60. He did write a book about them you know.

[quakerboy]

89. everyone else

See, those with high awareness on the left know him to be fairly centrist, because they have been paying attention and listening to what he says in his nuanced way. Those on the right know him to be a wacky socialist, because anything right of their position is socialist. However the majority who aren't really paying that much attention only know the hype.

So from the left, it sure looks deucedly unfair that all of our classifications get blamed for any and all problems, and yet our ideas never got listened to, much less given a place at the table.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

94. You mean those wishy-washy independents?

So if he comes out and blatantly says he's a centrist, the liberals will hate him for things they imagined him to be, the RWers will hate him regardless, and these independents he's trying to reach won't really be affected because they have no core convictions upon which they base their vote.

The article in the OP is just a very weak way to attack his presidency. They can make legitimate critiques without putting up a lame construct.

[quakerboy]

105. Not really

The liberals already have a bad taste in their mouth. Just look around DU. The RW'rs already hate him regardless, look around the rest of the net.

In the mean time, I very much disagree with you. The "independents" as you call them are anything but independent. They do have core convictions. They are uninformed and misinformed, however. They are fed "socialist" over and over to describe a mixed bag of mild help to the poor and a hefty handout to big business. Hell, if that's what socialism was, I would hate it too.

I would propose that there is an actual upside to him coming out and proclaiming himself a centrist. A lot of people do not like the extremes. They may not even know what the extremes are, but they know they don't like them. they want someone working across the isle, to "make government work". They want the old days when we supposedly got shit done. And Obama could take the reigns on this. I would even go so far as to say that the vast majority of those of us on the lefter side would go along with it if he were to do so. Working centrism is better than dysfunctional rw extremism. Plus it would still leave us room to try to bring things to the left. Where now, all the air is choked out of the debate, because apparently pushing for school vouchers and private health care mandates is all crazy left wing socialism.

This gets down to the core of what Obama is capable of. From his campaign we know damn well that he is more than capable of reaching the supposed independents with his message. We know he is capable of combating the lies and getting the truth out. Its how he got elected. He reached people and he convinced them. He needs to do it again. Or 2012 will be just like 2010, only with no "but at least we still have the...". And then we will all be fucked.

[grahamhgreen]

40. This is exactly why we MUST primary the guy from the left. We have no choice. NT

[liberation]

43. Sadly, that will probably have the same outcome as it did in 79...

... and I shudder to think what the XXI century version of Ronal Reagan will be like.

A primary without an actual national movement behind it... is useless.

[grahamhgreen]

45. I know. My ideal scenario

would be a challenger who forces him to the left, he adopts their positions (say, pulls out of Iraqistan), the challenger rallies behind O, then we sweep the elections.

[a2liberal]

51. The problem with that is

tacking to the left during a campaign doesn't necessarily mean he'll stay that way. Just compare his initial campaign with how he's governed for an example.

[bobbolink]

91. That's what you are going to get, primary or no.

As per the topic of this thread, better to go out fighting........

[txlibdem]

121. What history book are you smoking?

We didn't primary anyone in '79. The current President, Jimmy Carter, ran for a 2nd term in 1980 and lost because he couldn't spin a line of BS like Ronny Raygun.

What we need to do is vote in the 2012 primary and make our candidate a TRUE DEMOCRAT like Howard Dean. A True Liberal, not a center right Republican dressed as a Democrat. That is the definition of Primarying someone -- get them out or put them in during the Democratic Primary.

[countrydad58]

76. Agreed!

He definately needs a primary challenge!

[liberation]

42. No offense, but Obama never really has stated that he is a liberal, has he?

I think he presented himself as a blank canvas in which people could project their own leanings.

Maybe, it is time for liberals to actually grow the fuck up (and I am speaking as one) and stop pretending that electing center-right proxies is a reasonable way to implement liberal agendas or policies. If we keep enabling such a system, at some point we also need to realize part of the responsibility lies with us. :-(

[grahamhgreen]

47. He said he was anti-war, pro single-payer, and anti-torture/rendition, and would close GITMO. Ooops.

[Bluebear]

56. Not to mention a "fierce advocate" for gays and lesbians

Laughable.

[Autumn]

58. Big Ooops n/t

[bobbolink]

93. He never made any claims about poverty, did he? After Edwards left the race, the word was

never spoken again.

Yet, when some of us brought this up, we were blasted with "He grew up in poverty (which he didn't), so of COURSE he is going to be better for poor folk."

Too bad that hasn't work out well for us, isn't it?

[rainlillie]

100. Obama NEVER said he was "anti-war" he said he was against "stupid wars"

like the war in Iraq. He said he would continue the fight in Afghanistan, because that was the right war.

[grahamhgreen]

116. Then why are we still in Iraq? Oil? Or just to profit from the war itself?

[rainlillie]

126. I was just correcting a post above that inarticulately stated he was "anti-war".

[Matt Shapiro]

102. Actually he didn't.

While as a candidate he proclaimed that he had been against the Iraq War "from the beginning," his solution was always to leave a semi-permanent, supposedly non-combat, force of 50,000 soldiers (plus however many contractors). So he was against the war but NEVER willing to end it.

The only time he made a purely pro single payer statement was when he was a candidate for STATE SENATE. As a presidential candidate, he ridiculed single payer, saying it would be the way to go "if we were starting over from scratch." But "in the real world," he proposed a solution with a weak public option (as something that he would like to see).

So on those two issues, anyone who actually bothered to listen knew that he was not anti-war and not pro single payer.

He did say he was against the use of torture. He still says it.

I don't remember when he made it clear that he would NOT force an end to the rendition program, whether it was as a candidate or after election. Anyone else remember?

Yes, he said he would close GITMO. Still SAYS it.

Although you didn't mention it, he was against warrantless surveillance of Americans as a candidate, but completely abandoned that position well before the end of his campaign, voting FOR the warrantless surveillance amendment to the FISA law.

What he was very good at was giving speeches that sounded inspiring but said very little. He was the candidate of change, but failed to specify what that change really was to be. YES WE CAN do what?

If you listened carefully, you knew he was a center-right candidate who dropped a line or two that liberals could fill in with their own "hopes." He used his meaningless credentials as a "community organizer" for a couple of years to fool people into thinking he was progressive. I have been an active community organizer for the last 38 years, and have seen many who act as organizers for a little while just to build a political resumé.

Actually he gave it away early on in his interview with a Denver newspaper ed board, in which he proclaimed his admiration for the "transformational" Reagan, who came into power by running against the EXCESSES of the sixties. Excesses like the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, the women's rights movement, ... Every major progressive movement either flourished or began in the 1960s. Obama declared them to be excessive, and proclaimed that we needed to change the ways of the past.

His seed money (tens of millions?) came from wealthy corporate executives.

Anyone who was not transfixed by his oratory or by the fact of his being an African American would have seen him for the center-right candidate he was. In my opinion, of the Democratic candidates he was the farthest to the right, with Clinton a close second.

Did his center-right philosophy become even more clear after he took office? Sure. But it was there for everyone to see all along. One only had to look.

[pezDispenser]

104. +1

Good to see some were/are paying attention.

[Gin Blossom]

123. Great analysis.

"Community Organizer" along with "Constitutional Scholar" became meaningful signifiers for skeptics who still wanted to believe - like myself.

[trud]

59. had I had any idea

I had no idea he was a "center-right proxy." I thought Hillary was the DLC candidate. I listened to Obama's promises. I would still have voted for him, considering he was running against McCain and LooneyTunes, but I would have known I was getting a lot less than I expected in 2008. I was expecting FDR or JFK.

[rainlillie]

98. I knew when I voted for Obama he wasn't a liberal, Therefore I wasn't

that surprised or disappointed in some of his decisions.

[rainlillie]

99. ITA! Well said.

[Skittles]

117. I agree with you, liberation

Obama practically had MODERATE stamped on his forehead but Democrats seemed to read way more into him

[southmost]

49. and i'm not talking about

the neo-lib /
'corporate liberalism' crap either

[Enthusiast]

52. Kerry Eleveld knows why we are pissed off.

And we are pissed off for good reason. We were misled. We are tired of being misled, past tired.

[The Wizard]

61. Another nutless Democrat

begging the right wing to use lubricant

[hobbit709]

62. If you're gonna be charged, tried, convicted and sentenced beforehand

You might as well go ahead and do what they're accusing you of.

[Carolina]

63. Touche, K&R

[jgraz]

65. Shit, too late to rec, so I'll just kick it.

:kick:

[jgraz]

66. Shit, too late to rec, so I'll just kick it.

:kick:

[Mason Dixon]

68. Umm. That's not what happened

First of all Obama governed nothing. He handed the keys to Nancy and Max on Healthcare. He held one televised meeting, but Olympia Snowe let Max's bill out of committee and that's what passed the Senate and ultimately is what was left thru reconciliation.

Secondly, if memory serves 38 democrats in the house voted against the bill. These reps were the centrist, blue dog democrats. They were not the Charlie Rangels of the House. If he was so moderate, why did the moderates abandon him? Why weren't progressives holding up the bill once it lost the public option?

Additionally Obama was painted as progressive simply because everyone knew he would sign anything that came thru, not matter how centrist it became. Because the bill would be painted not as centrist but as watered down progressive, because it was the blue dogs who ultimately did the watering down. But for Obama it truly became an issue of success or failure based purely on passage.

He did not govern from the middle, he, to give him the benefit of the doubt, compromised to the middle. When moderate House and Senate Democrats said no to the public option, he agreed. He didn't fight for it He didn;t threaten a veto, he didn't rally the progressives. His press secretary meanwhile told the progressive left to quite whining and complaining.

He had to pass something. Consequently private insures were handed 30 million more customers.

[The Uncola]

71. You, just like Obama...

... completely miss the message of last Tuesday's asskicking. Had he fought and lost, that would have been acceptable. Instead, he DIDN'T FIGHT and still lost. That isn't acceptable. He is a wimp when we need leader.

[Mason Dixon]

77. umm I think

that's exactly what i said

[The Uncola]

80. Mea culpa..

... need caffeine.. brain not functional yet.

:dunce:

[The Uncola]

69. Looks like I'm too late to rec this...

... but I sure wish I could. It hits the nail on the head, cuz' Obama damn sure hasn't done anything I would consider "Liberal" and clearly nothing Progressive. His center/right crap is what handed the Dems their collective ass last Tuesday, nothing else.

[somone]

74. Yep - and don't insult the people who brung ya

[ooglymoogly]

75. Killing us softly.

Too late to rec. Why is there a limit on recc'ing. What purpose does that serve?

[cate94]

85. Can't rec this

but here is a kick.

This hits the nail on the head.

[laughingliberal]

86. K & R nt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

87. and who's gonna be our Sarah Palin?

[DirkGently]

97. As good a way to put it as I've seen. Obama could be Reagan's 2d Coming & they'd call it "Marxism."

[TacticalPeek]

101. Kick.

:kick:

[Ramulux]

106. If he doesnt get this

and I dont think he does, we are all fucked. Every single liberal personality has said the same thing, unless he is in media black-out mode and not listening or reading anything by any progressives he cant be unaware of this belief. I honestly am done with Obama, if he keeps up this pathetic, weak path and allows republicans to pass republican legislation without compromising, I am fucking done. This isnt about supporting the president, I would if he was on the right track, but all signs point to the fact that he will continue to make terrible choices and I cant sit back and pretend like its not a problem anymore.

[Chulanowa]

107. "Liberal" is a dirty word now

We have to use "Progressive" so that we don't offend our friends on the right!

[DURHAM D]

110. My rephrase -

"We have to use "Progressive" so that we don't offend our enemies on the right!"

And, as I first discovered during the Dean primary campaign - liberals can't use liberal anymore because it offends young voters. After all, they read in their school books that liberal is a dirty word and a failed concept.

[Chulanowa]

118. You don't get to call them enemies after you work THAT hard to get them elected. n/t

[DeSwiss]

109. Exceptionally well put.

However, one must take into consideration that the entire system is corrupted. Completely and utterly corrupted. Barack Obama is now being undone by the very same Wall Street money that gave him the resources with which he gain the reins of power. And instead of using the opportunity to place them under his control, he chose to thank them and to attempt cooperation and compromise. But they don't want to compromise. And they hate thankful people. They only respect avarice and the bloodthirsty like themselves. And as another commenter http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/11/06-6">elsewhere has stated:

The thoroughly rotten and corrupt two party system will not produce a leader with any interest in working for the American people and to think otherwise is the height of foolishness. Until the progressives give up their addiction to the democratic party and start building a new one there is little hope of change.

This didn't happen overnight. Step by step and bit by bit the upper class and their corporations rolled back, undermined and threw-off all the bindings and restraints we had heretofore placed on their power. And we sat there while our own party allowed it to unravel. And then later "our own leaders" decided that if you can't beat them then you might as well join them. And so they then began to participate in the destruction of middle class protections. NAFTA. Banking deregulation. Breaking-up the unions. The disposal of habeas corpus. Rendition. And Barack Obama has kept almost all of these levers of dictatorial power in-place. In-place for the next leader, who won't be afraid to put them to use.

Until we are prepared to admit the truth of what has happened in this country and who is responsible, then it'll only get worse. And until people take to the streets shouting and demanding the change we want, it'll only get worse. How could Obama be painted as a liberal? As a progressive? A socialist? Ignorance, that's how. We the people on the whole, are ignorant. And easily manipulated. We saw all the signs of this coming. Literally. The powers that be know which buttons to push to cause the fear and hatred. And they know that ignorant people can be emotionally manipulated with their own fears and prejudices. A simple and thoroughly effective formula. And it is used over and over again. Those that recognize this and point it out or try to stop it are eventually marginalized and later targeted for removal.

- Removal. As in, no longer their problem......

[saorsa]

111. Yes! Brilliant stuff, well put

I think most Big P Progressives knew Obama was no Progressive, from experience we know that only a candidate acceptable to the big money interests gets as far as the nomination, and they don't take ( hire? ) Progressives, but we had to help defeat McCain Palin so we did. We never expected Obama to live up to our dreams of a President, but it is our job to continue to fight for what we believe in no matter who is in the Oval Office. That is how we build up a movement, courage and commitment makes a stronger base. I know I have seen too many elected Democrats cave to the right, serve out the term of office, then when election time comes, suddenly they are back in town to demand from the base the faith and fidelity they failed to fulfill themselves. Rinse and Repeat. See ya next year. Nice steady work.
Some of us oldies have watched this same scenario unfold over and over again year after year. The far right screams leftists, the timid Democratic Leadership runs from the principles that attract and inspire liberals of all kinds, the resulting weakness in voter turnout is exploited again and again. The right wing has become really., really good at herding Democrats, and they own much of the media that voters get their info from.
Centrists are now Leftists. Up is Down. Liberal Media Bias. Remember that one?
Every time a liberal even flinched at being associated with Liberal values, they fed the Republican head hunters the meat they live on, fear.
People are inspired by courage, not fear. If you are shown to be afraid of your own party affiliation, you smear your own party, selling out the voters who elected you plain and simple. How does that attract new voters or retain voters?

We shoulda made more progress is 40 years don't you think? After all this time the answer must lie in simple greed, too many of our own are bought and paid for. They are gettin theirs and gettin out, we get zip.
When you imagine where we could be by now, it makes you cry.
Whether you fight this creeping death as a Progressive Democrat or a Liberal Democrat or a Moderate Democrat, it's time to fight for what's left;
hold elected officials accountable
support independent and progressive media
and build a real year round, bricks and mortar structure to grow the base, fast.

Please consider sending a card / letter or call to the Democratic Leaders, and share some thoughts with them, pressure them even if you think it won't matter.

I would love to find a website where we could send ecards or print cards to send, anyone know of one?
One where you could choose from images that either showed some of the things people are going through, like in the Gulf, the unemployment lines, home foreclosures, war, etc. or some frustration with a policy etc. From stark to satirical, polite to pissed off, is there any site like that? if the proceeds went partly to the artists and partly to activism, that would be the best.

Keep well all

[NuclearDem]

112. Damn straight I'm a liberal

And I love it when the Repugs use it as an insult. I just take it all in stride

[robinlynne]

113. Right on Bluebear!

[Soylent Brice]

114. DUH statement of our generation.

[Better Believe It]

120. To late to recommend.

[foxfeet]

122. Kick.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

124. OBAMA NEVER WAS A LIBERAL

JUST A POLITICIAN

[Creideiki]

125. Why couldn't the straight people come out and vote?

We did our part. You got nearly 70 freaking percent of the gay community behind the Democrats.

Why didn't the straight community deliver?

[TheKentuckian]

127. BUMP