A Thin Raft

[H2O Man]

“For every thing there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: … a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, a time to refrain from embracing; a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silent, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.” --Ecclesiastes (“one among the gathering”)

A couple of days ago, I expressed my opinion on a thread started by a person I have enjoyed conversing with for many years on this forum. That individual wrote to say that they had decided to quit participating on the Democratic Underground, because of the changes in the climate here. I was upset to see yet another person I like and respect leaving the forum, and, after noting that I wish people were not leaving, commented on what I consider to be the most significant causes of tension here.

Not surprisingly, some people agreed with me, and thanked me for speaking out, while others disagreed with me, and suggested that I should not have commented on that thread. This is to be expected when a diverse group of people are gathered in any large forum, be it in public or on the internet.

I'd like to take a minute to explain some of my thoughts about this forum. I joined in 2003, specifically to discuss the Plame scandal, in the context of a “democratic underground.” The word “democratic,” as I understood (and understand) it, referred to those favoring democracy; in general, democrats, but also a forum that was open to those on the left who share the same basic values. “Underground” is also a word that suggests a little wiggle room: it can be a group dedicated to changing the face of government – in this case, by opposing the Bush/Cheney administration and the republican Congress – as well as the concept of an avant-garde community experimenting in ways to change society.

From about 2003 to 2006, I found the Democratic Underground to be just that – a gathering place for the democratic left to discuss the art of changing society, including working towards electing representatives who both could and would create the balance necessary to institute real change. I am not a senile old hoot, rambling on about the “good old days,” or claiming that this forum reached its full potential. But a heck of a lot more positive discussions were engaged in, and there were numerous grass roots activities being encouraged here. Some were organized by the powers that be, and others by individuals and small groups who gathered on this forum.

There were, of course, plenty of arguments among intelligent forum members, about both tactics and goals. And there were a splattering of “freepers,” intent upon creating divisions, because they held very different values than decent human beings do. Yet it was relatively easy for the forum moderators to recognize who were freepers, in needed of being tomb-stoned, and the liberal-progressive community.

I remember in the 2006 election cycle, speaking with the staff of numerous democratic candidates, and suggesting that they read this forum. It stands out, because at the time, there were a growing number of forum participants chanting, “But this forum does not represent the views of the Democratic Party.” I agreed on that; in my mind: the forum reflected the best of the grass roots level of the Democratic Party, not the entire spectrum.

In the years since 2006, I have noticed that there are far more participants at this gathering who are not part of the democratic left. That is neither good nor bad, in and of itself. It surely has the potential for either: it can be beneficial to be able to communicate with other democrats, who may be liberal on a few issues, moderate on others, and perhaps conservative on still others. There is an opportunity for open dialogue, so long as everyone recognizes that every individual, based upon his or her life experiences and current situation, has the right to their own opinion. That includes the right to support – with an investment of money, time, and vote – those candidates they are convinced best represent them. Likewise, they have the right to withhold that investment from those candidates who they believe are opposed to their best interests.

Clearly, when we include the three branches of the federal government (federal judges being appointed by elected representatives), there can and should be healthy debate about the quality of those who should be serving us in Washington, DC. The ability of people to engage in such discussions and debates has definitely been reduced in recent years. Again, the tired “it was always thus” does not cut it. The 2008 primary season was ugly, and while election night was great here, the forum had been reduced to splinter groups.

Most of those groups are based upon differences in those life experiences and current circumstances that I mentioned earlier. If you are financially comfortable, for example, it may be hard to understand the reality that those who are unemployed, underemployed, or dirt poor experience daily. If you can be legally married to the person you love, you may not share the impatience of those who demand that same human right today. If you believe that President Obama is correct in increasing the war effort in Afghanistan, you are unlikely to appreciate the values of those who believe that the US needs to get out of that country, now.

There are also vast differences of opinion in regard to what tactics define party loyalty. Some believe that “blue dog” democrats are better than any republican. Others recognize they are both from the same canine family, and that no matter how they wag their tail on television, their primary duty is to guard the same master's house.

People differ on the theory of working with the opposition. This includes very distinct and very different ideas on what represents working for the opposition. No doubt some will scoff at this, and say baloney (perhaps worse); but the sad truth is that there were people expressing support for a republican candidate in this year's contest in Florida. Were they working with him here? Or for him? And I am not suggesting anyone worked for pay.

Perhaps the point that best illustrates the difference in values comes in discussions of President Obama. There are people who would complain, no matter what he does; and those who believe that any and all disagreement with him is evidence of being anti-Democratic Party. The unfortunate result has been that far too many people in the wide range between those two poles have gravitated – or been sucked in – to that false debate.

I came out in support of candidate Obama in January, '08. Obviously, not everyone did. There were other qualified democratic candidates. I remember, though, how a number of others here told me that they were “disappointed” in me, as if by thinking for myself, I did not live up to their lofty expectations. Still others demanded that I be banned from this forum, as if my speaking my mind on an internet forum was simply unacceptable. Gracious.

I still support President Obama. I recognize that: {1} he has to clean up the mess that Bush left; {2} he has to deal with a Congress that has literally been broken since the days of Newt Gingrich & Co.; and {3} that, as the United States is indeed a corporate state, he is without question, by definition, the chairman of the broken board. In some ways, I think he's done a good job; in others, I do not. Hence, as a citizen from the grass roots democratic left, I tend to express support in the areas I agree with him, and disapproval in others (for example, Afghanistan, marriage equality, and DADT).

In doing so, I come across numerous threads started by others, where I believe that any disagreement with the President is treated like sacrilege. Indeed, the very questioning of the wisdom of uniting with “blue dogs” is apostasy. Now, I recognize that there are also insincere attacks on the President, democrats in DC in general, and on some liberal-to-moderate forum members – I actually do have several friends here who, in e-mails, have brought numerous examples to my attention. They recognize that I do not read every thread on the forum, and believe that I make a sincere attempt to be even-handed. And there are, of course, others who express their heartfelt “disappointment” in me; or who wish I would shut up; and even one who attempted to insult me by referencing something from his favorite comic book. ( I think comics are fine, though I only read non-fiction books. Either way, the reader is as important as the author.)

My hope for this forum is that those who are gathered here can learn to agree to disagree, as my father used to say. Those who believe that we can work together in discussing how to organize and coordinate efforts to advocate for democratic left values are not going to become cogs in a machine that produces uniform consent and support for those politicians who serve Wall Street and never-ending war. We are not fooled by those who say any group or individual has to be patient, and wait quietly for the rights that not only are outlined in the Constitution, but are rooted in human nature. The time has come for the democratic left to exert pressure on politicians to do the right things.

Social Justice is a Good Thing,
H2O Man

[malaise]

1. Another super post

Thoughtful as always

[Liberal_in_LA]

2. agreed

[Canuckistanian]

11. +!

[glitch]

50. Nothing to add but complete agreement and K & R nt

[bigtree]

3. all good and wise advice and insight there, my internet friend

(I certainly want to call you friend)

I can't help thinking though - if you'll allow me to seem immediately critical - that it's notable how many views you've included in your observation and how many ideological lines your reasoning crosses.

I think I read in that reasoning that you're acknowledging that most of us are complex and not inclined to affiliate ourselves and our views with any narrow ideology, rather, we arrive at our opinions from our life experiences and other personal perspectives. That's why not a big fan of worrying about who is the true progressive, or not.

It matters a great deal to the things we care about to hold and keep a majority in our national legislature. It matters a great deal whether we achieve and hold the presidency. We only get to that point with as broad as an appeal as we can tolerate. We can narrow our appeal and stand on the principle of excluding other ideologies from our coalition, but that doesn't guarantee that there is some reservoir of progressive-minded voters to join with and form enough of a majority to prevail and win national elections. In many states and districts there doesn't appear to be enough progressive support to prevail on its own. We've benefited in many areas of our Democratic agenda from some of the blue dog Democrats 'guarding of the master's house'. It's also our House to defend.

I hear two conflicting desires from folks advocating narrowing our party's appeal (if that's not you, I apologize for implying it). One, is to win national elections. Two, is to be uncompromising of our progressive agenda in that pursuit. In a national election for the presidency, the two aren't really compatible. In our legislative contests, in many parts of the country, an uncompromising liberal appeal doesn't attract a majority of votes and sometimes energizes the opposition. That's not a 'scared' observation, as some have suggested here. It's a view of past history and a prediction.

We need to be able to discuss the difficulty in overcoming the electoral challenges in our candidates adopting an uncompromisingly liberal stance without being labeled or ridiculed for giving voice to what those conservative voters are asking of the candidates who expect their votes. There's a popular notion going about that if we just double-down on our liberalism in these states and regions that we'll prevail. I'm not sure there's enough basis for that theory in many states and districts.

I'm all for working to field and elect progressives to office. It thrills me when we're successful. What I'm not so thrilled about is losing the majority because of differences expressed by Democratic candidates with our progressive agenda in regions whose voters don't look to be ready to bear that appeal.

We should be able to discuss all of that together, you think?

So, can you tell what my ideology is behind all of that blabbing? I'm DLC/Centrist to many here this week for my discussions. :)

[H2O Man]

6. I'm in favor

of expanding the Democratic Party's appeal. There are three general target areas: {1} with independents; {2} with republicans; and {3} with unregistered voters.

In terms of the first two groups, I think there are obvious benefits to attracting those who are in general agreement with democratic values. Clearly, people will have a variety of opinions on what tactics are most likely to reach the goals that bring life to democratic values. I do not see the benefit of attracting people who are interested in advocating republican values. Nor am I fond of those who are willing to sacrifice others' rights as a tactic.

I believe that grass roots members of the democratic left should focus on registering the people who are presently even more marginalized than we are. Republicans do not want these people involved in voting. And moderate to conservative democrats couldn't register any meaningful number of them, even if they wanted to. But we can.

When you bring people into the Democratic Party, their values come with them. Bringing conservatives into the party can only make it more conservative. I think they have enough influence already, in their own party. I prefer to bring in more people with the same interests and values as the democratic left.

Right now, the moderate to conservative democrats come to the democratic left for donations and votes. We are then marginalized when they win, or blamed when they lose. I am interested in registering as many of the other marginalized people, to increase the size and influence of the democratic left. I have done it (not alone, of course) in local elections before, and if it could be done in the past, it can be done today. More, if it happens here today, it can happen in the next community tomorrow. And when it happens in enough little, isolated communities across the country, then we are no longer little or isolated.

Also: You and I are definitely friends. And not just internet friends -- it's just the internet was the vehicle where we have become friends.

[bigtree]

12. I'm instantly attracted to the way you've described your principles

I know I'm going to be referring back to this post to measure my politics alongside these.

you wrote:

"I do not see the benefit of attracting people who are interested in advocating republican values. Nor am I fond of those who are willing to sacrifice others' rights as a tactic."

I agree with your organizing principles. We shouldn't become transfixed with finding ways to appease the right as much as we should be working find allies willing to help advance our own agenda and initiatives. I admit though, that it's always been easy in my state and community to find Democratic allies who share my values. I can only imagine the challenges in some states to organize behind progressive principles, as I encounter the mild and muted resistance from republicans where I live.

I'm not as convinced that our Democratic coalition is yet able to garner enough progressive-minded voters, in some key traditionally-conservative states, to support candidates who don't pay some homage or fealty to some republican ideal or policy. We just elected one such fellow President who paid homage to republican ideals in successful pursuit of electoral votes in traditionally-conservative states.

Moreover, there were conservative candidates elected who made or broke our slim majority.

So, it's onward to finding and promoting progressive candidates to replace them. That's not as certain a prospect, in these difficult areas of the country, as some might suggest. I'd call it a long shot, but certainly worth pursuing.

What I'm not very steeled for, my friend, is the type of interim that some folks advocate, where our party is 'taught a lesson' by relegating us to the political wilderness by virtue of a withholding of votes for candidates in general elections over such differences of politics as you express. The consequences of republican victories can be grave.

When I find a conservative Democratic candidate in a general election against the prospect of a republican one prevailing, I'm cheering loudly for our party's victory. I don't believe I'm abandoning principle in that support to the same degree that I'd be abandoning it by allowing republicans to advance. I think the outcome is that important.

Thank you so much for the conversation and insight. Brown dog out. ;)

[grantcart]

10. The problem that I see is that the overwhelming majority at DU thinks

that we can achieve our goals by increasing our volume (speaking metaphorically).


It reminds me of Israels current strategy to influence opinion (putting aside all of the substantive issue momentarily).

It seems to me that the Israli government has come to the conclusion that it has an excess of friends and has taken every systematic step to reduce its friends on a regular basis. They sent their long time friends in Turkey away without a second thought.

The prevailing opinion at DU is that we need more Grayson like communication. More histrionic and more confrontational.

I believe that we should become more persuasive and more engaged. This does not mean compromise. We need to go back and continue to engage Physicians and medical providers, as an example, that compared to their counterparts in other countries they are being squeezed because our MLR is 30% instead of 5%. If we go to single payer we could increase Physician reimbursements and save 4-5% of GDP.

Demonizing everyone who doesn't agree with us is not a practical way to get them to see our point of view. We should be more engaged, more persuasive, more confident and even more personable. Too many at DU think that calling the opposition Fuckwads is an effective persuasion technique. Having received that epiteth more than a few times I can personally testify that it is not a useful technique in persuading people.

There is a clear migration from DU. Some post good bye messages and some do not. As I posted some months ago you cannot expect people who support and respect the President to continue to come to a board that publishes every possible slur, criticism and polemic against him from every possible source from extreme right wing to extreme left wing that criticize not only every possible policy, every motive, his character, his honesty and even recently his psychological make up. This about one of the most self actualized people to ever enter the White House. DU has become the most effective clearing house for anti Obama rhetoric on the internet. Those that don't find such a setting a community they want to support just drift away. Occassionaly one will post a good bye post and then many will shake their heads and say "What a shame".

[bigtree]

13. "This about one of the most self actualized people to ever enter the White House."

That is so, so very true, my friend. The attacks have so repelled me that I've found it more amenable to my time here at DU to find ways to support our President and party where I'm able; more than working to find ways here to criticize.

[H2O Man]

17. Interesting.

One of the reasons that I endorsed Senator Obama was because I believed that he would carry the tradition of the "Kennedy Democrats" forward. Robert, in particular, became the icon of the democratic left in the final three years of his life. It was that process of self-actualization that he channeled into social-political power.

This was at the time when an increasingly unpopular war was draining the resources of the country. LBJ was being lied to by the military brass, but he must still be held responsible for thinking that America could find and force a military solution in a land where others had not. The financial drain made it impossible for President Johnson to fund the Great Society, which aimed to help the US reach its highest potential -- in other words, self-actualizing its promise.

This divided the Democratic Party. RFK was hesitant to challenge LBJ in the primaries, for a variety of reasons. Among them were the most obvious: the potential damage to the party. However, a significant number of democrats recognized that the machine had incorporated President Johnson, and he was glued to the Pentagon.

I'm not saying that today's circumstances are identical to those of 1967-68, but I would suggest that all democrats -- including those who strongly support and strongly oppose President Obama -- consider the similarities. RFK's campaign for a humane society, that respected the dignity of all human beings, and highlighted the demand for social justice, remains the goal of the democratic left today. The potential for Barack Obama to become a truly great US President, as LBJ could have been but for the war in Vietnam, should be every democrat's goal. But his inability to move the domestic economy forward -- which is surely due primarily to a broken Congress and a crooked Wall Street -- while compromising with republicans, and pursuing a military solution in Afghanistan, run the very real risk of dividing our party, and allowing a creep like Richard Nixon access to power.

There are no easy answers. But there are distinct advantages to having us look for the hard answers together. And that requires respecting, if not agreeing with, those within the party (and this forum) who view things very differently than ourselves.

[H2O Man]

16. I definitely agree.

Barack Obama is indeed a person who inhabits a higher level of being than the vast majority of US Presidents. The stark example of the last fellow illustrates that difference.

I may have mentioned, at some point in the past, that I think all of life imitates the sport of boxing. Especially politics. (Obama likes boxing, while Bush doesn't.) The best fighters always have a good right hand, and a good left hand. They also know the difference between the two.

As long as DU's right and left hands are struggling against each other, they can't focus on doing what they should be, if they worked in cooperation.

[OneGrassRoot]

4. Huge K&R. n/t

[immoderate]

5. It's not the heat that bothers me, it's the people who say, "It's not the heat that bothers me."

Honestly, H2O Man, I see things change here, but as they should, with the seasons, with the events, and with our elections. And maybe some people run their course, but I don't see the changes, other than what you might expect, except that then is not now. Outside events influence us, as it is part of our job. We are a reactive bunch.

Some people leave, sad when they are people whose thoughts enlighten. Other new personalities appear to take up the space.

I've been here since the beginning. People come and go, and some are taken from us. I could be obtuse, but I don't see changes beyond what one must expect.

I am usually perplexed when I saw a DUer flame out here. I never see it coming.

--imm

[H2O Man]

7. Because I recognize

that your opinion is as valid to you, as mine is to me, I may have some difficulty in determining exactly how your response fits into the larger conspiracy. That alone proves it, though.

When I joined in 2003 -- and I had visited the site before, though had not participated -- it was because it had been suggested by an associate that I post some information about the Plame Scandal here. Some of what I posted, as older folks may recall, would later be reported upon in the media. (There are many people who read DU, but do not participate.)

In 2004, the vast majority of DUers who took part in the infamous Plame Threads were aware that Cheney et al had committed a serious crime against our country. They wanted Cheney et al held legally responsible. They were concerned that the system would fail to prosecute.

After 2006, things had changed. While no rational person could argue that Cheney had not committed a serious crime against our nation, tied to the lies that brought the US into an immoral war in Iraq, there was a serious division betweem those who wanted Cheney held responsible, and those here who were opposed to such a prosecution.

Today, of course, there are rabid republicans in Congress ranting about investigating President Obama. There is talk of impeachment, though certainly no high crime or misdemeanor to prosecute. They mere want to knee-cap his presidency.

Congress, like DU, is a gathering of people. A bee hive, ant ant hill, a herd, or a flock. Such collections, like individuals, cannot possibly remain the same. Change is a constant. Things grow or decay.

[immoderate]

18. I admit what I wrote lacks some clarity, but I am agreeing.

I tried to read it myself today. Needs some editing. What I am trying to say is that change is normal. It's like the proverbial river.

I take a dynamic view of things. I am aware of the illusions people nurture of things like "the good old days" and the "golden age" and that it often links to nostalgia. Folks try to capture as a state of being what was actually a peak experience.

As to the larger conspiracy, some folks can't take the change, and maybe some see the change as abnormal, or catastrophic. Like other chaotic systems it has order, yet is unpredictable.

--imm

[H2O Man]

22. The part about

the "larger conspiracy" was my feeble attempt at humor.

I'm not usually one to look back to fantasy "golden ages." (I did, however, prefer Ali, Frazier, and Foreman, to the current crop of heavyweight "champions.") I do not, for example, believe that DU ever harnessed a significant amount of its potential. But it is -- again, in my opinion -- losing its ability to focus on those issues that the vast majority of participants could identify as common ground.

[immoderate]

25. The curse of success.

Ten years ago, our goals were more circumscribed. In 2008, we succeeded. Before that, there was no attack from the left. (Except if you count impeachment, etc. being taken off the table.)

What's happening now, seems to me to be within the realm of normal "democratic" behavior.

--imm

[H2O Man]

27. Before the 2004

election season, few political aides participated on this forum. Even fewer journalists for the cable news shows read DU for anything but a laugh. Between 2004-2006, that changed.

Certainly, it is part of a process, one that has some overlap with the process of going from Bush to Obama. And I agree fully that it is absolutely within the realm of what you called "normal" democratic behavior. Hence, the 2010 election outcome, the continuation of the war in Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts, DADT, etc, etc.

I believe fully that the democratic left -- which is obviously not a single-minded organism -- is better than what is "normal" for the rest of the Democratic Party. I look at the actual members of the democratic left here on this forum as proof positive of my position. If I thought that there was evidence that the "normal" democrats -- here on DU and elsewhere -- represented a higher, more noble strain of social-political beliefs and values, I'd surely join with them.

[Joe Fields]

8. I feel the need to comment.

We have, you and I, been in agreement many times in the past, and in polar disagreement a few times, as well. While I have the capacity at times to exhibit a philosophical point of view, I have tended to be here on this site, more of a reactionary. And I must admit, not just a reactionary, but a rather nasty one.

I have burned many bridges here. It is something that I do regret, and I realize, human nature being what it is, that once a person makes an enemy, it is truly hard to make them a friend. It is hard for them to see your point of view. Someone who you have belittled, or scorned will cast aside any wisdom you may have to offer on any given subject, and find the weak spot in your argument or philosophy, then zero in.

Deep down, I feel a real kinship to you, and I wish we were able to get to know one anothers philosophies a little deeper. You have written some about your background, and I tend to keep mine a little closer to me. But yet, I feel that we are brothers, in some respects. In all, I feel that we have a great deal more in common than not.

I do not share your optimism and desire to keep fighting for progressive ideals, because I believe it is just prolonging the inevitable. Yet, at the same time I admire you for it. In my heart, I truly believe that this country hasn't suffered enough yet, to rise up as one and affect the change we truly need. I would rather see this happen sooner than later.

But, having said that, H2O, I want you to know that I apologize for anything I've said that hurt you in any way. I admire people who have had experience, who are well read and articulate, who have a firm belief, yet are not too rigid to not accept other points of view.

You are one of a select few here who I read, just from seeing the name.

Peace

Joe

[H2O Man]

9. Thank you.

Likewise, I apologize for any/all rude things that I have said to you.

While I am a grumpy old man who tends to return insults and disrespect now and then, I do not hold grudges. I grew up poor in a sense that very few Americans experience, and so my brothers and I could afford little entertainment, other than arguing. Sports. Politicals. Anything and everything.

Peace,
Pat

[phasma ex machina]

14. K&R

[Catherina]

15. Rec'd n/t

[fascisthunter]

19. Once Again... I Dig your Posts.... Question?

The pic is beautiful... could I borrow it for a landscape painting?

[H2O Man]

20. Sure.

Thanks for considering it worthy. I've always liked it; reminds me of hanging out with my father.

[fascisthunter]

23. The Image almost has a painterly style to it

I had to look a couple times before realizing it was a photo and not a painting. Thank you... if and when I do work on it, I will try to post it here.

[myrna minx]

21. K&R n/t

[Swamp Rat]

24. Good thread H2O Man, but I'll never get along with the paid shills who bombard this site 24/7.

:kick:

[H2O Man]

28. Fair enough.

We recently had a guy driving a truck stop here to try to sell me froozen food. The prices, of course, we much higher than they are in stores. The human being in the role of "salesman" attempted to bluff, about the quality, quantity, and prices. I am very familiar with the price of food, and am pretty capable of computing the costs of various packages in my head.

I was explaining why I had zero interest in buying his products. He then attempted to use an accent, one I suspect that he heard some Billy Mays-type character on a "buy cheap knives!" cable show using. I felt kind of sorry for him, but surely not sorry enough that I wanted to share my grocery money with him.

While I cannot claim to hear accents on DU, some of the centrists attempted to sell us their programs, for a share of our money, sound rather similar.

[bobthedrummer]

26. K&R, I still post here despite the information warfare operatives and their networks, my friend.

:thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

29. Very good!

You are certainly one of the voices of the democratic left that I have the utmost respect for. And I always appreciate your contributions to this forum.

[felix_numinous]

30. Thank you H20Man

you are a very good writer. I agree, and pressuring government representatives to do the right thing is not disrespecting them, it is politics. Standing up for everyone's rights is our duty, this is how I see it. This is how I envision people on the left.

Our party, and on this site, does appear to have been infiltrated by people alienated by the craziness on the right. One other observation I make, since I do not watch cable TV, is how the mainstream has the ability to bait us on the left by distorting information. For the most part people here on this forum sooner or later (mostly sooner) debunk the misinformation so that the truth comes out, but too often this process of uncovering the truth comes with unnecessary personal attacks.

We are all here to learn and it is challenging to process all the news coming in. I appreciate respect wherever I see it.

I hope you keep posting :)

[H2O Man]

41. Thank you very much.

Recently a DU friend said that my writing came across as how I likely sound in conversation, which is accurate. I enjoy conversations on this forum, and so I appreciate that you have read and responded to this OP. More, I like what you said.

I remember when it was common -- almost daily -- that there was important national news reported here on DU, and with both insight and accuracy, a good 24 hours before it was on cable news. A number of reporters, including one we communicated with, read DU. In fact, that was exactly why some associates suggested that I join DU. It was a smaller, more tightly-knit community then, and I waited a couple months before exposing some facts about the Plame scandal; the OPs/threads from that time included fantastic research by a highly motivated collection of DU talent, and more of it would eventually be used by MSNBC (which did the most accurate reporting on the scandal on TV), than from any other internet source up until the Libby court documents were released.

[EFerrari]

31. When you work in a team, it's not always obvious which element will make the contribution

that ensures success. One of the most exciting and satisfying part of following team sports is when someone who gets little attention turns the course of a contest.

Last night I watched a presentation on a new book on the civil rights movement, and the author pointed out that before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on that bus, she was an investigator in rape cases in the south. It was her job to follow up when black women were raped or sexually abused by white men who abducted them on the way to and from work or church, at work, on public transportation. It may be shocking to people distracted by Rosa Parks' youth and beauty to find out that she pursued rape cases of the ugliest kind and often, at great risk to herself.

In Montgomery, white bus drivers had police powers. So, black women riding the bus were subject to everything from the bus driver exposing himself to fondling to being beaten, all at the whim of the driver.

So, long before Ms. Parks got headlines for refusing to give up her seat, she was investigating the abuse (and worse) of women who were riding those buses. Women who are only now being acknowledged for their habit of testimony against their attackers, women who, because they rode those buses to and from their white employers' homes, made that bus boycott work. Women who taught Rosa Parks what was needed in the community and who made sure her act of disobedience could not be ignored.

You never know who will change the course of a struggle. It often isn't anyone who sparks the buzz at all. This is something that good coaches know.




At the Dark End of the Street

http://www.booktv.org/Program/11849/At+the+Dark+End+of+the+Street+Black+Women+Rape+and+Resistance+a+New+History+of+the+Civil+Rights+Movement+from+Rosa+Parks+to+the+Rise+of+Black+Power.aspx

[H2O Man]

46. Very good.

I think that the democratic left needs to "recruit" those who were cut from the DC team -- those who are on the margins of society. Those who have been left behind. The outcasts who are unconnected to the world of politics, who are the victims of a socio-economic system that capitalizes on their suffering. Those people who both RFK and MLK visited in '67 and '68, who changed the way these two men viewed the need for change in this country.

[EFerrari]

54. Agreed. It's long past time. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

32. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, H2O Man.:thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

47. Thanks!

It is a good thread. I really appreciate you and the other contributors.

[dchill]

33. "I love the friends I have gathered together on this thin raft."

- The Doors - The Wasp (Texas Radio and the Big Beat)

"I tell you this,
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/35195/

[H2O Man]

35. ....

[dchill]

36. Got a light?

:hi:

[H2O Man]

38. You know that

it would be untrue ....

Yeah, I was listening to that Texas Radio when I wrote the OP!

[dchill]

43. Now, listen to this...

and I'll tell you 'bout the Texas
I'll tell you 'bout the Texas Radio
I'll tell you 'bout the hopeless night
Wandering the Western dream
Tell you 'bout the maiden with wrought iron soul

Class of '69 ;)

[dchill]

34. Also, too, K&R...

Great post.

[Me.]

37. You Said It Brother

[H2O Man]

39. I recall that you

were one of the active participants on the Plame Threads. I used that scandal --in another place on this thread -- to illustrate a significant shift on DU.

In 2004 and '05, DUers wanted justice. They expressed concern that the system would spare VP Cheney. By the end of 2006, a growing number of new DUers were against prosecuting Cheney in Congress. They expressed concern that the system would attempt to fulfill its Constitutional duties.

[Me.]

49. The Raw Emotion On Those Threads Was Palpable

The shock that the residents of the WH would commit so many crimes with impunity and fully expect that there would be no consequences. And they were right. And this country is always wrong when it gives a pass io its privileged criminals. If they hadn't done so with Nixon, Raygun couldn't have gotten away with his criminal activity and the door wouldn't have been left open for the Cheny crowd. For the sake of the country Rove could've been frogmarched.

[Political_Junkie]

40. Thank you. You always seem to speak what is in my heart.

"Those who believe that we can work together in discussing how to organize and coordinate efforts to advocate for democratic left values are not going to become cogs in a machine that produces uniform consent and support for those politicians who serve Wall Street and never-ending war. We are not fooled by those who say any group or individual has to be patient, and wait quietly for the rights that not only are outlined in the Constitution, but are rooted in human nature. The time has come for the democratic left to exert pressure on politicians to do the right things." - Amen to that!

Thanks H2O Man,
:yourock:

[H2O Man]

51. I believe that

the influence of a large number of DUers comes through on some of my essays; hence, sometimes those essays may sound like what others here are thinking. It is therefore I who must thank you and others on this forum.

[Political_Junkie]

52. Man, you're so cool.

I've been following your writing since participating in the Plame threads and have to admit to a bit of hero worship. You are one of the few posters on this site that I always read even if I don't always have time to respond. I always learn something new and come away feeling the renewed strength to fight another day.

[Octafish]

42. Honored to Kick and Recommend.

"If everybody's thinking alike, then nobody's doing any thinking." -- Gen. George S. Patton, Jr., quoted in Gen. Patton's Principles for Life and Leadership by Porter B. Williamson.

When seated at the conference table, the general wanted to know what was on the minds of his loyal staff. That way, they could identify, discuss and fix problems in their plans before going into battle. "Yes Men" were not tolerated.

Hey! This'd make a great gift idea for a guy who's kids like to buy him books!

I always look forward to learning your thoughts, my Friend. You gave me some of your father's insight regarding the unusual nature of the JFK administration. I am forever grateful, for now I am a different person.

[H2O Man]

45. Just yesterday,

one of my daughters asked me what book I wanted for Christmas. Now, I know.

I remember exactly what my father said, and our discussions about that concept. I remember talking with him about that ....what JFK represented to the powers that be, and the response. I do not believe that anyone can really understand those years -- 1960 to '63 -- without considering the implications of what he said. And I think that you and I both can see, as Ted Sorensen wrote, that the American University speech confirmed the worst fears of JFK's enemies.

Peace to you, my Friend. I've been going to call you ....thought about it a few times in the past couple of days. If there is a good time to talk in the next few days, let me know, and I'll call.

Hey: what do you think about the "Fair Game" movie?

[sabrina 1]

44. Social Justice IS a good thing.

K&R for providing as always, food for thought.

[QC]

48. K&R!

[Tatiana]

53. Have we forgotten the lessons of 2001 and 2002?

Have we forgotten what happens when one follows a leader unquestioningly off a cliff?

USA Patriot Act anyone?

War with Iraq?

Warrantless wiretapping? TORTURE?

All these things were accomplished because the media and even a few Democrats (in the spirit of unity and compromise) claimed that we should just "trust the President."

Dissent, criticism, and accountability are important parts of a healthy democracy. We are not a monarchy, nor should we feel our leaders are so "elevated" that we cannot question them.

We gave the President room on the economy, on the bailout, on health care reform, on Wall Street regulation, and it appears as though the administration could have used some very strong opposition on those issues to craft a final product that was more progressive. People are losing their homes... not deadbeats at this point, but people who have paid their mortgage every month faithfully for 10+ years. This is a travesty.

To those who feel the President is above criticism, I would suggest they clearly do not want to be part of a participatory democracy. After all, the President felt it was just fine to criticize those liberals he identified as the "professional left." If he can dish it, he should be able to take it.

Moreover, it would be nice if every now and then the President would give a scolding to those who actually want him to fail, instead of those who want him to succeed in helping to make this country better.

[ruggerson]

55. recommended

:)

Where is that picture taken?

[H2O Man]

56. Upstate NY

I had helped my father acquire his new pet, which is the coe on the left. For a couple days, my father had argued the price with the previous owner. My dad is still remembered far and wide as the cheapest SOB ever. (First generation Irish, the Great Depression) Anyhow, the owner was tired of Dad's annoying need to argue for a nickle, and said, "I don't care anymore. You name the price, and it's your's." My father responded, "Well, that's still too damned much." Suppose that's part of why I like the picture.

[mmonk]

57. One thing I see lacking is an effort to hold any ground

in arguments that support real social justice by establishment Democrats. I think many that turned out in great numbers in 2008 see that as well. They hunger for fighters in their corner. Many of them can't afford to be patient anymore. Their lives are unraveling too fast. Maybe the only way to affect change is a strategy on the local level to alleviate their immediate pain that is not possible when waiting for the equivocating and posturing of politicians looking for donors from wealthy sources.

[deutsey]

58. As a small "d" democratic lefty, I give this post an enthusiastic kick.

:hi: