Yes We Really Should Blame the DLC!

[Krashkopf]

Yes, Martha Coakley ran a terrible campaign, but the President DID make this into a referendum about him, and his policies, so if we are going to avoid an even bigger "thumping" in 10 months, we HAVE TO learn the lessons that this "thumping" has to teach us.

Everyone seems to forget that Barack Obama was NOT swept into office by the Democratic party regulars (who mostly supported Hilary Clinton).

Before Iowa, Barack Obama's Democratic base were the Anti-War Progressives. Then, he was swept into office by a ground swell of young, "first time" voters, left-leaning independents, and even some cross-over Republicans.

Those folks voted for Obama because they believed that was an agent for REAL CHANGE.

But Obama did not fight for REAL CHANGE. Instead, he supported a DLC-inspired, pro-corporate, health care "reform" package; and a DLC-inspired, pro-corporate bank bailout; and DLC-inspired, pro-corporate Wall Street "regulatory reform."

I'll bet you "dollars to donuts" that when the exit poll autopsy report is completed, you will find that - despite turnout that was high "for a special election" - alot of that "Obama coalition" of progressives, "first time voters" and left-leaning independents - stayed home tonight because they were disheartened, and alienated, by Barack Obama's move to the DLC-right.

[VMI Dem]

1. Obama is a New Democrat.

Wake up. Rahm is there for a reason.

[Krashkopf]

4. I knew that from the GET GO . . .

I never thought Obama was a progressive (I was an early Edwards supporter) but I think a lot of people thought that he was.

[VMI Dem]

5. Low info voters that thought Obama was a true progressive are just as dumb as the voters of MA today

He was simply better than the alternative.

[Krashkopf]

7. Be that as it may . . .

those "low info" voters made up a lot of Obama's base, and I'll bet you most of the Massachusetts voters who fit that description stayed home tonight.

[Metric System]

2. re: your second paragraph: Isn't it common knowledge now that the Democratic establishment favored

Obama over Clinton? I'm not saying that to cause trouble and at this point it's water under the bridge, but I felt like addressing your statement.

[nsd]

3. No, it isn't common knowledge because it isn't true.

Clinton was as establishment as they come. Sure, a few people (e.g., Reid) privately wanted Obama, but the big money and the old guard was Clinton's.

ETA: That said, I also don't think Obama was some kind of insurgent or progressive standard-bearer. He didn't run as Kucinich or even Edwards. His politics were (and are) standard, mainstream Democratic.

[Krashkopf]

10. Your right . . . up to a point

it wasn't a classic "bait and switch," because anyone who was paying close attention should have known that Obama was not a progressive, but was, instead a "mainstream" - aka "pro-business" - Democrat.

On the other hand, he did campaign as an agent of REAL CHANGE, promising to work towards "restoring American values AT HOME and abroad" after the ruinous Bush years.

Left-leaning Independents, in particular, took that promise seriously, and I think they stayed home last night to "punish" Obama, and the Democrats, for failing to live up to the hype.

[BunkerHill24]

6. I could never understand what we progressives want with the DLC

We talk about it, we blame them on our losses, and we wonder if they can tell a joke!

My question is that; if we can isolate them; not to speak of them; and not contribute suspected candidates...would they really matter to us?

[donheld]

8. And Yes I really do

[Vidar]

9. K&R.