Could there EVER be good reason to choose a DLC/THIRD WAY/BLUE DOG presidential nominee again?

[Ken Burch]

Last time we did that, we got an eight year dead zone. We won in name, but in hindsight it's clear that we could have elected ANY Dem in 1992 if only we got behind that nominee 100%.

This is an important question, given who our corporate-anointed current frontrunner is, and what that candidate's nomination would mean dragging our party all the way back to.

Shouldn't we fight, from now on, on our core values and from below, for the people rather than above and for the ceo's?

[hrmjustin]

1. I liked Clinton. Was not a NAFTA fan though.

[Ken Burch]

4. NAFTA is basically the only major thing he did, though.

The progressive things were too few and tiny even to be remembered.

Isn't choosing somebody like that again basically defeatism and self-loathing?

[hrmjustin]

5. Self-loathing I think not. Clinton won and Hillary is our best hope.

Yes I wish she was more to the left.

[Ken Burch]

8. Calling her "our best hope" implies that we are hopelessly in the minority

and that all we can do is settle for a junior partnership in a center-right coalition.

Occupy proved that progressives AREN'T the minority.

[hrmjustin]

9. I would say many Clinton supporters consider themselves progressive.

[Ken Burch]

22. Perhaps so. But they lack confidence in the strength of the progressive position.

Given the progressive, even radical trends that showed up in places like Boston, New York, Seattle, and many other places in the 2013 election, what PROGRESSIVE case is there for choosing a nominee who feels obligated to treate progressives like junior partners at best, like the enemy at the worst?

If you accept the argument that you have to settle for "lesser evil" once again in 2016, aren't you pretty much giving up forever on the idea of actualy fighting for a greater good?

If there was no space for progressive activism in the Nineties(and there wasn't any such space)we can assume there will be no such space if HRC becomes president. She'll be as anti-activist as her husband and Tony Blair were when they were in power.

[hrmjustin]

25. I don't think they lack strength in anything. We like her.

If Warren, Sanders, or Brown won the nomination I think Clinton supporters would support them. I would.

[Beacool]

77. That arrogant assumption that only a select few of you are true progressives is nonsense.

You are not the only progressives, let alone the only true Democrats. The arrogance of those assumptions is staggering, particularly when Hillary is vastly supported by most Democratic voters.

[delrem]

102. So the DLC -- 3rd-Way are "progressive", now? Cool.

[Enthusiast]

120. TPP is not progressive no matter how hard you spin it.

And Third Way equals Republican.

Democratic voters have been wrong before when they were tricked by the DLC.

I will work against Hillary even if she wins the nomination.

I gots me some staggering arrogance!

[whathehell]

130. +100 n/t

[Beacool]

141. You would work against the party's nominee?????

"I will work against Hillary even if she wins the nomination."

Yeah, "staggering" is the word........

[Enthusiast]

299. Why would I work for someone that promotes

destructive trade deals and cuts to the social safety net?

I might as well support a Republican.

Either they promote and support a traditional Democratic Party platform or they are my enemy. That includes support of American workers and organized labor, the environment and social security and medicare.

[Beacool]

313. Hillary would cut the social safety net?

Well, that's news to me.

[Enthusiast]

319. Disappointing isn't it?

Yes, she expressed her aversion to raising the contribution cap. She said, "It would be a tax increase on the middle class." Without an increase in the cap there is no way to stop the cuts.

And Hillary is a big supporter of the TPP.

She is not fit to represent working America. Look for a different candidate. Just change your avatar. Simple as that.

[liberal_at_heart]

269. +1. TPP is not progressive in any way.

[rhett o rick]

242. There is no confusion between who are the progressives and who are the conservative DEmocrats.

Supporting the XL Pipeline and the TPP isnt progressive. Supporting Goldman-Sachs isnt progressive. Supporting same-sex marriage while giving tax breaks to the super wealthy isnt progressive. Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller werent progressives.

[Ken Burch]

244. OK, as individuals you CAN be progressive. But why back the anti-progressive candidate?

Why back the "go back to the Nineties" candidate"?

Why take the party back to the dead zone?

That is the question that progressives who back HRC have to answer.

it's not as though the country is still as militarist and deferential to Wall Street as it was in the Reagan era...and believing that it is is the only possible progressive case for backing HRC.

For a progressive to back the candidate you back is to believe that we cannot WIN the argument, that all we can do is scrape in by default and all we can get is lesser-evil politics.

Yes, I'd back her if she was nominated. But why make the fall 2016 choice as dreary as the fall 1996 choice?

[Auntie Bush]

31. That would be me!

I'm both progressive and a Clinton supporter...AND I LIKE A GUARANTEED WIN!

[sabrina 1]

61. She voted for Bush's wars and supported them even after it was proven to her he had lied. If she did

not know he was lying back when every single Progressive knew it for sure, she showed such incredibly, fatally bad judgement that she should not even be considered for any position of power again. And if she DID know, then what does that say about her? You decide.

I will never support anyone who contributed to that horrific, deadly travesty that cost so many lives, ever.

You are free to keep pushing her, but if Dems want to win, they better start looking for a candidate that doesn't require Dems to hold their noses because that is not going to happen again.

[hrmjustin]

62. How about Brown of OH?

[sabrina 1]

97. Yes, there are plenty of good Democrats to consider. Brown is one.

[Whisp]

67. I rarely agree with you, but in this case you are 1000% correct.

Electing Hillary would be like taking your own poison. I find it hard to believe people swallow her lies so easily and forgive her her massive stupidities and piss poor judgement.

[sabrina 1]

70. Thank you ... n/t

[cinnabonbon]

93. This is the problem I have with Hillary, too.

[liberal_at_heart]

267. that's why many progressives who are left of Clinton no longer really self identify as

progressives anymore. I am liberal, but identify more as socialist myself. Many progressives feel abandoned by the progressive party. They have moved too far to the right. If you feel comfortable with where it is that's fine. Vote for Hillary. Myself, I will not be voting for her. I will only vote for a left of center liberal.

[hrmjustin]

268. I like Brown of OH as well.

[pipoman]

115. "our best hope"

Dog help us...more of the same. ..If the party doesn't move toward actual change quickly the current one party system we have will deem the Democratic party unnecessary making room for an actual labor/people's/progressive/liberal party. .

There are better options and others will emerge. I can't remember a presidential election that the "front runner" 2 years out actually wins the election. .

[bvar22]

201. Our Best Hope?

There is that "HOPE" thing again.
Hillary was the only 2008 candidate more conservative than Obama,
or at least the Campaign Obama of 2008.

I won't vote for "HOPE" again.
That is DONE.

I WILL give Hillary THIS prop:
Obama passed HER Health Care Plan,
and not the one he Campaigned on.

I WILL look at proven Track Record,
and until Hillary addresses the problem with her support for the invasion & Occupation of Iraq,
and her failure to support Raising-the-Cap (taxing RICH people),
then there isn't much chance I'll be All Fired Up for Hillary.

Who is Hillary really fighting for?

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

[hrmjustin]

202. Who do you support?

[bvar22]

217. It is a little early yet,

but I will support the candidate who best embodies the Values for which I joined the Democratic party in 1967:

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be[font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

[font size=3]America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.[/font]

Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by Private Corporations.

My vote and support WILL go to whoever BEST embodies these values.
I am too old and tired to again support the Least of the Worst again.
Let the chips fall where they may.

[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]


You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[hrmjustin]

218. I like Brown.

[BlueCaliDem]

37. I liked that he vetoed bankruptcy reform twice.

I also liked his 1993 OMNIBUS Budget Reconciliation Act that ultimately paid down the deficit and balanced the budget, showing everyone in this country that Democrats, not Republicans, are the fiscally responsible Party.

Since Americans were too lazy to get out the vote, and too ignorant to understand that Congress is a powerful (I would say, the most powerful) co-equal branch of our Federal Gov't, and stabbed Democrats and President Clinton in the back after 1993 by giving him and the Democratic Party six years of a Republican Congress, I don't blame Clinton for the lack of progressive policies after 1994. We did this to ourselves and we have no one else to blame but ourselves.

[tazkcmo]

161. I like that stuff too

Then he screwed all that up repealing Glass-Steagall on his way out the door. Oh wait, I guess I did that to myself?

[BlueCaliDem]

174. The Gramm-Leach-Blilely Act was veto-proof.

It passed the House by a vote of 362-57 and the Senate by a vote of 90-8. Sure, President Clinton could've done a symbolic veto of it, but that wouldn't stop it from becoming law although it certainly would've made Congressional Democrats very. Pissed. Off. They'd feel as if he was working against them politically.

And he still needed their support after the Lewinsky debacle.

And President Clinton DID NOT repeal Glass-Steagall. That's a popular myth running around Leftwing circles, but it's factually NOT TRUE. So you're wrong there, too.

And you do know that we have a branch of government that's more powerful than the president, right? It's called the legislative branch and their members are called lawmakers because they draft and pass LAWS - not the president.

And since a LOT of Democrats signed on to it, had President Clinton not signed the bill, they would've felt abandoned by him and they would have turned on him in a heartbeat.

If you're pissed about the Gramm-Leach-Blilely bill, blame Congress and Republicans who controlled both chambers and who were sole authors of the bill. And don't allow another Republican to get elected again. You can't do that by pouting at home with arms stiffly crossed during election time because of some perceived harm done to you by a Clinton. You can do it by voting straight Democratic Party in the coming elections.

If you don't like Hillary Rodham Clinton as a candidate, work hard to promote your preferred candidate rather than attacking a Democrat who has the best chance of winning in 2016.

[tazkcmo]

183. I stand corrected.

Thank you for that but I doubt he would have vetoed the bill in any event considering his feelings about the GS Act:

Per Wikipedia:Transcript of Clinton remarks at Financial Modernization bill signing, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Newswire, November 12, 1999 (“It is true that the Glass-Steagall law is no longer appropriate to the economy in which we lived. It worked pretty well for the industrial economy, which was highly organized, much more centralized and much more nationalized than the one in which we operate today. But the world is very different.”)

So he states clearly his opinion about GS Act. Obviously I disagreed then and now.

As for Mrs. Clinton I didn't mention her at all much less attack her.

[BlueCaliDem]

189. President Clinton was correct to have a change of heart re: Glass-Steagall.

There were already changes made to Glass-Steagall before the Gramm-Leach-Blilely act passed and was signed into law. These changes weakened Glass-Steagall significantly, rendering the law outdated for the demands for these times. So I can understand President Clinton's change of heart. But I'm confident that had Congress not had a veto-majority, he would've vetoed Gramm-Leach-Blilely merely because I'm confident that he understands that having one bird in the hand is always better than having two in the bush.

Also prior to the passage of the Act, there were many relaxations to the Glass–Steagall Act. For example, a few years earlier, commercial Banks were allowed to pursue investment banking, and before that banks were also allowed to begin stock and insurance brokerage. Insurance underwriting was the only main operation they weren't allowed to do, something rarely done by banks even after the passage of the Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act#Changes_caused_by_the_Act

What we need is a much stronger Glass-Steagall for our modern times. And Senator Warren and - believe it or not! - Senator McCain are working hard to make that happen. Hopefully, they can get enough colleagues to come to join them.

As for Mrs. Clinton I didn't mention her at all much less attack her.

The "You" in my post wasn't directed specifically at you. I apologize that it's come across that way.

[BlueCaliDem]

192. And thank you for being courteous.

[tazkcmo]

213. When I'm wrong

I'm wrong. Why compound the embarrassment by being an idget about it too? I'm always happy to learn and thank you too.

[Ken Burch]

250. You're forgetting that Clinton PUSHED those Dems to pass Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

He wasn't an innocent bystander in that. All Clinton cared about on that issue was the Gordon Gekko types...and they are the only ones who benefited.

[Beacool]

73. Self loathing?????????

The things one reads on this site...............

[NCTraveler]

135. Just one of the many things duers have tought me about myself.

I never knew how much I hated myself and how bad of a person I am. lol

[Beacool]

146. I know.

This place is crazy.

[Ken Burch]

266. Self-loathing in terms of your core values-didn't mean self-loathing as human beings.

Last edited Wed Jan 8, 2014, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)

It's hard to see how someone could be a committed progressive and still fight for the presidential nomination of the candidate who OPPOSES more of those values than any other possible candidate and who, on a personal level, has always shown more disdain for progressives as people than any other possible nominee.

How can you back someone who still buys the DLC argument that progressives are a millstone around the party's neck? Progressives weren't to blame for ANY of the losses in the Eighties.

[Beacool]

314. I think that we just have a difference of opinions.

I don't see Hillary the way you see her.

[Ken Burch]

323. OK...this thread wasn't just about her, though.

It was about the whole mindset that drove Dem presidential politics in the Nineties.

My great fear is that, if we nominate another "mainstream" Dem in '16, that that will close the debate in the party for good. That there will be no future possibility for anyone to be the next Bobby Kennedy or Eugene McCarthy, or (especially)the next Shirley Chisholm. This party is hard to change when its leaders think it has found the One True Way to win.

I think that would also be a problem if, for some insane reason, the party nominated Biden in '16, since he would also be a "don't rock the boat" candidate.

If HRC were nominated, I would HOPE, at least, that she'd be better than Bill.

What those of you who are progressives for HRC should really be doing, at this point, as I see it(and I suppose it's my humble opinion, although calling oneself "humble" is usually a sign of overweening arrogance on the part of the person who does it, and I at least try to keep my arrogance acceptably weened) is to push her to reach out to those who were left out in the cold in the party in the Nineties...to make a clear break with the DLC/Blue Dog/Third Way position, and do so publicly. Doing that can only help her, from what I can see.

[reddread]

124. MFN for China, Telecommunications Act, he did a LOT

they were just not liberal, democratic or good things for American citizens.

[Ninga]

275. In my view Clinton's NAFTA+GATT+Welfare Reform are not tiny nor insignificant and

A legacy of his DLC roots.

[Ken Burch]

276. OK...they're significant...but not in a GOOD way.

Thanks for the post.

[L0oniX]

318. Clinton destroyed Haiti's rice farmers and starved their people.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/11/subsidizing_starvation

Subsidizing Starvation - How American tax dollars are keeping Arkansas rice growers fat on the farm and starving millions of Haitians.

In the wake of Haiti's devastating 7.0-magnitude earthquake exactly three years ago, former U.S. President Bill Clinton issued an unusual and now infamous apology. Calling his subsidies to American rice farmers in the 1990s a mistake because it undercut rice production in Haiti, Clinton said he had struck a "devil's bargain" that ultimately resulted in greater poverty and food insecurity in Haiti.

"It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked," he said. "I have to live every day with the consequences of the lost capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people, because of what I did."

Despite Clinton's dramatic confession and his role as the United Nations' special envoy for Haiti, little has changed in the last three years for the Caribbean country's farmers. If anything, they appear worse off. Before Hurricane Sandy hit the eastern seaboard, its rain and flooding caused $234 million in agricultural losses in Haiti. For a brief moment, coverage of the disaster in the American media shone a light on the miserable conditions that the country's farmers are faced with -- a lack of infrastructure, capital, and markets that could help their families and the country prosper.

[Ken Burch]

324. OK...we could get a "photo negative" version of the "What have the Romans ever done for us?" scene

from Monty Python's LIFE OF BRIAN.

I still can't believe Bill Clinton wasn't torn limb from limb when he went down to Haiti. He helped lead the fight to force Jean-Bertrand Aristede to abandon the ONE progressive plank in his program-increasing the minimum wage.

That's right-Bill Clinton couldn't tolerate the poorest country in the world raising its "wages" from nothing to next-to-nothing. How can anybody forgive him for that? And what right did OUR country have to do that to Haiti, anyway?

[Egalitarian Thug]

51. What did he do that you liked? Throwing health care overboard in order to pursue his economic

plan of corporate rule? Rolling over and screwing gay military people over with the Orwellian DADT? How about the great humanitarian goal of eliminating inadequate assistance to the poorest of the poor?

[hrmjustin]

53. The economy did well under him.

But you make good points and yes he did things for political reasons instead of ideological reason.

[Egalitarian Thug]

56. The economy boomed because a revolutionary technology exploded into the the

consumer market and was enhanced by the development of the world wide web and the web browser. Clinton took this literal paradigm shift and slit entrepreneur's throats in order to pay off and cement the parasite class' stranglehold.

Clinton's blatant corruption is the reason we pay ten times as much for the worst internet service among the OECD nations.

[AgingAmerican]

98. If you believe that the economy boomed because of a short lived .com bubble

You must not be very old. The .com bubble was a stock market bubble, not an economic bubble. We are in a stock market bubble now, where are the jobs?

The economy boomed because of the 1993 economic plan that passed with zero Republican votes. That plan aimed at balancing the budget and it worked swimmingly.

[Egalitarian Thug]

101. Did I say that? No. The economy and the stock market had only the most

tenuous of connections then and they are irrelevant to each other now. There was a significant rise in the real world, or Main Street economy that preceded, and in part, drove the dot-com bubble. The stock market is what Clinton and all the other parasites focus on to distract from what is really happening.

Clinton's "economic plan" was nothing more than a massive transfer of wealth from emerging businesses to the entirely parasitic plutonomy. I had a front row seat for the entire debacle and have learned the lessons. Clinton suppressed and largely derailed the economic boom in compliance with the wishes and plans of the same plutocracy.

He was the lesson we failed to learn.

[AgingAmerican]

178. 1993 economic plan

22 million new jobs in eight years.

Bill Clinton raised taxes and cut out loopholes on the top 20% while lowering them for the bottom and middle class and 90% of small businesses. He spread the debt burden across the whole economic spectrum. That was the 1993 economic plan. It did the exact opposite of what you claim.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. My short answer is NO.

My longer answer is *&&%$# NO!

[Segami]

38. +1

[DisgustipatedinCA]

3. Maybe if Zombie Hitler were running as a Democrat in the primaries

Short of that, no.

[Katashi_itto]

18. Sorry I would vote for Zombie Hitler over a bluedog, namely because he would eat opponents.

Think of the Debates!

[madinmaryland]

6. Isn't "Third Way Manny" running on the DLC/Blue Dog platform???

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. I can't think of a good reason to vote for one again.

[on point]

10. No. Things have moved too far right, in wrong direction.

We are in crisis now and no longer have the luxury to bide our time

[Katashi_itto]

11. I will never vote for Clinton

[hrmjustin]

13. And if she wins the nomination?

[Katashi_itto]

15. I will vote 3rd party then. I will not vote for "death by a thousand paper cuts"

For more Corporatism, more crony capitalism, TPP and more NAFTAS

With Republicans at least their upfront about destroying the country.

[hrmjustin]

16. Who do you want then?

[Katashi_itto]

17. No idea. The field is not rife with many options at this point.

Hopefully someone will show. Warren would be great but she isnt running, Sanders is hopefully running.

[GoneFishin]

42. I am jumping off the "lesser evil" merry-go-round. I won't go around on it another time.

To participate in that game only encourages them to keep using the old playbook, which has worked well for them in the past, and may work well in the future.

I can't control what other people do, but I won't feed that monster anymore. If they want my vote then they'll have to earn it. Telling me that DLCers will only stab me in the back 75% as much as Republicans is not good enough. At least with the Republicans I'll see it coming.

Let the chips fall where they may.

[Egalitarian Thug]

106. You have expressed very well the biggest issue the Democratic Party faces.

I completely agree with you, BTW. President Obama was my last straw and I don't really care how much or how loudly the chorus of rationalizations whines, I'm done with them.

If the Democratic Party won't let good people through, and there's no chance whatsoever that the republicans will nominate sane people, I'll vote third party or just local props.

The election of 2008 was a once-in-a-century opportunity to put his nation back on course and he and they purposely blocked it. I tolerated two years of betrayal by the Democrats after 2006, and gave all I had to give in 2008 only to be stabbed in the back.

Screw em.

[sendero]

112. Exactly.

..... sudden death, where we can at least reincarnate, is better than slow death by a thousand cuts. Slow death is all we've been getting for the last 2 decades. I'm out, if we can only have oligarchy-approved candidates there is no reason to bother any more.

[polichick]

158. Count me out too - been there, done that too many times.

[L0oniX]

166. Funny how the 3rd way never moves to the left but pushes the left to move right.

[bvar22]

205. Always.

It is always the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party that must surrender.
You would think that the Party Leadership would occasionally take a step to The Left,
but that NEVER happens.

All the Left gets is ridicule and insults,
and then, at election time,
"You MUST vote for US or it is YOUR fault when Republicans win."

Bullshit.

[Warpy]

21. Look at the Supreme Court and say that

A third party vote might give you a short buzz of self righteousness but it will increase the odds that a Republican will pick the next USSC justices.

This wouldn't be a problem ordinarily, but the Republicans have gone bug fucking crazy.

I will vote progressive in the primaries, that's where we show the party honchos that we're out there and that our numbers are growing. I will vote for whatever corporate stiff the party gives us in the general election because the alternative is simply unthinkable.

[Ken Burch]

24. In the Nineties, the "Look at the Surpreme Court" argument

gave us a nominee who pushed harder for expanding the death penalty than for healthcare, and who signed, with no major reservations, a welfare "reform" bill that did nothing but punish the poor for BEING poor-a bill that said, essentially, that millions of people no longer deserved to live.

Is the Supreme Court actually worth...human sacrifice?

(I'll vote for the nominee, but, still, at some point, we have to start making choices on this question that involve self-respect and common humanity).

[truedelphi]

30. I agree with you, especially given that anyone a Democrat Blue Dawg

Corporate-controlled President would put on the Supreme Court would be for Big Pharma, and against the right to grow marijuana, would be for Monsanto (Just as Kagen and Sotomayor are) And also for the Big Banks and their "Right" to be unregulated.

And that doesn't even begin to describe my disgust with how Corporate-Controlled Democrats are for the Total Surveillance State, and would certainly choose SCOTUS candidates that haven't cared to protect the US Constitution.

[jeff47]

50. Yes. Because the SCOTUS will sacrifice more people.

Republican wins in 2016, and Roe v Wade is gone. So is Lawrence v Texas.

Citizens United would be a minor footnote compared to the new decisions that would come down.

The "takings" philosophy conservatives love will gut all environmental regulation.

[Beacool]

85. They don't care.

All they care about is their insufferable self righteous bullshit. If a candidate doesn't meet their purity standards, they rather a Republican win and then we can all go down the rabbit hole together.

Meet the mirror image of Free Republic. Same thinking, different party.

[Egalitarian Thug]

107. As it has apparently escaped your notice, we've been down the rabbit hole and through the looking

glass since the late '90s. The Party has had fifteen years to make good and all we've got from them is more of the same with better packaging.

[Soundman]

122. Makes you wonder

Why they would hang on a democratic site. Seems there are better choices that would be a closer match their political ideologies. That kind of childish thinking is what brought us the Bush nightmare.

[PowerToThePeople]

134. Because it is OUR party

Just because the right wing has stolen the party, does not mean we can not and should not fight to get it back. It is ours. The right wingers can, and imo should, move back over to the Republican party.

[Beacool]

152. They believe that they are the only "true" Democrats.

That's why I equate them to the Freepers. The Freeps think that they are the only true conservatives. Both groups have blinders on and don't seem to care about the larger picture. The Tea Party is destroying the Republican brand, we'll see what happens on this side of the aisle.

[PowerToThePeople]

155. It is the third wayers destroying the party, not the "purists"

[Ken Burch]

263. If the Tea Party IS destroying the GOP brand, we don't HAVE to choose HRC.

The ONLY argument for her would be if the country was moving massively to the Right...and it isn't.

And, btw, I AM working on the 2014 Congressional races...but the Blue Dogs and the DLC types your candidate is backed by don't WANT our party to take Congress back. They LIKED what things were like after 1994. The fact that Bill Clinton refused to try to get even a Democratic House back in 1996(something that should have been automatic like it was in 1948 and 1954)proves that.

[sabrina 1]

200. Yeah I know, it's so insufferable to worry about war crimes and the destruction of the working class

and liveable wages for working people and EVERYONE getting access to REAL HC and forcing the criminals on Wall St to pay their fair share of taxes.

Sorry to be such an insufferable democrat. I tried to support Forever War and Torture and Low Wages and bailouts for the corrupt Corps that crashed the world's economies and outsourcing and tax breaks for the wealthy and the protection of War Criminals and Wall St criminals and the destruction of our civil rights in the name of the phony 'wot' and trade agreements written by and for Foreign Corporations etc etc but being as insufferable as I am I just can't do it.

Sorry about that.

Not really, actually I'm proud of that kind of insufferability.

[Ken Burch]

251. We put what you cynically call "purity" totally to the side in 1992.

We got eight years of Nixon's first term on domestic issues, the Reagan/Bush status quo on foreign policy, and nothing but despair for anyone who actually felt solidarity for workers and the poor. If the Contra war had still been going when Clinton came in, he would have fought for MORE Contra aid(the fact that he let the Contras train for their war crimes on Arkansas soil proves this).

THAT is what happens when you say "all that matters is 'WINNING'".

A HRC nomination has to mean going back to the Nineties, and it has to bring the long-term realignment to OUR party to an end.

ONLY a Democratic party with clear values can win, because only such a party can be worth voting for.

Accepting "lesser evils" politics in ONE more election(and many of us have accepted "lesser evils" logic for decades now, getting nothing for our acceptance of that)means accepting the permanent dominance of evil.

"Not as bad" will never mean anything of value again.

[Gothmog]

283. Roe v. Wade is one SCOTUS vote from being overturned or limited

Due to Nader, we have lost the Voting Rights Act and the ability to regulate campaign cash. If a republican wins in 2016, we can say goodbye to Roe v. Wade.

I am going to vote for the Democratic nominee and do my best that it is a Democrats who will be nominating the replacements for Kennedy and Ginsburg (and hopefully Scalia).

[Ken Burch]

291. This isn't about Nader. I'm not advocating voting third-party here.

At some point, you're going to have to admit that the showings made by Nader were the DLC's fault-we can't ASK progressives to vote for our party's ticket anymore when it gets as far to the right as it was in 1996 and 2000.

We lost progressives because we pushed them too far. Nobody who wept when Bobby Kennedy died, nobody who ever backed the farmworkers, marched for peace, marched for civil rights OR cared about LGBTQ rights could actually care about re-electing Clinton or electing Al Gore.

[Gothmog]

34. I am living with the consequences of people buying Nader's crap in 2000 and voting for a third party

Texas is subject to a horrible voter id law right now because people voted for Nader in 2000 and gave bush the opportunity to put Alito and Roberts on the bench. Citizen's United is also due to Nader's stupidity. In addition, bush put idiots like Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen on the bench.

If the GOP nominee wins in 2016, you can expect to see Roe v. Wade overturned or limited to such a degree that it will not matter. Christ Christie, Bobby Jindal or Scott Walker all would be happy to see Roe v. Wade gutted.

Right now, I am organizing and working on voter id clinics to get voters some $3 birth certificates with a legend stating that this birth certificate can only be used to get election identification certificates (the free id in Texas that cost between $3 and $22). These clinics would not be necessary if voters had ignored Ralph Nader in 2000.

In addition, I am campaigning for Wendy Davis and there are a number of people in the Texas Democratic Party who are trying to get Hillary Clinton to come to Texas to campaign for Wendy Davis. I am very supportive of these efforts because the only way for Wendy Davis to win is to mobilize the single suburban woman vote.

[sabrina 1]

69. BS, you are living with the theft of an election that had zero to do with the legalities of politics

You are dealing with the fact that GORE WON and you fell for the distraction of blaming the theft on someone who had zero to do with it.

And now you're getting ready to blame the voters again instead of placing the blame while there is still time, where it belongs.

The silence of the Dem Party regarding Election theft and the treason in involved in that crime in 2000 should have raised questions, but not about a candidate who had every right to run for office and despite his run, was UNABLE to beat Gore. Neither was Bush, so they STOLE IT. With the help of the treasonous SC Felons.

I blame people who try to cover up that crime by pointing fingers elsewhere for what I"M DEALING with right now.

The SC committed treason in 2000 and they got away with it, and then their supporters spread the lie that THEIR crime was Nader's fault.

Enough with that, it's shameful enough that nothing was done about that treasonous crime without continuing to try to spread their propaganda to try to cover it up.

[PowerToThePeople]

72. treasonous crime

So many of them took place between 2000 and 2009. How do we even begin to recover from all the damage? Prosecute the criminals for starters, imo.

[Egalitarian Thug]

108. Can't do that, there's too many criminals wearing blue so we have to "look forward". n/t

[Enthusiast]

121. +1 a significant amount.......nt

[Gothmog]

281. You are wrong-Nader's stupidity cost Al Gore both New Hampshire and Florida

I love the way that Naderites are re-writing history or ignoring the facts. Nader is the reason why Bush was president from 2001 to 2009. Charlie Cook is the author of the Cook Report (one of the better groups at predicting elections and looking at election results) and according to Cook, Nader cost Gore both New Hampshire and Florida http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called "Florida and New Hampshire" simply "the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket,

Remember that Bush won the electoral college by two votes and so if Gore won either Florida or New Hampshire, the Iraq war would have never happened and we would not be dealing with Alito and Roberts on the SCOTUS.

If you need further proof, remember that Karl Rove and the GOP actually funded Nader.

Furthermore, Karl Rove and the Republican Party knew this, and so they nurtured and crucially assisted Nader's campaigns, both in 2000 and in 2004. On 27 October 2000, the AP's Laura Meckler headlined "GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads." She opened: "Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president [Mr. Gore]. ... 'Al Gore is suffering from election year delusion if he thinks his record on the environment is anything to be proud of,' Nader says [in the commercial].

Rove and the GOP would not have been funding Nader if they did not know that Nader was their key to winning in 2000.

[sabrina 1]

295. All Gore won the election, the Feloniouos Five on the SC stole it. End of story.

Why ANYONE would try to cover up that crime is beyond me as it was one of the most treasonous acts committed against this country in living memory.

Illegal/Treasonous V Legal

SC THEFT V NADER exercising a Constitutional right.

There simply is no argument to make no matter how often this tiny minority continues to try.

[Ken Burch]

278. I don't back Nader. And HRC isn't the ONLY Dem that can win in 2016.

Why assume that she is?

Please do keep up the good work on the voter id clinics.

Wouldn't expect much from HRC, though. She PROVED what she thinks of single women raising kids(even single suburban women)when she cheered as Bill signed the welfare "reform" bill. Anyone who can keep public silence(which is the same thing as support)when something like THAT is approved by a Democratic president has proved, once and for all, that she is incapable of caring about the poor.

I support the work you are doing, we just disagree on who would be best for 2016.

[Gothmog]

285. I will vote for the Democratic nominee

I am focused on 2014 and the Wendy Davis campaign right now. Right now, it is my belief that Hillary and Bill Clinton could help Wendy Davis and my friends at the state party have heard that this is in the works or is being discussed. Hillary and Bill both campaigned in the New York City mayor's race and the Virginia governor's race. Wendy Davis is going to need some help and Hillary Clinton is or was popular with women voter (I sat on the credentials committee for my county party in 2008 and saw the depth of Clinton's support in a heavily contested race). The Davis campaign is going to focus on women voters and I am hopeful that Hillary Clinton will campaign for Davis and that these efforts will be effective.

As for 2016, I will wait to see who the nominee is. However, if Hillary Clinton comes to Texas to campaign for Wendy Davis, then her efforts will be rewarded by Texas Democratic voters (even if Wendy Davis is not successful). This is one reason why my friends at the state party think that it is likely that Hillary Clinton will be visiting Texas.

[BlueCaliDem]

40. ^^^This^^^

I understand that we live in a democracy, and that I'll never get 100% of what I want since I can't get 100% of Progressives, Liberals, and Moderates to see eye-to-eye on my personal pick.

So in the primary, I will vote for the most progressive candidate, but I will most certainly vote for the winner, be s/he a DLCer, a Blue Dog, or a "Third-wayer". Anything but a Republican, especially the Republicans we have now. I know that the most important task the President will have is to pick our next SCOTUS justices should Kennedy and Scalia finally keel over in their seats or do the sensible thing and retire.

We don't want more Roberts and Alitos taking those seats.

[sabrina 1]

80. Yes, we all used to feel that way not so long ago, but you belong to a shrinking minority now that

we've experienced the results of our willingness to vote out of fear of the other party rather than FOR what we believe in. Now we are going to begin reversing those failed tactics and we are going to LEAD this party this time, rather than following the Third Way propaganda that we should expect only crumbs and be happy about it.

You say 'I understand that we live in a democracy, and that I'll never get 100% of what I want'. Well, we see what low expectations have done for us. We all had those low expectations for far too long. And we got what we were told to expect.

'Aim for the sky and you may hit a tree'. You are only aiming for the tree. From now on we are going to be aiming for the sky, enough with the beaten down attitude of low expectations just because the Third Way infiltrators into our party have succeeded in instilling that low self image into the voters. They need to get out of the way or start accepting that THEY cannot get 100% of what they want. THEY are who need to start facing reality.

[BlueCaliDem]

142. Yes, we should do a Bush v Gore 2.0 in 2016. That'll teach those Democrats!

Because look how well that plan ultimately worked out for us and the country in 2000.

Sorry. But never again.

Like I said, I understand that we live in a democracy; a winner-take-all system where the majority wins and gets to rule. It's do or die. There is no gray area.

I understand that I'm not going to get 100% of what I want because my personal preferences and desires are trumped by what's important for the progress of this country as a whole, and NO Party, NO person is 100% perfect.

And I know that my vote for better candidates than what we have but who don't have a snowball's chance in hell to win any election will only result in more Repubs, more attacks on women's rights, more erosion of civil rights, more pro-corporate justices on the bench of our highest court, and more destruction of our democracy. It's self-defeating for Progressives but a boon for the enemies within: the Koch Bros and the fascist GOP.

Unless and until the passionate Left in this country can present strong and electable candidates who have actually won an election and who have the power behind them in order to gain widespread support, I'll stick with the Democratic candidates we are being offered.

I live by the fundamental rule: One bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.

It pains me to see that some die-hards don't understand that. They have no idea just how useful they are to the wealthy and well-connected who are trying to take down this country using our government. And it concerns me that, however good their intentions are, they're actually working for a Teabagger Redux in 2014 and a Bush v Gore 2.0 in 2016.

[sabrina 1]

177. 'Die hards'? Well, your idea of die hards and mine are obviously different. The die hards who keep

on voting for republican lite, and yes we were part of that for a long time, are going to stick to repeating the same die hard commitment to 'winning' but never being victorious. We now see that winning a battle here and there doesn't do much for millions of Americans and THIS former Die Hard is going to be changing tactics, like any good strategist who finally realizes that repeating the same strategy over and over isn't going to result in anything different than the status quo. And things are getting worse for so many people, little by little, regarding jobs, security, rights etc.

And if Dems lose, it will be the fault of the Dem Leadership because of they continue to undermine Progressives in favor of Third Way Corporatists there will be some real anger this time. It's not very convincing to say 'the progressive can't win' when we witness the party go out of its way to make sure they don't.

[BlueCaliDem]

181. Yes, Sabrina, we obviously have different takes on what a "die-hard" is, and

what the reasons are for the sad situation we now find ourselves in since Republicans and Teapublicans took control of State legislatures and governor's mansions -and then solidified their hold on the U.S. House for at least a decade.

Like I wrote in my previous post: if you don't like the candidates presented to us by the Democratic Party, and if they're not perfect enough, then get out there, raise millions of dollars, and actually do the hard work of finding and presenting the Democratic Party with a candidate of your preference for the primary who can not only win an election, but who has the power of a mass movement behind them to force the Democratic Party leadership's hand.

Otherwise, just voting for whatever candidate that's the un-Democratic Party pick in an election, isn't going to do the country, the Democrats, the minorities, women, civil rights for all, the jobs situation, and the rest of the problems we're now facing, any good.

We don't need a Teabagger Redux in 2014 and we certainly don't need another repetition of Bush v Gore in 2016.

One bird in the hand is better than two in the bush. Try to remember that sage advice.

[sabrina 1]

194. We lost in 2010 because of the die hards who insisted that we had no choice but to continue to

support Corporatist candidates. Progressive candidates held on to their seats, Blue Dogs did not. Independents and the young stayed home. A sign, deiberately ignored by the Third Way, of what the future holds regarding the party continuing to push Corporatists on the people.

And it will be even worse next time if the Party doesn't get busy providing and BACKING Progressive candidates and if they don't they will be to blame for destroying this party, as polls show consistently, a majority of Americans support Democratic NOT Corporatist policies. The question is, why are they continuing down this path?

They have time to adjust their failed policies of pushing Corporatist candidates and it is up to us to make sure this time they dio not lose another election for us.

[Ken Burch]

279. You seem to believe the "passionate Left" is in a minority and must settle for junior-partner status

And, how do we get the chance to "present strong and electable candidates who have actually won an election" when you're always going to refuse to work for those candidates, based on the logic in your posts above.

Defeatism, by definition, is NOT a winning strategy. Believe in yourself and have confidence in the ability of your side to win the argument now and again.

[BlueCaliDem]

284. Every candidate that the "'passionate Left" stood behind, had lost.

The numbers say they are in the minority. Not me.

And FYI? I've worked for a true Progressive in 2012. I wanted Dianne Feinstein GONE. Mike Strimling was the ideal candidate, but after talking to people, knocking on doors, donating (what I could) to his campaign, and lobbying for him here and many other sites to please, please, please vote for him, at the end of the day, despite all the promises I heard, all the enthusiasm I encountered . . . he got less votes than friggin Orly Taitz. So no. No refusal on my part to work for better candidates.

But my main concern is to ensure we don't do something stupid and vote for a candidate in the general election who might be more progressive than the one we're being offered, but who, at the end of the day, won't win.

We do the change of the guard in primaries, not during the elections. And all I've heard and seen from the passionate Left is that if they don't get the candidate they want, no matter if it's in the primaries or the general, they'll refuse to "settle for the lesser of two evils". That's the epitome of defeatism, and I don't waste my time with it.

[Ken Burch]

287. Problem there was that your candidate was unknown, not that he was progressive.

You rarely see a sitting Democratic senator beaten in the Democratic primary(last time it happened, IIRC, was in Illinois in the Eighties, when Dixon was beaten by Carole Mosely Braun...and I think the main reason HE lost was that, even though he was the incumbent, he was always the Democratic senator from Illinois that nobody ever heard about. He managed to somehow be the incumbent AND weirdly unknown.

If nothing else, please stop using the term "the passionate Left" as a slur. There's no crime in being on the Left, OR in being passionate. Look where bland non-leftism gets us....which is usually nowhere.

[BlueCaliDem]

315. You've misinterpreted my use of the term.

I didn't use "the passionate Left" as a slur. I apologize if that's how it came across to you, but that wasn't my intention. In fact, the word "passionate" is a positive word in my vocab. However..."bland non-leftism" can only be read as a negative.

If you're going to accuse someone of using a term you deem a slur and ask them not to use it again, perhaps it's only fair that you not start using slurs to drive home your point? Just a suggestion.

Mike Strimling is the perfect Progressive and he would have been an incredible California Senator while we boot out the war-mongering, pro-Republican, always-doing-what's-right-for-the-American-people-after-all-other-alternatives-are-exhausted, Feinstein. Our group worked hard to campaign for him here in SoCal, but he just didn't have the money to get heard over Feinstein's deafening noise machine.

On the other hand, we have to face the fact that Americans of all stripes are loathed to change. That's why nothing changes in this country unless corporations demand it.

The majority of voting Americans refuse to take a chance on a new candidate to replace one nestled comfortably in their overpaid seat - and who needs removing - because it's always the "devil you know" with them.

[Ken Burch]

325. OK, I did misinterpret your use of that term. Sorry.

And I respect your work on the Strimling campaign.

My real point is, that campaign wasn't a fair test of the idea that more progressive candidates can't win. What that campaign REALLY showed was the power of incumbency. It would likely have been the same result of Feinstein had been progressive and her opponent had been a status quo centrist.

And my purpose in using the term "bland non-leftism" was to come up with a polar opposite term to "passionate Left(ism)". I refuse to use the term "mainstream" to describe anti-left Dems because that term unnecessarily concedes the idea that the center(actually, the corporate center-right, to be accurate)reflects the values of "the only REAL Americans", and self-marginalizes the progressives against the center. What term would you suggest as an alternative to "bland non-leftism" that avoids self-marginalization yet doesn't read to you as a slur?

[BlueCaliDem]

327. Thank you. And thank you.

I appreciate that.

My real point is, that campaign wasn't a fair test of the idea that more progressive candidates can't win. What that campaign REALLY showed was the power of incumbency.

I believe you're right on the money regarding the power of the incumbency. Aside from the wealthy donors flocking to a sitting member of congress, it also has the added advantage of name recognition - and as I've written in my previous post, "the devil you know". It was hard for me and my team to come to the realization that most people aren't very passionate about politics, and know next to nothing about the incumbent that should be retired.

And barring a headline-catching scandal by the sitting member of congress, there's no way people will cast their vote for a new candidate to replace "the devil they know". That's good for the incumbent and their moneyed benefactors, but not good for the people who elect them. As a quick fix of this dilemma and state and mind, perhaps progressive candidate hopefuls need to do what Feinstein did - look for a scandal, get out in front of cameras and mics, and get name recognition through that "free advertising". Just a thought.

What term would you suggest as an alternative to "bland non-leftism" that avoids self-marginalization yet doesn't read to you as a slur?

"Bland non-leftism" sounds like a moderate Republican, i.e., uninteresting and anti-progressive. Progressivism or Progressives is a better label, if we need one. Progressives want this country to evolve but unlike the more passionate on the Left, that we do so using baby-steps in order to avoid doubt and distrust and, ultimately, dismissal among the very people we need to convince that change for the betterment of the people isn't something to fear.

When it comes to changing hearts and minds, it's become crystal clear to me that for the majority of voters in this country, slow but steady wins the race.

[sabrina 1]

76. Yes, let's do that and let's find someone who will make sure we have PROGRESSIVES on the SC rather

people who just pass as such and are better than the alternative. If you think that will work then think again, it worked for the last time. Now, start trying to appeal to voters with more than threats, it isn't going to work again. We went along, over and over again, we were told to shut up and sit down after the most treasonous crime was committed in 2000. We were told to shut up and 'move forward' from War Crimes. We were told to look the other way when Wall St. Criminals, instead of being investigated and tried for their horrendous crimes against the people, were BAILED OUT with billions, possibly trillions of dollars and, like the War Criminals and the Election Thieves, were allowed to continue living like kings while we were told to 'suck it up'. Well, none o that has worked, in fact it is sickening to think we worked so hard to try to right some of those egregious wrongs, we've had time and now the experience of seeing what happens when we fall for the fear tactics so they cannot work anymore, don't you see that?

Start talking to voters when you have something to offer them that we haven't fallen for in the past because only a fool continues to repeat the same actions over and over again expecting different results.

It's time for change, REAL change before it's too late for this country, if it isn't already and people are SERIOUS about that and this party needs to understand that. The younger generation knows more than any previous generation before them according to research and are not committed to any kind of party loyalty. The Dem Party has nowhere to go OTHER than to finally start listening to the voters.

If they lose, it will be THEIR fault and if we get another Bush/Cheney type travesty, we will know who to blame and the anger will be palpable, at the Dem Party. Why? Because they have three years to start catering to US rather than their Corporate handlers.

[Warpy]

100. Well, we know that's not going to happen with the Republicans

Those people have decided to pander to their stark raving crazy masses at the bottom and will appoint more open fascists like Alito and Roberts.

We can't afford that. While more Third Way justices are not what you or I would choose were we given any power, they would be immeasurably better than a bunch of social troglodytes who would be thrilled to see the rest of the country follow Texas and work to deprive women of the vote, not to mention access to contraception and abortion.

That party now speaks of this openly.

[sabrina 1]

173. Well we've been working that way for decades now and it hasn't worked for millions of people, not

just in this country but wherever we are invading and wherever Wall St is imposing it's 'austerity/predatory capitalism' policies.

So it's time to stop voting out of fear and put all that energy and will power into actually changing things.

As for women, one thing we could learn from the Right is that whether they win or lose they still manage to push their grotesque policies on the population. I see more of a threat to women's rights now even when they are in the minority. We need people who will NOT compromise away people's rights, ever.

Sorry but if that's still the only reason being forwarded as to why we should vote for The Third Way, who support war, extremely bad for women btw, and Austerity etc, it isn't going to work any more.

[uponit7771]

110. Many people don't notice the GOP has gone terminal, I wouldn't trust them with the Button

[Katashi_itto]

227. Then it becomes a case of Darwinism of a Civilization scale.

Still wont make me vote Hillary

[truedelphi]

32. I see it as "Death by the Corporate and Total Surveillance State Drones"

more than paper cuts.

[Katashi_itto]

49. Either way you vote you'll get that

[truedelphi]

221. Yep, either way!

The members of the Political Class are laughing up their sleeves at us.

[Katashi_itto]

225. Exactly, hence my voting 3rd party

[Beacool]

84. No problem.............

Come 2016, if Hillary chooses not to run, some of us will remember all comments similar to yours.

Two can play that game.

[Katashi_itto]

86. How is that supposed to bother me?

[joshcryer]

87. Hillary will be significantly left of Obama.

She has to be because Cristie and the Republicans need to rebrand, so they'll move to the center on social policy.

[Katashi_itto]

89. Bully for her. Still won't vote for a corporatist.

And she is one.

[joshcryer]

206. did you vote for Obama?

[Katashi_itto]

207. Silly question, yep. I was thinking that "Hope and Change" thing

Wont ever fall for marketing again.

[joshcryer]

210. fair enough

I've always said it was the greatest consumer ad compaign of all time

[winter is coming]

91. Will she be campaigning to the left of Senator Obama or President Obama?

And if she campaigns significantly to the left of her past positions, why should we believe her?

[Whisp]

169. isn't that the question though,

why would we believe her when we know she is a lie machine.

she can promise a chicken in every pot and free education and housing and I wouldn';t believe one word.

She may think she is through with the past, but the past is not through with her.
Sleep in the fancy beds you made for yourself, Hill!

[joshcryer]

212. yes

she will have more progressive positions than any president since Carter


whether she delivers is of course a gamble

[winter is coming]

274. A gamble? More like a sucker bet. n/t

[AgingAmerican]

99. The Republicans are banking on 'Democrats' like you

nt

[Katashi_itto]

114. Well, I guess our party is banking on people like you. Voting yet again for the lesser

of two evils.

[AgingAmerican]

175. I vote to prevent

The worst, yes. Sucks but that is what we are stuck with in this country.

[Katashi_itto]

193. And I have no problems with your strategy. However believing thats the only strategy available is

what I disagree with. I no longer will ascribe to the idea "thats all there is"

[AgingAmerican]

195. The only strategy should be...

...getting rid of the idiotic electoral college, which keeps the two party system in place. The electoral college guarantees that either a Democrat or a Republican will win each state. Give each person a vote that counts and third, fourth and fifth parties have a chance. Until that happens we are stuck with what we have, the lesser of two evils.

As much as I want to take my toys and go home, I have to fend off the greater of two evils.

Sucks, doesn't it?

[Katashi_itto]

196. Oh I agree with everything except the last part. I used to vote that way. Saw where it got us

now I plan to use my vote differently. As a filmmaker, I plan to make sure the Dems know what I am doing with my one vote. It may not be much, but I will declare myself. Even if its a small vid on youtube.

[AgingAmerican]

198. Well, as a film maker

You do have some power that I do not have. So I understand your position.

[Katashi_itto]

199. Thanks, but if you ever want to get heard, let me know I would be happy to craft a PSA that declares

your "Platform" so to speak

[treestar]

172. A thousand tiny steps

is what it takes, which history shows. Republicans are fighting the rear guard. Why make it easier for them?

[sabrina 1]

64. Don't you get it? People have moved way beyond the 'lesser evil' manipulation. We have 'moved

forward' as we were advised to do regarding War Criminals. Put it this way, if we can do that, we can move forward from anything, can't we? If Dems want to win, they have three years to produce a non-corporate, non-war supporting candidate. It's up to them, not us.

[hrmjustin]

65. ok.

[Marr]

92. Same here.

[Demo_Chris]

12. no. nt

[snot]

14. No.

[CFLDem]

19. Absolutely

Hillary would also put Bill back in the White House.

[Ken Burch]

23. That's part of the concern.

That would mean dragging the party all the way back to the Nineties, and doing so essentially forever.

Why on Earth should we make such a masochistic and self-defeating choice?

[CFLDem]

33. Well I guess we have to agree to disagree.

Bill Clinton was the best president we've had in generations and it would be a pleasure to have his expertise back in the White House.

[rhett o rick]

39. You may be right but I think the argument is that we must have someone more progressive

or the middle class will be dead by 2024. Sadly we've sunk to the level that Bill Clinton looks good to some. What low standards. Really the argument for Ms. Clinton is that she wont let the middle class die as fast as Christie would. But we will be dead none the less. The death of Glass-Steagall and the birth of NAFTA did a lot of damage. I assume Ms. Clinton supports the final death blow of the TPP. And she has already accepted $400,000 from Goldman-Sachs that she can pocket.

[Enthusiast]

123. Bill Clinton agrees with Paul Ryan on Medicare.

Clinton told us how wonderful NAFTA would be. He signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley and the Telecommunications Act.

Bill Clinton was a very poor president for the working people of this nation.

I will never support Hillary.

[whathehell]

133. Are you kidding?

"Best president we've had in "generations"?

Um, no, and I'd have to assume by your statement that you are quite young

I'm 64 and a life long democrat and I can tell you that Bill Clinton was decidedly NOT the "best in generations".

Carter was better, even LBJ, but for Vietnam, was better, and you don't even want to mention

Clinton's name in the same BREATH as Franklin Roosevelt.

[CFLDem]

143. I owe a wonderful childhood to Bill Clinton's leadership of this country.

His economic boom made the 90's one of the best decades ever. Definitely better that the post 9/11 garbage decade.

[whathehell]

247. LOL..

So glad to hear that.

Your family must have been in the top 20% of earners in this country

because they are the ONLY people his policies helped.

[CFLDem]

252. Actually

my family was around the 50th percentile and we still enjoyed prosperity thanks to his administration.

[whathehell]

256. Actually..

I was a working ADULT during his administration and MY earnings stagnated. His Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, wanted him to make wage stagnation a campaign issue during his second term campaign but he refused

Robert Reich, a progressive, left the administration shortly into Clinton's second term and he was heard to wonder, publicly, why Mr. Clinton "doesn't fight for his principles".

[CFLDem]

262. That's unfortunate.

But the average earnings for others rose fairly consistently during his administration.

One data point a trend it makes not.

[whathehell]

282. Yes, especially since

it affected MILLIONS...

A small matter of "one data point" was unlikely to get his own Secretary of Labor (with whom he'd been friends since high school) disgusted enough to leave his administration.

Sorry, but your familiarity with United States Presidential history and that of the Democratic Party

is limited, to put it mildly, if you think Bill Clinton compares very favorably to his democratic predecessors.

[sir pball]

147. Not the best in YOUR generation, maybe.

I'll be 35 this year and he's damned sure the best in MY generation. No, they might not be the ideal crew to have (back) in the WH, but I'd cheerfully aid and abet them in the general election, as would virtually all of my peers. We love Slick Willy!

I'll get off your lawn now.

[whathehell]

245. LOL..

You'd be right on that, and the fact that he rates so highly in yours tells me how

sad YOUR generation must be.

I'd suggest you stay "on the lawn", honey -- You could clearly use a lesson on REAL democrats.

[Ken Burch]

280. Even though he STILL sees the Left as the enemy?

Even though he STILL thinks that corporations and their wishes should matter more than human need?

Even though he STILL thinks that big donors should have a say in the party and activists, labor and the poor shouldn't?

Why make the chief advisor to a Democratic president a guy who STILL thinks that the Democratic Party should run on the politics of shame, repentance, and self-denial?

Based on his actions as president, Bill Clinton has forgotten what being raised poor was like. Clearly, the pain of those raised like him(and raised with even less)mean nothing to him, and the privileges of those above him are all that matters. The classic definition of a class traitor.

We will have to agree to disagree.

[arcane1]

20. Absolutely not n/t

[aikoaiko]

26. Of course. The alternative could be worse.

[Phlem]

27. Good question. Seems all we have to choose from right now though

is either Republican light, maybe, or Republican.

What a crappy choice that is.

-p

[Common Sense Party]

148. It's funny how the Tea Party dolts believe President Obama is a socialist/commie

yet DU considers him a Republican.

It's possible the truth is somewhere in between.

[elleng]

28. Good luck fighting the Dem party establishment.

I supported Wes Clark, and 'professional' Dems, as well as a lot of others, laughed or shrugged. I'm not up for another fight like that, and sorry that I'm not.

Also supported Wayne Powell against eric cancer, with NO help from Dem party.

[Chan790]

35. Sadly, I know what you mean.

The DLC has no interest spending money in tough races to target the worst of the GOP.

Now, I wouldn't throw bad money after worse money but there should always be a


(That's $100,000 or so)

to target the most-egregious of the GOP, not because you think you can win but because you can't win if you don't play and even playing damages them a little, weakening them for future races.

[Nay]

145. As I've said before, I met and talked to Wayne Powell -- he was a great Dem

candidate who got no money or support from the Dem establishment, even though he was polling high against Cantor. It was disgusting. How, after so many of these slaps in the face, do we think the Dem establishment is serious about anything except playing footsie with their buds, the Republicans, and laughing at the proles who still rush out to vote for the lesser of two evils?

I mean, really, I can hear them all laughing from here.

[Whisp]

154. very sorry to hear that.

it's Wassman Shultz thats in charge of that sort of thing now, correct? the party money spreader person?

She is a high ranking soldier in the Clinton mafia. Word must have got out to her.

[Nay]

156. I don't know to whom he had to apply, but he didn't get a dime. He used

about $400,000 of his own money. Cantor got $10 MILLION. Even though Cantor outspent him 20 to 1, Powell still got 40% of the vote. There are a lot of people in Cantor's district (even though it's gerrymandered to death) who can't stand him and would like *SOME HELP* to get rid of him, but the Dem party doesn't seem interested. It's such a huge red flag; what else can you conclude except that the Dems with the dough just don't give a damn?

Somebody else in addition to us poor bastards on the street need to get involved in grooming and electing Democrats. They had a real shot at getting rid of Cantor and passed it up.

[Whisp]

163. Cantor - in the top ten on my Evil list...

could possibly have been beatin... That is infuriating.

[Nay]

167. It is infuriating. It opened my eyes to the whole sham our elections are. nt

[Chan790]

29. No.

Better dead than blue dog.

[woo me with science]

36. Not just no, but hell no.

Not falling for the lies again.

[rhett o rick]

74. I am with woo. nm

[rhett o rick]

41. Some here are not willing to fight for their freedoms and liberties. They support the status quo

with the rationale that things could be worse and fighting for your principles is too hard. That thinking gave us Dim-Son in 2000.

[GoneFishin]

44. +1000. Also, Dim-Son. LOL.

[Common Sense Party]

149. Which freedoms and liberties, specifically? nt

[rhett o rick]

214. Good grief. You really want a list? YOu ask the question as if you cant think of

any lost freedoms or liberties. If that's the case, I doubt that me telling you will make a dent, but here goes. Habeas Corpus is a good place to start. Are you ok with the nullification of habeas corpus?

[Common Sense Party]

228. I wasn't aware of any Democrat who has moved to nullify habeus corpus

for American citizens.

[rhett o rick]

234. Non-awareness is no excuse. My statement was that some here arent willing to fight for

their freedoms and liberties. I didnt blame Democrats now did I? That's a distraction from the argument. Why arent people willing to fight to reestablish habeus corpus or any of the other rights we have lost in the last 13 years? And ignorance isnt an excuse. My answer is the same as why dont these same people like whistle-blowers or pesky investigative journalists, or protestors, etc.

[Common Sense Party]

236. The whole thread has to do with so-called "third-way" Democrats.

As you were responding to the OP, I assumed you were discussing them as well.

[rhett o rick]

240. I said that there are some that are unwilling to fight for their freedoms and liberties. They are

comfortable with the status quo where the middle class dies a little more each day. From there you acted like you werent aware of any losses of liberties or freedoms. When I mentioned one such freedom lost, you immediately went into the "Defend Democrats at all costs" mode. Since you are hard to pin down, I am going to guess that you are ok with the status quo and unwilling to fight for your freedoms and liberties.

[Common Sense Party]

241. Yep, that's me.

I was just wondering which freedoms and liberties you think we are losing under our current President.

[rhett o rick]

243. I see, this is about Obama. The hell with the freedoms and liberties, but how can we defend Obama.

Either you are ok with the fact that we have lost freedoms and liberties or you are willing to fight for them whether the president is a D or an R.

[woo me with science]

302. What a revolting, dishonest post you just made.

Chilling Legal Memo From Obama DOJ Justifies Assassination of US Citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101654954

Obama seeks longer PATRIOT Act extension than Republicans (December 2013)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x380450

When it comes to civil liberties, apparently Democrats are just as bad as Republicans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022101960

NSA's Massive New Spy Center to Track Your Emails, Internet Activity, and Phone Calls
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101620852

Obama Quietly Signs Abusive Spy Bill He Once Vowed to Eliminate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022104861

Obama repeals Magna Carta, asserting powers our forefathers denied to Kings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101655620

Obama's Memo on Killing Americans Twists 'Imminent Threat' Like Bush
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101654919

Obama no better than Bush when it comes to security vs. civil liberties.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022355307

Obama Admin Seeks Permission TO LIE In Response To FOI Requests - Even To The COURTS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2185303

NDAA on trial: Obama Administration fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101748688

Obama administration complicit with private prison industry: President Obama's IncarcerNation
http://www.nationofchange.org/president-obama-s-incarcernation-1335274655

Obama, Democrats Push to Make Bush Spying Laws Permanent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022084702

NDAA, signed by Obama, is a direct attack against legitimate protest and dissent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022064803

NSA Whistleblower: All Americans under constant surveillance, all info. stored, no matter the post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002193487; http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021935289

Bipartisan Congress Disgracefully Approves the FISA Warrantless Spying Bill for Five More Years
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022087323

While Public & Media Focused on 2nd Amendment, 5th Amendment Quietly Dismantled
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022390581

How the Obama administration justifies extrajudicial killing of Americans,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022318187

Judge Says Under Law Executive Branch Can Commit Acts That Sure Do Seem Unconstitutional
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022122464

Obama Justice Dept. says wiretap lawsuit should not proceed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014337039

NDAA Lawsuit- Hedges v. Obama, The Last Thin Line of Defense
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022357078

Noam Chomsky: Obama's Attack on Civil Liberties Has Gone Way Beyond Imagination
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022762465

Chris Hedges: The last gasp of American democracy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024286521

Federal authorities step up efforts to license surveillance drones for law enforcement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022383596

Big Banks and FBI worked together vs Occupy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022095056]

FBI Investigated 'Occupy' As Possible 'Domestic Terrorism' Threat, Internal Documents Show
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022061578

“Occupy” Files Expose FBI Working with Police and Federal Reserve
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14129-%E2%80%9Coccupy%E2%80%9D-files-expose-fbi-working-with-police-and-federal-reserve

FBI Documents Reveal Secret Nationwide Occupy Monitoring (Updated the OP)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022057064

As Judge Rules NSA Surveillance "Almost Orwellian," Obama Prepares to Leave Spying Program Intact
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017165277

Public Buses Across Country Quietly Adding Microphones to Record Passenger Conversations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021965291

Street artist behind satirical NYPD 'Drone' posters arrested
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021920967

The Obama DOJ urged the Supreme Court's endorsement of strip searches.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002521527

Obama Administration Fights to Allow Warrantless GPS Tracking
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1074474

Anonymous to FBI: hey, dudes, maybe you could take a break from...investigating activists....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022145621

Half a billion dollars for drones to spy on Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021876414

From Bradley Manning to Aaron Swartz -- The Government's Inhumane Persecution of Brave Truth Tellers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022276941

The sight of Army helicopters and the sound of gunfire...on Houston's south side
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022276742

Kiriakou and Stuxnet: the danger of the still-escalating Obama whistleblower war
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022275570

Can the DEA Hide a Surveillance Camera on Your Property?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022237059

Social Media and the Stasi
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021888029

Homeland Security Wants to More Than Double Its Predator Drone Fleet Inside the US, Despite Safety/Privacy Invasions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014312823

CIA Behind Bizarre Censorship Incident At Alleged 9/11 Plotters’ Gitmo Trial
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022280285

“I Am Wearing My Conviction As A Badge Of Honor.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022275128

Meet the Contractors Turning America's Police Into a Paramilitary Force
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12525281

How Secrecy Corrodes Democracy
http://election.democraticunderground.com/101655009

Obama Quietly Issues Ruling Saying It's Legal For The FBI To Break The Law
http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7545687

US Pulls Plug on Iran Cable News (Press TV)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014394770

Obama on Surveillance, Then and Now - NYT
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023493203

The Obama surveillance revelations are pushing liberals over the edge.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022999211

DHS Watchdog OKs 'Suspicionless' Seizure of Electronic Devices Along Border
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022339091

Obama Administration Supports Telco Spy Immunity
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3758004

Obama: A disaster for civil liberties
latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-turley-civil-liberties-20110929,0,7542436.story

"...only people Obama has prosecuted are the whistle-blowers" - Jane Mayer | New Yorker
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1137925

Candidate Obama Debating President Obama On Civil Liberties
www.techdirt.com/ articles/ 20130621/ 11024123555/ candidate-obama-debating-president-obama-civil-liberties-vs-governmen t-surveillance.shtml

ACLU criticizes killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, calling it a ‘dangerous’ precedent"
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/aclu-criticizes-killing-of-anwar-al-awlaki-a-u-s-citizen-calling-it-a-dangerous-precedent/11813/

In assassinating Anwar al-Awlaki, Obama left the Constitution behind
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002432409

Salon: Obama's war on journalism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023116088
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/28/obamas_war_on_journalism/

Obama's abuse of the Espionage Act is modern-day McCarthyism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023413935

Obama’s Escalating War on Freedom of the Press
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023312251

Why Is President Obama Keeping a Journalist in Prison in Yemen?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023300531

[brooklynite]

43. I will continue to work for Democrats who can GET ELECTED...

...and if that means a moderate Democrat in Louisiana or North Carolina or Alaska, that's good enough for me.

You're welcome to beat up on me, but since I actually work to get Democrats elected while most of the "anti-DLC" don't seem to do more than make blog posts about their outrage, I can live with it.

[rhett o rick]

58. A couple of things. Your "that's good enough for me" is what is killing the middle class.

Every year we sink lower and lower and yet that's good enough for you. I guess you cant see what's going on around you. The "that's good enough" meme is what gave us Bushie in 2000. Eight more years of Clinton/Gore wasnt "good enough" for enough people that Bushie won.

And by the way, when I am at a rally or protest I dont see any centrists there, they are all the wacko liberals that you so like to bash.

Looks to me like when Republicans start calling themselves "moderate" Democrats, some among us feel "that's good enough for them". If Democrats have Republican principles they are DINO's. But I guess that's good enough for you.

[sabrina 1]

94. You seem to spend a lot of time here. By your logic, how do you have time to 'work to get

Democrats elected when you are making blog posts about your outrage at the outraged?

See how that works?

I will continue to work for Democrats who WOULD win if we don't fall for the propaganda that we have to support those 'who can win'. We know what that means now, it means the ones who will be getting the most Corporate money. So rather than waste our money on them as we've been doing in the past, we will give it to those who CAN win if we give THEM our votes and money and support and time and energy this time.

See your 'moderate' dems would never have won without us, the left. And if we had not listened to the admonitions about 'winning' at any cost, fear of Bush was a big factor, we would have put all that energy into candidates who would work for us.

So starting in the next election we are going to stop repeating the same mistake hoping for a different result. It will take time but it took time to figure this out first.

Of course the Dem Leadership could listen the voters they are losing for once and produce some good, non-Corporate candidates who actually want to work for the people who elect them, not just their big donors for a change.

[brooklynite]

286. Funny you should ask...

Last night I had a private meeting with a Blue State Governor that no progressive would have an objection to. Friday I have a private breakfast with a US Senator that no progressive would have an objection to. Yes, I blog; but I also walk away from my computer and do politics in the real world. The two candidates will get support because 1) they believe in progressive principles, but 2) they're electable. If they were from Georgia or Louisiana or Texas, I'd be supporting them only if they could show they could win, not to "send a message" or feel self-righteous.

[sabrina 1]

296. I never doubted that people walk away from their computers, that was YOUR accusation against

other DUers. I merely demonstrated to you what a ridiculous assertion that was. You claimed to KNOW what others who have a different opinion than yours, do when with the other 23 hours a day of their time.

I have met many Democratic Senators, Congressmen etc and VP and POTUS candidates through my job. They will get support IF the people decide they are qualified.

There are hundreds of electable Democrats and it will be up to the people, not Wall St and their political operatives, yes, I"ve met lots of them also, who decide this time around. And if the leadership of the Party hasn't grasped how disenchanted the public is AFTER giving them everything, the House the WH and the Senate, and adapt the attitude you have adapted towards people's REAL concerns NOT Wall St's, they will hand this country over to the right wing and millions of people will not be listening to any of their excuses if that happens, or listen to them pointing fingers elsewhere as they tried to do when they blew the election of 2010.

I eg, intend to check the Corporate Donations and voting records of all Candidates this time. I will eliminate for consideration any candidate who is heavily financed by Corporate money, they don't work for the people as we have seen and is evident by their voting records. And I am far from alone.

Anyone can win an election with enough effort, will, time and money. Anyone who doesn't believe that has no business interfering in the electoral process and only has to look at who DOES win.

The electoral process is NOT just for a few wealthy, corporatists who think they know more than the 'little people'. They clearly don't as the state of the country proves. It is for this country, to get the best possible people to take the reins away from those whose interests are far from the interests of the majority of the people.

[Egalitarian Thug]

109. I think most of us already know what you'll work for. n/t

[wyldwolf]

45. EVERY nominee becomes DLC/THIRD WAY/BLUE DOG the moment they say something "unprogressive"

And even though a more progressive nominee is much more of a possibility now than it was 20 years ago, once elected the nominee has to govern.

[rhett o rick]

75. Certainly when they get chummy with Goldman-Sachs and the Carlyle Group. nm

[wyldwolf]

105. and most definitely when a pic surfaces of them within the same 20 mile radius as a Bush

[rhett o rick]

215. And most definitely when they pardon the Bush Gang and let Gov Siegelman rot in prison. nm

[wyldwolf]

303. Who pardoned the Bush gang?

[uponit7771]

111. ****THIS SHOULD BE AN OP*****

[sabrina 1]

179. You're talking about Democrats, right? 'Once elected they have to govern' which means

cave and compromise.

Why do Republicans not have to change in order to govern? Why do Dems not expect THEM to compromise and cave? I want REPUBLICANS to have to 'change in order to govern after they are elected'.

I've noticed this now for a long time. People in OUR party telling US 'dems have to change in order to govern'. From now on it's going to be 'Republicans have to compromise, they have to understand that this is what politics is all about, compromise'. REPUBLICANS and they need to hear it over and over again.

[wyldwolf]

180. perhaps in YOUR world 'govern' means 'cave and compromise.'

[sabrina 1]

197. I'm a Democrat so in my world winning means YOU get to set the agenda and compromise doesn't

mean compromising on major issues that affect millions of people, it means LEADING and FIGHTING for what is right.

And then you give the other side a few crumbs to let them save face with their supporters.

The problem is, this has been the way Republicans have been working, forcing THEIR issues and throwing some crumbs to Democrats in return.

It's not only past time to reverse this failing strategy, it way, way past time.

[wyldwolf]

223. when a president wins, she sets the agenda. But there's this inconvenient thing called Congress

See how that works? Separation of powers and all.

And, of course, no party has yet found the magic formula to guarantee victory.

[sabrina 1]

230. And when one party wins control of all three branches of government

they have the power to set the agenda AND drive it home.

We have the Senate and the WH, yet we are constantly told it means nothing because Republicans won't let us, or something. What will we hear if THEY ever get the WH and Senate?? Watch what THEY do with that kind of power. Sickening really.

We heard it after the 2008 election, 'we have to compromise'. No, THEY have to compromise when they are in the compromising position of having lost.

It's odd, and I've watched discussions on Republican forums, but I've never this 'we have to compromise' or 'we have to reach across the aisle' nonsense from them. Even in the minority they get their way.

This whole indoctrination program that has been foisted on Democrats wrt to not expecting anything even when we win, HAS TO STOP. No one gets ANYTHING unless they are willing to fight for it. No one!

Now we the people did OUR job when we threw out Republicans. Only to find out that we were 'moving forward' from some of the major issues that motivated us. And we saw Republicans being nominated for powerful government positions AFTER the people tossed them out. GATES! Remember him? And we warned about trusting people like Gates and were lectured on 'bi-partisanship' etc.

The time is over now when these 'lectures' on 'how it's normally done' will have the slightest impact on those who have watched it all for the past decade. It failed, time to try doing things the common sense way at this point. We haven't tried THAT for a while.

[wyldwolf]

232. now that the civics lesson is over, tell me how that happens in the current political climate?

There are gerrymandered districts that won't change parties for another generation.

The problem with political fundamentalists are they're too busy ripping red meat to shreds to see reality.

[sabrina 1]

298. The 'current political climate' is no different and in some ways even BETTER than it has always been

It's politics, anyone who doesn't have the stomach for it shouldn't be in it. It's nasty, it requires fighters, they are who win in politics.

How is it done? With guts and determination an zero willingness to negotiate with lunatics or to go all bi-partisan with morons.

Fight. I know it's a nasty word to some, but that's what works. I'd love to see it happening on our side just once in a while.

[wyldwolf]

300. What planet are you living on?

FACT: Democrats have little chance to re-take Congress anytime soon. If you feel otherwise, that there is some progressive minority that is been hiding out and staying away from the polls, prove it.

[woo me with science]

330. This utter nonsense again? Pretending it's all obstructionism?

This long, long list of major betrayals by this administration does not show the President trying to enact progressive policies but being thwarted by Republican obstructionism. It shows a President working AGGRESSIVELY and PROACTIVELY, over and over again, to install corporatists into his administration and implement their predatory agenda:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3202395

[wyldwolf]

332. Reality isn't nonsense

Here's a few facts:

1. There is no invisible progressive majority in the electorate that will be activated as soon as progressives are nominated.
2. Speaking of "nominated," a 'progressive' actually has to WIN primaries.
3. If this magical 'progressive' wins, the gerrymandered districts aren't going to magically melt away.

Simply put, even if a 'progressive' wins the presidency, he/she has to GOVERN, he/she can't pass legislation by fiat.

[woo me with science]

333. From one desperate Third Way talking point to the next.

When you can't argue that the problem is Republican obstructionism, go right to the next desperate canard: Only Third Way candidates are ELECTABLE.

Please. This utter idiocy AGAIN about traditional Democrats' being too "left" or "fringe" for the electorate? The corporate talking points brigade SERIOUSLY needs new writers.

As you already know but persist in ignoring, polls consistently and repeatedly show that that the electorate is far more on the page of traditional Democrats than the corporate candidates we are offered, over and over again. Across party lines, voters favor protecting SS and Medicare, they despise austerity, they want to curb the surveillance state, they want to invest in schools and infrastructure, and they want to cut military spending.

And the proof of the lie is that candidates pivot LEFTWARD every single election season to win voters. They lie and say that they will support a public option, or protect Social Security, or rein in the NSA, because they know that is what voters want to hear. But as soon as the election is over, it's back to the business of the one percent.

The Tea Party is bankrolled by big business. So is the Third Way. The Third Way was never a grass roots phenomenon. It is a deliberate infiltration of the Democratic Party, bankrolled by corporate interests.

We have a systemic problem of corporate money driving policy in both parties now. That is what happens when corporations buy elections. And ABSURD posts like the one you just made are what happens when corporations buy the media.

[wyldwolf]

334. one progressive magic fairy dust talking point to another.

Let me guess. Mr or Mrs. Progressive sprinkles magic fairy dust on the nation and even the most conservative house members and Senators will fall under his/her spell.

[rhett o rick]

219. Seem you are trying to rationalize why Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and killed Glass-Steigall or

are you trying to rationalize why Pres Obama has nominated mostly conservatives? You are intimating that they had no choice, that they did it to "govern."

I bet when Pres Obama pardons the Bush Gang you will have a rationalization for that. Seems for you, rationalization is the key to happiness.

The status quo is literally killing Americans. A vote for H. Clinton-Sachs is a vote for the status quo.

[wyldwolf]

224. Never even crossed my mind, but as long as you're reaching into your faux psychic grab bag...

... tell us the winning lottery numbers so we can all benefit from your profound foresight.

[rhett o rick]

235. Ah yes, when you have nothing you always can resort to ridicule. nm

[wyldwolf]

237. which is better than fake fortune telling.

[rhett o rick]

238. We're done. nm

[wyldwolf]

239. we never started.

[bobduca]

288. wrong, one poster started (discussing and being civil) and you never even tried.

[wyldwolf]

293. I have no use for anyone who puts words in my mouth or who states his guesses as fact

No use whatsoever.

So alert whatever post ruffled yours or his feathers.

[bobduca]

294. no violations, nothing to alert

being civil is being civil.

[wyldwolf]

301. Just because you didn't like what I had to say doesn't mean it wan't civil.

[Adrahil]

307. Exactly. We live in the real world.

And keep in mind that any candidate we nominate still has to get elected. Some of you folks remind me of the extremists Freepers or the nutters over at ar15.com. Political "purity" of a candidate might seem like a great idea, but you still have to win elections. And yes, a centrist Democrat is better than pretty much ANY Republican.

[bobduca]

316. Hey look everyone, a centrist attacking liberals at DU!

Purity test this...

[justiceischeap]

46. The problem is the whole political spectrum has shifted right

Until some folks die off (by this I mean natural causes and voters) I doubt things will get more progressive. So what are our options? Not participating and allowing severely conservatives have both the House and the Oval Office or supporting Blue Dogs? I rather support Blue Dogs than someone who could use their religious beliefs to have me locked away--or worse yet, want the government to live in my womb.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. Yes ...

Could there EVER be good reason to choose a DLC/THIRD WAY/BLUE DOG presidential nominee again?

If that is the Democratic Candidate that comes out of the Democratic primary.

[Jakes Progress]

48. If those who select our presidents

decide that is what they want. The media will fall in line, and things will go as planned.

(Yeah. I'm a little bummed. We thought this one would be different. But, we were had. As you said, we could have elected any Democrat. I've got a t-shirt: My delegates went to the convention, and all they brought me was this lousy candidate.)

[Recursion]

52. Sure, if that's who it takes to win.

Nice to see Bill Clinton's terms being trashed, though.

[Fumesucker]

277. Even FDR gets "trashed" on the DU if someone thinks it will make Obama look one scintilla better

[Adrahil]

308. +1 nt

[PowerToThePeople]

54. I may end up voting socialist

I have never voted third party before. I think I need to start voting my values. Voting for a Republican with a "D" behind their name is not going to happen for me again.

[Ed Suspicious]

55. Contractarian Clinton policy bolstered the Work not Welfare crowd. I think it gave repukes

validation that people on welfare are just too lazy to find work unless they're forced to do it.

[Agnosticsherbet]

57. If they get more votes than a progressive liberal in the primary is the only good reason I can think

of.

[PFunk]

59. Um, No.

Last edited Wed Jan 8, 2014, 03:10 AM - Edit history (1)

This country has moved too far right to do otherwise. An I no longer buy the "worst of two-evils" meam as both 3rd-wayers and Repugs aren't good for this country's future. Only the repugs will do it much faster (hopefully) promping a blowback from the people to fight back against it. Unlike now where Obama has gotten away with a lot of things with dems that they would have raised hell if Bush/repugs would had tried.

This means I'll end up voting 3rd party if Hillary does get the nod as I see her as firm 3rd-wayer unless it looks like we had a strong progressive majority in both houses to keep her true to FDR progressive democratic principles. Which means it's time to get to work to make sure that happens.

[PFunk]

95. (sigh) typo ... which I've already corrected

oops.

[Rex]

63. Only if you are a pro corporate person.

We need a POTUS that separates Wall Street from Main Street and doesn't let either take advantage of the other. We don't need a socialist nor do we need a 'yes man' in a business suit. We need someone in between that will always show empathy toward citizens and stay adversarial to corporations that practice social engineering with a billion dollar propaganda machine.

[OmahaBlueDog]

66. Yes..you could vote for me.

Shouldn't we fight, from now on, on our core values and from below, for the people rather than above and for the ceo's?

The old saying goes "I'm not a member of an organized political party...I'm a Democrat." The party does not have sharply defined core values. Oh, we say we do, but the reality is that it's hard to find 10 Democrats who agree on what our top priorities should be.

If a Republican runs for office, I know these things with 90% certainty, in no particular order: a) s/he is for lower taxes (especially for the wealthy), b) s/he is anti-abortion, c) s/he is for less environmental and occupational regulation, d) s/he is against any form of gun control, and e) s/he is looking for any excuse to shrink government outside of the defense sector.

While there are core values (helping the poor, support of unions, environmental protection) to which Democrats tend to gravitate, there is not the same degree of clarity on what the party's core values are. In 2006 & 2008, we had two clear values: end the wars, and relieve the suffering caused by the great recession.

I would respectfully assert two things:

1) Half a loaf is better than no bread You may not have liked Ben Nelson, but he would have been an improvement over Deb Fischer. You may dislike Joe Manchin, but Joe Manchin's imperfect presence as a Democrat helps to keep Harry Reid as President Pro-Tem, and helps to ensure that Senators like Franken, Warren, & Sanders (among others) continue to get good committee assignments and rise toward leadership. I'd rather have Democrats that progressives consider to be imperfect than Republicans of any stripe.

2) It's not the President...at least it's not just the President OK, so you put Ken Burch into the White House. Ken's a helluva guy -- he'll get things done, right? If the election of Barack Obama has shown anything, it's that who's in the White House means little unless there is a supportive congress. Ditto Bill Clinton. So if Ken's elected, he probably gets 2016-2018 with his coattail Congress, and that's it -- after the blowback election in 2018, he's hamstrung by a conservative Congress. Does this create a good reason to choose a DLC/THIRD WAY/BLUE DOG presidential nominee? No. However, I do believe that if Hillary Clinton, for example, could keep a Democratic congress for even 6 of her 8 years in office, a great deal of progressive to-do items (especially in areas such as clean energy, environmental protection, and education) could (and probably would) get done.

JMHO, YMMV

[lonestarnot]

68. The answer to that is hell fucking no!

[Renew Deal]

78. Why did you vote for one in 92, 96, 2000, '04, '08, and '12?

[Beacool]

79. I guess that the masturbatory posts of the Left will continue for the next two years.

If some of you put the same effort on the midterm elections as you put on your almost daily Hillary bashing OPs, we could win almost every election in November.

[sabrina 1]

81. You are not part of this 'left' you speak of with so much disdain? 'masturbatory'? I have heard

that exact phrase before in reference to the Left, but never from someone who is on the Left. If you are not part of the Left then what is your affiliation? Forgive my curiosity, but I have always assumed when posting on DU that I am on a Left Wing Forum.

[Beacool]

83. The rending of the vestments of some people here has become tiresome.

No one knows who the hell will run in 2016, but these endless Hillary bashing posts serve no purpose but to piss off many people who might just end up saying "fuck it" and sit on their hands in 2016.

Instead of the constant negativity, why no work for the candidates of your choice and leave in peace the rest of us who do want Hillary to run. At least we are putting our time and money where our mouths are. Are you people doing the same?

[sabrina 1]

88. I can't think of a better time to let the Party know what the voters want. Are you suggesting that

only Politicians should be planning for the future while the voters should wait until they are told who their choices are? We certainly have had experience with that tactic in the past and no thanks, let them know now what we will accept and will not accept.

And if you are upset over the negative reaction to Hillary, then blame whoever began her campaign four years in advance and telling us, here on DU that we had no other choices. We told them it was too early to declare her the winner but they apparently were on a mission and they are receiving the honest reaction to their attempts to push someone on the voters they did not choose three years in advance of the election.

Your anger is misdirected. And please do not presume to know what other DUers are doing regarding their choices of candidates. I do not know a single DUer who has not been actively involved in elections since I first came here over eight years ago. WE ARE putting our time and money where our mouths are and if you want 'piece'/'peace' then politics is not where to find it. You presume that only you have the right to be 'left alone'? It hasn't occurred to you that WE are sick and tired of having Hillary pushed down our throats every single day.

Focus on 2014 instead of trying to foist someone on the voters before we even get to the mid terms. We want ONLY progressive candidates with a record, which doesn't include voting for every war that comes along, from now on.

You don't seem comfortable with the 'left' but haven't responded to my question wrt what, since it isn't the left, your affiliation is. I want a Left Wing Candidate on major issues which is why I am a Democrat.

[Beacool]

90. Who here has declared Hillary the winner?

The media maybe, but I for one, have repeatedly said that I have no idea whether she will run.

I'm not the one trying to foist her or anyone else on any poster here. I frankly don't give a flying fig who anyone here votes for, but the almost daily bashing posts are a bore. They are also so repetitive that I could almost repeat them verbatim.

How about extolling the Lefts' candidates of choice, instead of the constant negative posts?

It's not a question of "comfort". If anything, I'm more annoyed than uncomfortable by the Left's assumption that they are the only true Democrats.

[sabrina 1]

96. Well if you don't like the left stating facts in response to the pushing of a candidate on them

this is probably not a good place for you. Democrats have had enough of Corporate candidates, Corporations HAVE a party of their own, they don't two parties and we are not about to let them take over any more of this one if we can help it. Corporatists belong in the Republican party. I have no idea why any of them are trying to turn our party into another Corporate Party and since they are, they should expect huge resistance and stop whining about it.

How would you describe someone who despises the Left? We on the Left are sick of the attacks from the Right and have no intention of sitting down and taking it, or worrying about how upset they are. We are not the ones pretending to be something we are not, are we?

[Whisp]

164. Thanks for the confession! You are not Left and neither is Hillary.

I knew that, but it's good to see it in writing.

[Beacool]

184. How's the weather in Canada?

As cold as it has been here?

[Whisp]

185. It is horrible, Bea. We've had -40, That is the same in Farenheit and the in Celsius and

at that number the two measurements meet as the same. With wind chill some nights up to -57.

The worst I recall in all my winters here (which are all of them).

I hope yours is better, Bea. I forget where you are from.

[Beacool]

186. I'm in NJ across the river looking into Manhattan.

This area had 4 degrees yesterday morning and a windchill factor of -14. Which is nothing compared to yours, but it beat a record set in 1896 by 2 degrees.

This morning it was 9, right now it's a balmy 19 degrees. By Saturday it'll be in the 50s.

Crazy weather.......



BTW, what part of Canada are you in?

[Whisp]

216. I'm in the Canadian prairies, the middle.

what the heck! that's swimsuit weather for us right now. lol.

[Beacool]

229. That sounds like a coooooold area.

[joshcryer]

82. Wait, now we're going to revise and say the purists "chose" DLC Obama?

It seems that all these years they've claimed they were misled.

[pnwmom]

103. If it's the only way to get a Democrat elected, yes.

Any Democrat is a substantial improvement over any Rethug these days. There is virtually no overlap between the parties these days, unlike in the past.

[Douglas Carpenter]

104. A good reason? I suppose the fact that the Third Wayers are much more likely to get a lot more

favorable press attention and find fundraising a lot easier AND have the backing of most of the Democratic Party leadership. - But when the choice is between two parties of financial power - One considerably more socially liberal and willing to accept at least some language of economic populism and - The other dominated by crackpots and extremist who are basically the John Birch Society wing of the Republican Party - For the sake of democracy - that is not much of the choice. Even if one is certainly less insane than the other and will be more at least somewhat more restrained in dismantling the social progress of the last one hundred years - neither are addressing the fundamental problems of the country and both represent the same vested interest.

[FatBuddy]

113. so what you are saying

is that there is essentially only one party in this country, with a sensible center right wing and an batshit extreme right wing?

not much of a choice there.

nixon and eisenhower were more liberal than our current democratic president.

[Douglas Carpenter]

117. there is a center-right but not completely insane party that at least has some glue to reality and

there is a right-wing extremist batshit CRAZY party. I suppose when push come to shove not insane is still significantly better than insane -- Certainly on economics both Nixon and Eisenhower were Keynesian as were every President from FDR until Gerald Ford. Every American President since Jimmy Carter have been to varying degrees monetarist - becoming more extreme since Reagan; The most right-wing reactionary administrations in modern America on economic issues are a close toss up between Reagan and Clinton. Albeit the Clinton Administration was more reality based and could at least do arithmetic.

[RedstDem]

116. I prefer republicans over blue dogs

just because they attack head on, and leave no doubt they want your SS or to kill off your union or whatever.
third way are back door types, the kind that sneek up behind you with the knife.

I'll take a repub any day of the week.

[WinkyDink]

127. ARE YOU NUTS?

[RedstDem]

139. yes, i am nuts

not sure what that has to with anything about what i said though...
its just my preference to be punched in the face instead of stabbed in the back...

[WinkyDink]

170. Tweedle-dum and Tweetle-dummer, eh? Right.

[Lil Missy]

118. Yes - If we want to win. n/t

[99Forever]

119. Not just no, but FUCK NO.

No. Votes. For. Turd. Way. DINOs. Ever. Again.

[WinkyDink]

125. Clinton: Balanced budget. No wars to speak of. (Yes, NAFTA was/is awful.)

[Whisp]

339. 'no wars to speak of'....

omg that is one way to put it, isn't it. if you can't face the truth, i.e.



no wars to speak of....

[alcibiades_mystery]

126. I would say that a battle between the Clintonites and the So-Called Progressives is bad news

But I'm enjoying the come up a bit too much right now. The fraying alliance - quelle dommage!

A million s

[ProSense]

137. LOL!

[Bobbie Jo]

160. Why do you hate the left?1!

This "why do you hate America" device is among the most empty-headed maneuvers I've seen here.

[joshcryer]

203. it will be glorious

[alcibiades_mystery]

204. Hell, I might even take the 20 some odd So-Called Progressives I have on ignore off the list

Just to watch the carnage.

[joshcryer]

208. I would highly recommend it

Already seeing some pledge oaths to never vote for Clinton

[Ken Burch]

249. What do you mean "So-Called Progressive"? There are a lot more progressives than there centrists

There are many more opponents of corporate trade deals than supporters.

There are many more opponents of military intervention in the Middle East(and the idea of bombing Iran)than supporters.

There are many more supporters of single-payer healthcare and strong unions than there are of "pro-business" policies.

[whathehell]

129. In a word, No.

It is IMPERATIVE that we fight for our true values!

[JoePhilly]

131. When you don't have a better candidate.

The perpetually disgruntled can't seem to field acceptable candidates.

[el_bryanto]

132. Well if you were a more moderate centrist Democrat than I suppose they might represent

your views.

Bryant

[MO_Moderate]

136. Yes, because that is where the most votes are.

2014 may prove different, but as of right now, we are a center-left/center-right nation.

[polichick]

140. That's the narrative they want us to buy, but if you ask about policies...

it's a different story.

A liberal populist can win if the pitch is made well - how the story is told matters.

[MO_Moderate]

144. It is what our election results show us

More moderate politicians outnumber far-left and far-right politicians.

This tells us that while people may say they support something, they do not always support the needed measures to get it, or something else is seen as a higher priority.

What matters is how the WHOLE story is told.

[polichick]

150. The WHOLE story is that RepubliCons and Third Way "Dems"...

represent corporations, the mic and 1% of the people - while liberal populists represent all the people, as well as the planet we live on.

That's the story that must be told.

[MO_Moderate]

187. That opinion of the story

has been preached about forever, but has yet to be accepted or placed as a high enough priority, by the masses. When/if it is accepted by the masses, they will vote and progressives will outnumber moderates and Republicans. Heck, that may happen this November.
Until then, a moderate candidate is who will be nominated.

[polichick]

188. The people are fooled by terms like "moderates" - there's nothing...

moderate about the corporatists in either party. In order to reach voters, the lingo has to change from liberals vs moderates to populists vs corporatists. Of course, the "Dem" establishment will work hard to keeping fooling people.

[Adrahil]

309. That's a pipe-dream I'm afraid

While the public actually supports a lot of progressive ideas if you ask about them in detail, they VOTE based on the narrative, it's all about 30 second commercials and soundbites. Look at the ACA, the public supports almost every aspect of it if you ask in detail, but even after that, they still "oppose" the ACA. That's what we're dealing with. Someone like Bernie Sanders CAN NOT win a national election. Our best hope is slowly drag the narrative back to the left, and you CAN NOT do that in one election.

[polichick]

311. It's HOW the story is told that could change things quickly...

"They are not "centrists." They are corporate fascists." (See post #305)

Principled Dems need to start using the correct terminology.

[Adrahil]

312. Maybe, but I have yet to see it work.

I'd love some more progressive policies, but national politics are are a cess pool and whatever we may think of some of what, for example, Obama, has done, he has managed to pull the argument a bit to the left, even if only incrementally. He passed the ACA, and while not all I think most of us wanted, despite the effort by the tea-baggers, the discussion is really no longer about IF we have healthcare reform, but to what extent. That's huge. And the conversation went form Obama being forced to say he opposed marriage equality to being able to openly endorse it and even openly advocate for it.

This is a battle of feet, not miles.

[polichick]

321. Quite a bit of the incremental issue has to do with Dems...

not really wanting what the people want.

Obama wasn't "forced to say he opposed marriage equality" - he chose not to lead on the issue, just as he chose not to include the public option in deference to the insurance industry lobbyists who were frequent visitors to the WH.

It's only a battle of feet, not miles because both parties serve corporations, the mic and 1% far more than they serve the people. This is no longer acceptable to principled Dems.

[Adrahil]

322. I don't think it's that easy.

Call me cynical, but but the idea that you can ignore established politics and break through is, in my view, simplistic at best. I really do think we'll win this a little at a time. Keep in mind that it will get easier as the aging GOP membership dies off.

[polichick]

138. Not to mention our current Third Way president...

The answer to your question is NO.

[JoePhilly]

151. Whining doesn't win elections.

Developing better candidates does.

The folks endlessly complaining about Obama for the last 5 years should have spent that time trying to develop better candidates.

But no.

They'll whine, and call for a primary of the President (while proposing no alternative), whine some more, and then, end up with another President that they don't like ... and wonder why.

[polichick]

153. Stating a fact is hardly "whining" - get a grip.

[JoePhilly]

157. That was a whine. Fact.

[polichick]

159. Yes, your post was definitely a whine.

[sabrina 1]

182. Well then isn't it time to stop whining and get busy finding Democratic candidates to vote for

rather than posting on the internet whining about the people who are busy doing that?

There are loads of great Democrats who are being shut out by the Third Way infiltration into this party. Now is the time to start supporting them.

If you are not willing to do that then don't whine if they lose or try to blame those who ARE working hard to get them elected and who were out there helping Progressives to hold onto to their seats despite the lack of support from their own party sometimes and the attacks from the right in 2010. Thanks to the progressive voters at that time, most Progressives did hold onto their seats. Maybe if the whiners had joined them in supporting Progressives rather than preaching about 'compromise' we would have held on to the House.

[Ken Burch]

290. Agreed about the incumbent.

Don't assume it's always "HRC VS. Obama".

Things would be even more right-wing if HRC had been elected, though. We can assume she never would have turned around on ssm and DADT, for example. You can't invest THAT much in throwing a constituency under the bus at one point and then turn around and back them later.

[librechik]

162. so that they get elected by some republicans.

Not enough reason to act like an ass to get their votes, IMO. DLC should stfu

[Le Taz Hot]

165. No.

The 1% have enough representatives. We the People need to be represented in the House, Senate and the White House, not to mention in the state houses. No more corporate cronies!

[Coyotl]

168. YES, of course, for self-evident reasons.

It seems to be the best strategy for winning, for one!

[polichick]

191. Except even with a "win" the people lose.

[Ken Burch]

246. She's no more popular than any other Dem candidate that's being talked about.

n/t.

[treestar]

171. You assign that label too easily

28% of the voters think Obama and Clinton are Marxists.

I don't want another Republican President.

Also if by miracle Elizabeth Warren were President, she'd get nowhere. Congress would still be in the way.

[bigwillq]

176. No (nt)

[FiveGoodMen]

190. No.

[bvar22]

209. DURec.

Thats where I'm at.

No more "Hope & Change".
THAT is DONE.

Proven track record.

My vote will go to the one who MOST sounds like THIS:

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be[font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

[font size=3]America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.[/font]

Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by Private Corporations.

My vote and support WILL go to whoever BEST embodies these values.
I am too old and tired to support the Least of the Worst again.
Let the chips fall where they may.


[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]


You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[randome]

211. Could there EVER be a good reason to stop talking about the least useful position in the government?

2014!!!!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Proud Liberal Dem]

220. Electabilty?

And I dispute that 1993-2001 was a "dead zone". Clinton, like Obama, got a grand total of 2 years to get moderately progressive things through Congress and succeeded on some things (i.e. Brady Bill, Economic plan) and was thwarted on others (i.e. Healthcare reform). The rest of the time he had a vicious right-wing Congress led by Newt Gingrich to work with and he successfully played defense on some things (i.e. Social Security, Medicare) and cooperated with the Republicans on other things in order to keep government functioning (I don't agree on everything he agreed to with them but you govern with the Congress you got, not the one you might want). He also kept us out of any serious long-term military conflicts/wars and began aggressive anti-terrorism policies that thwarted attacks but also successfully maintained civil liberties (no Gitmos under him). Plus, economically, the country was doing very well and we were on our way to a lower national debt and deficits.
If the next 8 years were as good as those (with fewer and fewer Republicans, of course), we would all be better off now IMHO. Instead, our country decided that it wanted to have a beer with George W. Bush and we instead got a massive hangover for the next eight years and Obama got elected President, in part, because Bush (and Republicans) had made such a huge mess of things and tore up the country as Clinton left it. Obama came in with a large progressive agenda, which, unfortunately, has had to be scaled back because he, like Clinton, only had 2 years to do anything and while he got some good- if not somewhat watered down- progressive legislation through Congress during that time, he has since had to spend most of his time and energy playing defense with a bunch of even nastier, loonier bunch of Republicans whom have constantly been threatening government shutdowns and debt defaults every five seconds to get their own way even though they've only consistently controlled 1/3 of 1/2 of the national government since 2011.
I don't know who the eventual nominee is going to be in 2016. It could be Hillary and maybe it will be somebody else but to me, having somebody who can win the Presidency and keep the Republicans out of the WH is what matters more to me than how ideologically "pure" they are. It seems to me that what we *really* need more than anything is a progressive-controlled Congress to enact some good progressive legislation and a Democrat in the WH willing to sign it and I can't see Hillary being totally unwilling to sign progressive legislation if it's handed to her on a silver platter (I could be wrong on this point, of course, but not likely). If we don't have a progressive Congress or if we have a partially Republican-controlled (or, yuck, a fully Republican-controlled) Congress, then even progressive standard-bearer Elizabeth Warren will be forced to make compromises that will probably upset everybody too, so.........

[Progressive dog]

222. I liked Clinton, I like Obama

and I will probably support Hillary for the nomination in 2016.
Under Bill, we had a booming economy (in spite of NAFTA) and a balanced budget.

[1000words]

226. A gun to my head?

[Ken Burch]

289. Yes, that would be a good reason.

(You'd hope, at least, that it turned out the gun had actual bullets in it later, rather than one of those "BANG!" flags from the silent movies.)

[1000words]

292. That's what it'll take

You are on to something, though: Considering the joke has been on us all along, to discover it was a gag gun would be oddly consistent.

[SidDithers]

231. I really, really hope Hillary is the nominee in 2016...

'cause the headsplosions are going to be epic.

Sid

[msanthrope]

253. Wait 'til Warren campaigns for her. nt

[Ken Burch]

259. It doesn't mean anything if Warren does that in the fall of '16.

Why do you keep posting that line as taunt? Warren and HRC don't agree on much of anything...HRC is as subservient to corporate power(once on the WalMart board ALWAYS a WalMart toady) as Warren is courageous in standing up to it.

Warren has no reason to think HRC would be a good nominee, though. HRC would just veto any bills Warren got through Congress.

[msanthrope]

261. The Fall of 2015??? nt

[Ken Burch]

265. You know perfectly well there's no good reason for Warren to WANT HRC nominated.

In the fall of 2016, all Democratic senators(except the Blue Dogs)will campaign for the party's presidential nominee.

[msanthrope]

273. Oh Ken....you are a caution! nt

[Cali_Democrat]

271. ....

[DevonRex]

297. LOL!!!!

I will vote for the nominee with my head intact. So, I can envision enjoying that scenario myself.

[Agony]

233. There IS always a bad reason.

so... no.

[liberal_at_heart]

248. never again!

[Hekate]

254. Could there ever be a good reason to forget the critical campaigns of 2014?

Just askin'

[SidDithers]

270. FUD'ers gotta FUD...

Sid

[Ken Burch]

329. Nobody's forgetting them.

But one thing to remember about that...it will only be Dems from the progressive/populist/pro-worker/peace-and-justice wing of the party working to flip the House in '14. Our "responsible centrists" are content with the status quo there.

[Squinch]

255. You mean as opposed to Sarah Palin, or Mitt Romney, or Chris Christie, or Paul Ryan, or

Rand Paul?

Yes. I'd hold my nose, but yes.

[Ken Burch]

258. I was talking about who we nominate, not who we'd vote for in the fall.

HRC is NOT the only Democrat who can win.

And the country is not in the same place it was in 1992(believing that nothing has changed since then is the ONLY argument for choosing the most conservative nominee we could find).

[Squinch]

260. Ah, that's different. But if Hill is the nominee, I'll vote for her.

I would be ecstatic if the nominee were someone farther left who could win.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

257. That is ahistorical.

In 1992, the Dems had been out of power for 12 years. It was very very similar to the situation Republicans faced in 1948 and again in 1952.
In 1948 they ran Dewey, moderate New York guy, who lost.
In 1952, they found the right formula: war hero and relatively moderate.
Dems weren't in nearly as desperate a situation as they were back then in 1992, but it was bad. Clinton needed to prove that he wasn't McGovern, basically (more accurately, the caricature of that man). I firmly believe that that year no other Democrat could have won.
That is no longer true today, so I have no problem backing Warren or even Sanders. Both would have a realistic chance of winning. But in 1992, neither would have had a chance.

[Vashta Nerada]

264. Absolutely not.

[MannyGoldstein]

272. Yes.

Best wishes,

America's Bankers

[woo me with science]

305. They are predators. They are corporatists who put on Democrat costumes

as needed to get elected, but their agenda is predatory. We have got to dispose of this lie that Koch-bankrolled corporatists have any interest whatsoever in serving the people, just because they slap a (D) after their names.

They are not "centrists." They are corporate fascists.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4222551

who have infiltrated and taken control of both political parties. They have trampled the Constitution, turned the United States of America into a surveillance state, militarized our police forces, and created a nascent police state. They persecute whistleblowers and criminalize dissent. They strangle investigative journalism and create a propaganda machine to take its place. They are subverting our democratic, representative government and our Constitution to serve the interests of the wealthy elite, and they are working to turn the rest of us into wage slaves. They are profiting from bloody, undeclared wars; surveillance systems; private prisons; exploitative control of our health care and education; and privatization of every resource we have.

They are a menace to our representative government, our Constitution, and our freedom. Pretending that they are part of the normal representative governmental process, merely "centrists," is to vastly euphemize the cancer they really are.

[polichick]

310. "They are not "centrists." They are corporate fascists"...

As I said before, that line and passage deserve a dedicated thread. Hope you start one.

It's critical for voters to start using the right terminology - calling these people "centrists" is what allows them to stay in power.

[LWolf]

306. The last time we did that

wasn't in '92; it was in 2008.

To answer your question: NO. There is no good reason to choose another neo-liberal presidential nominee, and I, for one, sure as hell won't help do so.

Of course, I didn't choose that nominee in '08, either.

[Ken Burch]

328. Well, we didn't KNOW we were doing that in 2008, in all fairness.

I backed Kucinich while he was in, before the "party pros" essentially chased him out. After that, Obama seemed he only choice(and it still seems pretty clear that HRC would have governed clearly to Obama's right, running the country exactly as Bill did after '94, with no one here ever making a clear case that she wouldn't have, but Obama was a significant let down on the change scale, in particular on the level of treating the progressive wing of the party with the respect it was due from him).

It's now clear we could have won in 2008 without ANY of the "move to the center" steps the party took after the convention, but our leaders still refuse to see that.

[wyldwolf]

335. Come on, Ken.

Well, we didn't KNOW we were doing that in 2008, in all fairness.

Uh huh. There were plenty of us quoting Obama straight from his book on his Third Way policy beliefs. What did the 'progressives' on DU say? "You're taking it out of context!" or "FUCK YOU!" (I guess in response to pointing it out to them.)

[Ken Burch]

336. In the end, the choice was to take a chance on Obama

or go all the way back to '92 for certain with HRC. What possible case was there for progressives to prefer YOUR candidate? Why shouldn't we assume she'd be even further to the right?

It was a disappointment, but switching to your candidate would have meant knowingly consigning ourselves to the outer darkness again, like in the Nineties. That, and we'd still be in full combat mode in not only Afghanistan but Iraq as well...and how would THAT have helped anything?

[wyldwolf]

337. Really? When Obama's own words were (from Audacity of Hope)...

“conservatives — and Bill Clinton — were right about welfare as it was previously structured: By detaching income from work and by making no demands on welfare recipients other than a tolerance for intrusive bureaucracy and an assurance that no man lived in the same house as the mother of his children, the old A.F.D.C. program sapped people of their initiative and eroded their self respect.”

Also...

Pg.8-9

Examples of "New Democrat speak."

pg. 10

Obama expresses centrist/DLC beliefs on free market competition. He states his feeling that many government programs (social programs) have not worked as advertised.

pg. 11

Obama rejects special interests, or single issue, politics based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or victimhood - one of the purpose of the DLC. "Common good." Bill Clinton.

pg. 20

Despite Barbara Boxer signing on to Rep. Stepanie Tubbs Jones' challenge of the 2004 presidential election, Obama votes to certify it, believing Bush won the election despite evidence of voter fraud in Ohio.

Pg. 23

Obama recognizes the global war on terrorism is real, and not a "bumpersticker slogan." But he calls it a "the battle against international terrorism," one he believes should be addressed both by dealing with global poverty and a "judicious projection of military power."

Pg.24

Though he admits he believes Democratic ideology is more grounded in fact than that of the GOP, Obama expresses disdain for the conspiracy theories of the fringes, "of America being hijacked by an evil cabal." He says the left and right have become "mirror images of each other," whose purpose is "not to pursuade the other side but to keep their bases agitated and assured of the rightness of their respective causes."

pg. 31

Obama says liberals of the 60s/70s valued entitlements over duties and responsibilities.

In the end, the choice was to take a chance on Obama

See, that's a LOT different than what you originally said - "Well, we didn't KNOW we were doing that in 2008, in all fairness." You DID know, you just refused to admit it. Not only did Obama's own policy statements mirror the DLC's, he even said Bill Clinton was correct in those policies.

But 'progressives' comforted themselves because of a blackcommentator article.

[LWolf]

338. We need to make them see.

It was clear to me in '08; the country was so sick of GWB, a great number of republicans included, we could have successfully run a real left/liberal Democrat.

At this point, we need to make it impossible for our "leaders" to ignore us any longer.

[hack89]

317. Sure - to spark polite, mature, well reasoned political discussion on DU

[woo me with science]

320. Kick. No way in hell.

[woo me with science]

326. He's getting his fast-tracked TPP!

WOO HOO!

[woo me with science]

331. kick

[Whisp]

340. Not one good reason to choose Hillitary for the nom.

NONE . zip . zero . etc.,