Can YOU Stand Another 4 To 8 Years Of A Progressive Sounding Democrat... Governing...

[WillyT]

Like a Center-Right Pragmatist ?

I cannot.

35 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	5 (14%)
	No
	30 (86%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. What I could not stand is a Conservative Sounding republian governing like a Far-Right Radical.

It matters which party is in power.

[WillyT]

2. And As Your Base Turns Its Back, Little By Little Over Time, How Do You See A Winning Future ???

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. My base? I am not a politician. I do not have a base. I am a liberal.

However, if liberals and progressives (they are not synonymous) turn their back then Conservative Republicans will be elected, because we have a government elected by those who vote. If the base chooses not to vote, then they have decided that they prefer a right wing, conservative government. They have allowed those who vote to make the decision for them. People who don't vote get what they deserve while those of use who vote will suffer.

People who want to make the government better, will take a careful look at the Democrat and Republican running and vote for the one that best fits their political ideology. There will always be one candidate that is a little better, even if the difference is only measured in microns.

Change in any political system is incremental. I would rather see things made better in a small way than wreck the nation by tilting at windmills.

A Democratic President in 2016 will appoint two more justices at least. The worst possible justice Candidate appointed by a Democrat will be far better than the best possible candidate appointed by a Republican. A Democrat will re-balance the court in favor of the people. A Republican will cement conservative control over the Justice System.

The Court is just one issue.

Then there is the House and the Senate. If Republicans maintain control over those branches, even a President Warren and Vice President Sanders (this would be in an alternate universe where she actually runs) will get dick done. Republicans understand that the party that holds the congress sets the agenda. Presidents can do very limited things with executive orders, and Obama is stretching that authority to its limit.

Liberals and Progressives that want real change will vote for any Democrat running for the House and Senate. Third way centrists will round out the numbers to make a majority. There are states where a liberal will never get elected and we need to control some of those seats in order to set the agenda for the nation.

Whoever is elected will be likely be consumed for four years with the war with ISIL. This will consume a lot of lives and even more money. I would rather have any Democrat overseeing that Cluster fuck than any Republican.

Only a Democratic President with a Democratic House and Senate will act to do something about global warming. That is an issue that will affect every person on the dammed planet. Republicans will continue to slouch toward oblivion.

If Liberals and Progressives decide that they just can't vote for a Liberal, Socialist, Centrist, Center-Right or conservative Democrat, then we will ride to hell in a hand basket together.

It makes a difference who is in charge.

[sabrina 1]

11. Lliberals did vote for 'any Democrat' over the past several decades. We still got War and Torture

and Wall Street corruption, in fact it was a Democrat who signed away what would have prevented those crimes. We got a Corporate Media, again from a Dem we all loved, deregulation of the Media and Wall St didn't come from Republicans alone, it was a bi-partisan effort.

And we got the same Health Insurance Bill the Republicans had pushed for decades with a few things that are better, but still a handover of Medicaid which now passes through the hands of Ins. Corps who take out approx. 20% of those funds before passing it along to those who need it.

I think it's way past time that we get Democrats who actually vote for Democratic policies. Who will not put SS in danger by placing it on any 'table' for the Republicans to devour.

I think it's the voters turn to decide who they get to vote for. Not Wall St.'s.

And voters are saying it loud and clear, 'we won't vote for Republican Lite anymore.

War Criminals still go unpunished, Wall St criminals were rewarded.

13 Dems gave the Repubs the votes they needed for the TPP.

That's how they do it. Just enough of those Dinos make sure the Republcan agenda passes every time.

We now need a foolproof barricade, in the form of real Democrats to stop the Republicans. Because even when they were in the minority we were told they were so POWERFUL the majority couldn't defeat them.

[Agnosticsherbet]

19. Had people voted and kept the Senate in Democratic hands, those 13

would have voted for a better bill.

Elections have consequences.

What we need is control of he house and the Senate. Once we have that, then we can look for better Democrats.

[sabrina 1]

22. No they wouldn't have. We watched Dems in the majority do exactly the same thing. Then they

blamed it on the Minority. 'We have to compromise on THIS to get THAT. What? You are the majority.

You say Republicans are to blame now for those Dems voting with them.

Who was to blame for the Dems who voted to bail out Wall St?

For Bush's war, and continued to vote for funding it?

Let's stop pretending. Voters are wide awake to how this works now.

Wall St funds Dinos to make sure that even if their favorite party loses, they still get what they want.

See again, Wall St bailouts.

And whose fault is it that the TPP is almost guaranteed to pass? We elected a Dem to make sure the Working Class would not be screwed again? Are Republicans threatening this president to 'go against his party' as he stated?

You seem to be asking voters to continue to do what hasn't worked for over a decade.

Iow, you are 'blaming the voters'. Give them something to vote FOR and enough of these excuses, and they will do so, as they did in 2008.

It's up to the Party Leadership if they want to win the next election. But I'm not hopeful, Nancy Pelosi AGAIN took the wrong message from the Mid Terms.

[Scuba]

35. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[Desert805]

128. Anyway, don't forget to vote D in 2016!

And thank you in advance!

[rhett o rick]

142. There is a big difference in having the Senate "in Democratic hands" and

having progressive control. Many Democrats are conservatives and vote with the Republicans. Some want so badly to believe that Democrat means good and Republican means bad. Be nice if life were that simple. The only test to be a Democrat is your own applied label. Alen Specter changed labels but never changed ideologies.

[rhett o rick]

12. No liberal would vote for H. Clinton for any reason. Liberals don't play that game.

Trying to justify that we should vote for H. Clinton when she has shown she will turn her back on us and go with the Republicans at the first first opportunity. She betrayed us as badly as possible. She and Bushy are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent children. Are you willing to ditch your principles for a promise of a win? Sell your Democratic soul?

[Agnosticsherbet]

18. That is a mighty broad brush you use to paint all liberals.

Use of such a brush is not usually considered a liberal trait.

In December, Howard Dean said Hillary was the most qualified person in the United States to run for President. So I guess you feel he sold his liberal soul and ditched his principals.

On December 16, Al Franken endorsed Hillary Clinton. So I guess you think he sold his soul and principals.

On April 27th of last Year, Elizabeth Warren said she hoped Hilary Clinton would run for President. I guess you believe Warren sold her liberal soul, too, or maybe she just dumped it in a ditch with her principals.

I am an agnostic. There is no evidence of a soul, so I'll not be selling something that can not be measured. That type of con is a conservative trait.

I am a liberal who wants to see an expansion of civil rights and greater financial equality for the poor and middle class. I want to see our Health Care system improved instead of gutted. I want to see Justices nominated that do not cling to the lie of original intent while they gut protections for the people and favor the wealthy. I will vote for whatever Democrat wins the nomination, and do so happily, because whoever that person is will be the best person applying to me for the job. I will be just as happy to vote for Hillary as I will for Webb (the only two clearly running at this moment.) And I will neither ditch my principals nor sell a non existent commodity, because only a Democrat will make things better in the system we have.

[NanceGreggs]

20. Wow!

Excellent response!

[Cosmic Kitten]

37. Electing DINOs will NEVER get "greater financial equality"

Quote=Agnosticsherbet I am a liberal who wants to see an expansion of civil rights and greater financial equality for the poor and middle class.

DINOs and the 3rd-Way will NEVER EVER capitulate
to greater financial equality for the poor and middle class.
Many "liberals" are either willfully blind or intentionally obtuse.

If the next 4 to 8 years are dominated by the corporatocracy class
the "poor and middle class" will be economically ruined.
They will be competing with 3rd-world workers for McJobs
with absolutely NO social safety net.

They are waging a class war.
The GOAL of the DINOs and 3rd-Way is economic dominance.
Doesn't anyone understand the Wall St bailout?
The ACA is NOT about "health care" it's about INSURANCE.
DINOs won't appoint justices antagonistic to the corporatocracy.

voting for DINOs or the 3rd-Way is the definition of insanity
doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

[ladyVet]

41. Exactly.

If Democrats can't win by being Democrats (that is, pushing their own party platform) then they don't deserve to win. We'll either have a fast fall under a repuke, or a slow one under a DINO. Not much of a difference, where I'm standing. The bottom is about an inch below me as it is.

[Cosmic Kitten]

45. Agreed, free fall or slow motion fall

I guess some people feel better voting
3rd-Way or DINO and then blaming voters?
At least they're "not republicans" is good enough for them?

Time and time again we've seen how the corporate-dems
will turn their backs on the public and give endlessly to donors.

Enough is enough!

[benz380]

53. Wow!

Excellent response, Cosmic Kitten.

[Agnosticsherbet]

59. You are wrong because a majority in the House and Senate is required to pass a bill.

The President can not dictate law or dictate programs or dictate money and so must compromise with the Congress to get anything done.

There are states where only a Joe Manchine or a Mary Landrieu or others of their ilk can be elected because the people of that state do not share liberal values. Without some seats in those states Democrats do not control the House or Senate. Look at what we have now.

Ideological purity is insanity. Only by gaining control of the House and the Senate will bills be passed. Only by controlling the House and Senate will there be any change at all. A Warren or Franken or a Dean type liberal will not get elected in at least half of the states.

That is the way our government works.

The ACA provided healthcare for millions of people. It was not the best way to do it, but it helped people. Republicans have tried to repeal it more than 54 times, tried to defund it at least 4 times, and tried to destroy it by lawsuits because it violated their core Conservative beliefs that people who do not have health care were lazy and only the rich deserve the perks.

Justices Beyer and Ginsberg were appointed by Bill Clinton. If you haven't bothered to look at their records you should check them out. They are the foundation of what remains of the liberal wing of the Court. Sotomayor and Kagen are Obama's justices. Look at their records. Those four justices are not corporate lackeys. So third say Democrats do appoint justices that are not corporate lackeys. That is a historical fact.

That is the core of liberal government, making things better for the people, and then improving on those things at every chance.

So if Hillary gets the nomination, I will join Dean, Franken, and Warren to support her, because I trust their liberal values, their intelligence, and their knowledge of how our government works. If Webb is nominated, I will join those same people in supporting him. I will vote only for Democrats, because at this time in our history, only they can help make things better.

If you want a better Democrat, run for the House, the Senate, for City Council, or for Dog catcher. If you do, Cosmic Kitten, I will donate to your campaign. I think your heart and head is in the right place about policy and we will need Better representatives.

But don't call for people not to vote for Democrats because they do not pass an ideological test, because that only elects Republicans and puts Republicans in power.

[Cosmic Kitten]

64. Ok, we're pointed in the same direction

It's not about ideological purity.
That is a 3rd-Way wedge to divide the party.

If there need to be an ideological consensus
it isn't best to focus on single issues or polarizing issues.
Democrats do a great job dividing the party themselves
without republican help.

Elizabeth Warren has hit the nail on the head...the economy.
The economy is rigged to benefit the top of the pyramid.
How taxpayer money is being spent is part of this fight as well.
The economy reaches into most every part of Democratic policies.
But if we get sold out in the final hour, it's all for nothing.

The DINOs (new democrats) and 3rd-Way will maintain
the status quo and hold pretend shows of support for
the middle and working-class until they are held accountable.

And just because someone says they support Hillary
doesn't mean or guarantee they will support them in the end.
Strategically, there are plenty of good reasons to push someone
to the front of the line, not all of them are well intentioned.
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer

[tabbycat31]

102. This

Democrats have done a shitty job at building their farm system and need to get back to basics.

But this forum lately has been terrible and very divisive. This divisiveness is EXACTLY what is happening on the other side (when Eric Cantor is not conservative enough) and fueled the rise of the tea party.

However, having talked to voters in 9 states now, I've heard that a candidate is 'too liberal' all the time. Not once have I heard that a candidate is too conservative.

Growing up in a dark blue county, I used to be one of those liberals. But then I traveled for campaigns and saw that the far left candidates that are so loved by liberals are simply not electable. I'd rather have a Democrat that votes the party 80% of the time than a Republican who votes with us 0%. Mary Landrieu is not Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren could never win her state. Many on DU living in dark blue enclaves (my guess) don't realize that.

[Agnosticsherbet]

104. People are upset that change doesn't happen fast enough.

Our system was never designed to change fast. It was created to require compromise that allows change but only in small steps.

Hyper partisanship so prevalent now days tends to stop the government from doing anything beneficial at all.

Your points are correct.

[rhett o rick]

143. The problem is that things are changing in the wrong direction.

Our elections are getting less and less free. Our elected representatives are becoming more and more dependent on corp money. Wall Street is taking more and more wealth from the lower classes. All safety nets are either dismantled or in the process. Our infrastructure is crumbling. The NSA/CIA Deep State is gaining more and more control and we are losing more and more of our Constitutional rights. Trade agreements are coming to enslave us and take away our sovereignty. Our drone policy of killing 100 innocents for every "suspected" bad guy is promoting a continuation of the 1000 year War On Terror.

This is the change we are seeing. Soup lines are getting longer and foodbanks are stretched to the limit.

Vote for a corporatist like Clinton and it will continue to change, but for the worse.

[rhett o rick]

91. After selling out Democrats in 2002, how can you even think she has integrity?

When we needed her the most, she turned her back and helped Bush/Cheney sell their war.

Fool us once HRC and shame on you ..... better not try to fool us again.

I guess it's too soon to try to save our democracy. Too many people are happy with the status quo and that's what you will get unless you fight the Oligarchy. And supporting Clinton isn't fighting.

[Agnosticsherbet]

114. Clearly, Warren doesn't agree with you since in April of 2014 she said "Hillary is terrific."

and that she wants her to run.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/

Set 96 for the full answer.

[rhett o rick]

119. Of course Sen Warren would treat H. Clinton with respect. I wouldn't have it any

other way. That has nothing to do with the fact that H. Clinton demonstrated she has no integrity in 2002. How do you forgive that?

[Agnosticsherbet]

126. I don't need to since I think your point is completely wrong.

I didn't agree with Hillary Clinton's stand on the war. That is not at all the same thing as saying she has no integrity because we differ in opinons on that war.

As I said elsewhere. I will not attack the character of a Democrat for politial gain of another Democrat. Republicans do that, and they are very good at it because they pay big bucks for opposition research and are happy to make shit up if they can't find dirt they like.

I am happy to discuss policy differences between candidates.

[rhett o rick]

133. I get the approach. You want to reduce Clinton's betrayal to a "difference of opinion".

It wasn't a discussion over tea. Clinton didn't just agree with the Republicans and Neocons, she actively promoted their war. She helped the Republicans, spread their lies. George Bush lied about the need to invade Iraq. Everyone with half a brain understood that the proof was totally bogus. H. Clinton is very smart and knew the Bush lies were lies. But she choose to help Bush and the results were disastrous. If we don't have someone with more integrity that her, we are screwed.

[Agnosticsherbet]

134. I never felt that the act of disagreeing with me was betraying me.

So I am reducing nothing.
Of course, I never gave credence to the old Bush slogan of "You're with our against us."

[rhett o rick]

141. We counted on elected Democrats to moderate the crazy Bush/Cheney, etc.

Not only did she not oppose them, call them on their lies, she helped them promulgate their lies. People that didn't trust Bush trusted her and she lied. Bush/Cheney are responsible for thousands of deaths, millions being displaced, ruining our economy and democracy and H. Clinton helped them significantly. She betrayed us when we needed her the most. Why would you trust her not to lie to us again?

Bush wasn't wrong. In a war, you are on one side or the other. We were all against the terrorists, but we didn't believe in giving up our freedoms and liberties to do such. Today we have a class war. One either supports the 1% or the 99%. I suppose some will argue that burying your head in the sand is a side. I don't agree.

[tabbycat31]

98. Applause

[Bluenorthwest]

54. Elizabeth Warren litreally 'went with the Republicans' for most of her life, from Nixon through Bush

She turned her back on the thousands suffering and dying from AIDS and voted for Reagan a second time when there were over 5,000 dead. Think about how America reacted to that one death from Ebola, then think about what sort of a person would turn their back on thousands of their dead countrymen and tens of thousands infected. Explain that away.
She voted for Nixon. Ford. Reagan. Bush. Yes, the fact is that when Hillary was a Democratic First Lady working to reform health care, Warren was a Bush voting Republican who wanted to continue the bigotry, sexism, racism and utterly destructive economic policies she was in thrall to.
It's just ironic that you would use the rhetoric you use while promoting a Reagan/Bush voter, a Nixon voter. A voter who shit on all things liberal and decent for the bulk of her adult life.
Hyperbole does not cover up the facts. Her boosters don't even bother to ask her about the homophobia, the racism, the opposition to reproductive choice, the rhetoric about Welfare Queens and all of that. 'No questions for Warren' they shout. Ask why Liz was an anti gay Republican, her boosters wail about Hillary. It's daft and insulting and dismissive of massively important issues.

[Agnosticsherbet]

68. Warren has changed. Her economic message is spot on, and she is an effective liberal in the Senate

and her work for Obama was incredible.

Look at what she has done in this decade and leave her youthful indiscretions to the past.

People can and do change.

[2naSalit]

83. Indeed, a point too often overlooked.

I agree that people change, we all do. The things that make the big difference in answering the questions asked up-thread (and elsewhere in on the interwebs) are context and timing... when was EW a practicing R and what was the political environment, not just on the national stage but also from her POV and placement in the world then? Have to look at the whole salad.

I credit many individuals with changing their POV and actually considering our local, national and global context in time within which we are here and trying to determine which direction we need to head - at least they evaluate for a while. I don't see a whole lot of that online as much as I do among my community members. There are some who for whatever reasons, claim that changing their way of seeing the world is either evil or *whatever* ...they are the problem in general. The biggest part of the problem is when that faction of "no change is good" have managed to conduct a complete take over of an allegedly democratic republic (via nefarious means as well) with full intention of foisting their ideology on everyone else with dire consequences for resisting... which is what we have now. The reliance on ignorance for the sake of retaining such power is obvious at this point but I digress.

I think that if there were any lessons to be learned by EW after a long relationship with the Rs, she's learned them. I have seen this in others and I am only disappointed that it doesn't seem to be enough.

[Agnosticsherbet]

85. We also need to udnerstand that until mid 90's, things were different in the parties.

Under Johnson, the Civil Rights act of 1964 would not have passed without a lot of North Eastern Republicans. Southern Democrats were against it. Medicare passed in 1966, another of Johnson's Great Society programs but only with the help of liberal republicans. Title IX in 1972 was modified education acts from 63 and 65 to expand the ban on sex discrimination. Nixon signed that, but Democrats and Republicans passed it.

New England had a lot of Republicans who were socially liberal and fiscal moderates. The South was solidly Conservative Democrats (Dixiecrats). Clinton and Gore were both Southern Democrats. Under Clinton most of the serving southern Democrats changed parties. This was a process that begin with Nixon's Southern Strategy, accelerated under Reagan with "Reagan Democrats" and finished with Gingrich.

This historical realignment made the Republicans far more partisan as they purged any Republican who did not follow the party line. The wave of primaries where the T-Party primaried anyone who wasn't a party purist just made Republicans more radical and right wing.

Third Way and New Democrats consist of people who were no longer welcome in the more radical Republican Party. They are centrist to center right conservatives.

We can not confuse the parties as they are now with how they were 25 or more years ago. Warren's record in the last decade is very good.

[2naSalit]

87. Agreed.

also, we saw the ESA and CWA and some other very good legislation from bipartisan activity back then. I was in New England back then and some of the environmental stuff really resonated for me, as well as the Civil Rights Act. But the war business was way too much for me, always has been. I grew up with war and have had quite enough of that, too bad our partisan government isn't able to control that issue... I think that has become its own entity.

Indeed, context of time and place are crucial assessment keys, the world was sooo different 25 years ago.

[OLDMADAM]

127. People can and do change...cough.. Hillary says she has changed,

and will make all kinds of promises to govern as a flaming Liberal.. Should we accept her word as well?

[Agnosticsherbet]

129. We should examine her policy statement and compare them to other candidates

in the 2016 election.

We should believe Warren who has enthusiasticly asked Clinton to run and said that Clinton is incredible.

We should accept the word of Howard Dean and Senator Franken who support her run and have said she is the best person for the job.

And when the primary comes we should evaluate the polices of all the Candidate and vote for the one who we think best fits the needs of the nation.

And whoever wins, we should support them with votes and time and money and GOTV.

[OLDMADAM]

136. I have my problems with Hillary, but if she wins the primary..

I'll do everything I can to elect her.. PERIOD!

[Agnosticsherbet]

137. I have problems with Hillary.

People can make a reasoned argument that she is too close to big business without arguing that she is the evil spawn of Satan and a bank vault.

We are moving into an election where unprecedented amounts of money will be used to assassinate the character of every candidate that has the guts to try and run things.

I prefer to discuss policies and possibilities rather than sling outrageous acrimonious arrows.

[OLDMADAM]

138. I hope you are not implying I am slinging outrageous incrimination's at anyone..

I have never even mentioned what problems I have with Hillary or anyone.. I was agreeing with your position.. Sheesh

This is why I seldom post anything on these threads..

[Agnosticsherbet]

139. No, you have made no such incrminiations.

That was more my rage against the tendency of creating armed camps around candidates and defend a candidate by ripping apart all the others.

[Jim Lane]

86. Don't you ever get tired of lying about Elizabeth Warren?

The known fact is that she was at one point a registered Republican. That's it.

You assert that she voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush. I've asked you before for evidence of that, and met only silence.

More important is that you continue to assume that Warren supported every policy of everyone she voted for. I've asked you before for evidence for your assertion that she "wanted to continue the bigotry, sexism, racism" etc., and again met only silence.

It's beyond the point where I'm willing to extend any charity. You make serious charges, you're asked for evidence, you don't reply, and you repeat the charges. This is no longer an honest difference of opinion.

Ask why Liz was an anti gay Republican, her boosters wail about Hillary. It's daft and insulting and dismissive of massively important issues.

Not content with lying about Warren, you lie about us. I don't think I've ever mentioned Hillary in response to your smears about "an anti gay Republican". Instead, I've asked for evidence. I mean, on such a massively important issue, the discussion should be based on facts, right? Beyond pointing to her voter registration, you've provided zero facts.

[rhett o rick]

93. H. Clinton betrayed the DEmocratic Party in 2002. She made speeches promoting the

IWar that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. The IWar cause massive redistribution of wealth from the lower classes to the wealthy. Many Democrats turned to her for the truth about the need for war. Democrats that wouldn't believe the lies when told by Bush, but believed H. Clinton.

Sen Warren is hands down a better choice than Clinton.

[Agnosticsherbet]

96. 82 of 208 Democratic congressmen voted for the Iraq War Resolution and 29 of 50 Senators.

Saying she betrayed the Democrats is a bit hyperbolic unless you want to say every Democrat that voted for it betrayed Democrats. At the time polls showed between 47% and 60% of American approved of the war. Did all the Democrats who approved of that war betray the Democrats?

Even Senators are allowed to have their own opinion about a current event. Unlike Conservatives, Democrats are not expected to walk in lockstep.

Warren isn't running. In April of 2014 Warren said she hoped Clinton ran for President.

"All all of the women — Democratic women I should say — of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run, and I hope she does. Hillary is terrific,"

Warren thinks Hillary is terrific!

In saying that, did Warren betray Democrats?

[rhett o rick]

121. Every Democrat that bowed before Bush betrayed the Democratic Party, the American people and

those that died as a result. We elect Democrats to keep the crazy Republicans from doing those stupid things.

"Even Senators are allowed to have their own opinion about a current event. Unlike Conservatives, Democrats are not expected to walk in lockstep." Perfect. And if their own opinions follow the Republicans ideology then they should not be supported. And if they make a mistake as badly as that, they should never again be supported.

I think they were all cowards. Afraid to stand up to the Bush/Cheney bullies. They cowered before the mighty Republicans. They will all have to account for the hundreds of thousands of dead when they meet their maker. That war may have destroyed our economy and our democracy. But some here are willing to forgive and forget and the Oligarchs rejoice.

[Agnosticsherbet]

122. Democrats never, never, never kept us out of war.

Wilson WWI
Rooseveldt & Truman WWII
Kennedy & Johnson Vietnam and illegaly bombed Laos
Carter used military force in a failed attempt to get back the hostages
Clinton Kosovo, Somalia, and at least three attacks using missiles to attack Terrorist targets.
Obama Afghanisan, Iraq, Bombing Libya, Bombing Syria, assigned the navy to hunt and kill pirates in the red sea and the Indian Ocean, and now he is preparing to get autorization to put military forces on the ground in Syria and Iraq to take out ISIS.

The whole notion that we elect them to stop Republicans from getting us into a war is simply wrong. I do not know how you came to that conclusion. History proves it is incorrect.

[rhett o rick]

123. So what's your point? We don't try to elect Democrats that will oppose Republicans?

We simply give in and forget our principles and let H. Clinton be president?

Is your point that I expect too much from our Democratic representatives? If so, I am guilty.

I realize that the Oligarchy has it's claws into the Democratic Party, but I am not afraid to fight.

And I will never support those cowards calling themselves Democrats that crawled before King Bush.

[Agnosticsherbet]

125. My point is that we elect Democrats because only they will pass bills

and create programs that will improve the lives of the poor and middle class, and only Democrats work consistently since Truman to expand rights to all Americans.

Only a Democrat will appoint Supreme Court Justices that will interpet the law so that it benefits all Americans and not just a few with the most green. (And Cinton and Obama's Justices are the best we have and the core of the liberal wing of the court. Both of those men tended to be centrists, but their justices and most of their appointed judges have been very good.)

I have no idea who I will support in the primary, because we don't yet know who is running, But I won't attack the characters of Democrats who I don't like as a way of championing the Democrats I do like. I will let Republicans do that. They don't need my help.

I am happy to discuss differences in policy until the cows come home. I won't help Republicans by ripping any of our candidates apart.

Hillay, or Webb, or a Democrat that has yet to decalre may be our nominee. It doesn't matter who that nominee is, because in that race only a Democrat will work in the intrest of the people.

[StevieM]

146. We don't know that she voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Sr.

We only know that she was primarily an independent who supported candidates of both parties until 1995. Then she became a Democrat.

Reagan actively campaigned for Harry Truman. He even supported Hubert Humphrey in his first senate race. Then he changed and became a right-winger.

Elizabeth Warren changed in the right direction. The question that matters is how she will vote in the Senate and how she would govern if she were to become the president.

And as I have told you before....I am not looking for Warren to run in 2016. But I think she deserves to be treated fairly. She has clearly emerged as a liberal champion.

[randys1]

101. I just dont want a Woman dying from a botched abortion in 2017

I have tunnel vision

[Agnosticsherbet]

131. Then we must, must, must elect Democrats.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

72. exactly

[FiveGoodMen]

111. "It matters which party is in power."

Not nearly as much as we like to think.

It matters what governing philosophy predominates at the centers of power.

But that's not the same thing.

[WillyT]

112. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

[Old and In the Way]

130. Are you shitting me?

You think a Repub POTUS with a Republcan Congress isn't going to change this country? Fuck it, lets elect a Republican for POTUS and let him elect RWNJs for SCOTUS. Fuck it, keep kneecapping DEMOCRATS and enjoy electing REPUBLICANS.

[Agnosticsherbet]

132. In the Universe I live in there is no Republican who I can vote for.

because their governing philosophy is antithetical to my liberal values.

Historically, Democrats, even those who tended to be centrists, pursued policies that promoted the general welfare of the poor and middle class. They appoint Justices who tend to interpret law and the Constitution in ways that promote the general welfare of the poor and middle class.

I do wish we had a system with more than two workable parties. Such a system would be more responsive to the people because the people can support another party that is close in philosophy when their party disappoints them. We don't live in such a place.

[FiveGoodMen]

147. It's true that the GOP has ousted anyone remotely human

So I vote Dem as well.

But every year the GOP moves farther to the right.

And every year the Dems move right in order to compromise.

The result is the same as following someone who's driving a car.

As long as you follow, you're going exactly where they're going.

You might get there a few minutes later, but that will be the only difference.

Dem politicians -- every term! -- go to their legislatures asking themselves how much more of the nation we should give away to the 1%, religion, and authoritarians THIS TIME.

They do that over and over. And they pat themselves on the back for being so "reasonable" as to let some more of the commons and of democracy be stolen.

That WILL get us exactly where the GOP wants us.

WILL, not might.

[Agnosticsherbet]

150. Our system of government requires compromise to work.

That is the way it was designed.

In Parliamentary systems, often a party wins a majority, and the majority rules. Compromise happens when no party wins a solid majority and they must form a government.

In the US, having a solid, Veto proof majority by one party has been quite rare. There are only two parties that can win in almost all cases. This wasn't in the original plan, but developed overtime and has been legislated into existence so that having a third party with real power has been rare and transitory. (Check out the history of the grange party. Also look at the breakup of the Whigs and the birth of the Republican party.) Historically and culturally we have two parties one that holds the right and one that holds the left.

When a party shifts to the right, the one on the left follows in order to gain the support of voters who were left behind. They maintain their distance around a dynamic center.

Our government does not compromise because Republicans moved right, it compromises because the way it is set up, that is the only thing that keeps it functioning.

One other historical comment. In the 60's and 70's, The Civil Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, and Title IX were passed with Republicans and Democrats. The parties were not as partisan as they are now, especially the Republicans. In the 60's, Southern Democrats would never vote for the Civil Rights act. Republicans were crucial in allowing Johnson and Nixon (Title IX was under Nixon) to pass those liberal bills.

Beginning with Nixon's Southern Strategy, continuing with the "Reagan Democrats, and ending with Gingrich in the 90's, the South changed its allegiance from the Democratic to Republican. The socially liberal - fiscally conservative crowd became Democrats because the social liberal part had become unwelcome in Republican circles. Since Gingrich, social liberal Republicans were primaried and forced out of the Republican Party, leaving the highly partisan party that remains.

Centrists who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative (read third way new democrats neo-liberals) that range from center-left to center-right have achieved great prominence in the party. Where once Republicans and Democrats used to compromise to run the government, Democrats fight to compromise between fiscal liberal and fiscal conservatives, and Republicans do no compromise about anything.

[bigwillq]

3. Nope (nt)

[yuiyoshida]

4. I don't want another Republican President ever in my life time..

And If I had to do it over again, I WOULD so press that button for Obama.

[rhett o rick]

13. I agree the post was terse. I get frustrated with those that seem happy with the status quo.

Last edited Thu Jan 15, 2015, 04:24 PM - Edit history (1)

The Oligarchs are running the voting systems, the NSA is spying on all Americans, Wall Street is making profits while the lower classes are losing foodstamps and other programs. We are spending hundreds of billions on defense and letting our infrastructure crumble. Torture is being normalized. We kill 100 innocent people with drones to kill one "suspected" bad guy. Education (Arnie Duncan) is in the toilet. Corporations are ramming thru the TPP. Obama and Clinton think fracking is the best thing around.

And some here are fine with all that.

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

14. For someone who considers himself

a deep-down populist, you sure love to denigrate others for their opinions.

[FSogol]

65. It is just a big game of "I'm more liberal than you" for some folks. n/t

[zappaman]

76. +1

[NanceGreggs]

17. Yes, it's all that really matters.

In 2008, and again in 2012, over 67 million people (each time) voted for Barack Obama because he has a great smile, looks hot in a swimsuit, makes pretty speeches, knows how to act super-cool, and is downright dreamy in every photograph he has ever appeared in, or will ever appear in from now until the end of time.

Every. Last. One. Of those 67-plus million voters cast their votes for Obama because he has such a nice smile. His policies on everything from the environment, to foreign affairs, to the economy, to the rights of gays/lesbians, to affordable healthcare were not even considered. It was just the smile. It's always just that great smile.

You know, EW is a very good-looking woman. And she has a really nice smile. Do you think her supporters see anything other than that smile? Maybe that's all that really matters to them, right?

[F4lconF16]

92. Obama was not great on the rights of gays/lesbians.

He had to be shoved every step of the way to legalizing gay marriage. I'm not saying that he didn't eventually come around, but that is one of things that I'm not particularly interested in forgiving him for just yet. Let's not forget what he was saying just a few years ago.

[NanceGreggs]

95. The POTUS cannot "legalize" gay marriage.

Laws pertaining to marriage are determined by individual states, not by the president.

Obama's record on gay/lesbian rights speaks for itself. If you want to believe that he was dragged kicking-and-screaming to doing what he has, so be it.

Besides, no one voted for/supported Obama due to his position on gay marriage - or anything else. They only voted for him because he has a "nice smile".

[F4lconF16]

106. Oh, please.

Laws pertaining to marriage are determined by individual states, not by the president.

He could still have supported it--he didn't. Took him till 2012 to have an "evolution" on it. Glad he did, but still. He could have done far more than he did.

Obama's record on gay/lesbian rights speaks for itself. If you want to believe that he was dragged kicking-and-screaming to doing what he has, so be it.

Yes, it does, and it doesn't say good things.

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."
2008-http://www.mtv.com/news/1598407/barack-obama-answers-your-questions-about-gay-marriage-paying-for-college-more/

The only reason he switched positions as early as he did in 2012 was because Biden screwed up, and thank the goddesses he did. He consistently avoided endorsing same-sex marriage for years, despite having once supported it in the late 90s. He denied equal rights to people because of personal and political reasons, and if that doesn't bother you...then so be it. Can't expect all Democrats to want equality.

Besides, no one voted for/supported Obama due to his position on gay marriage - or anything else. They only voted for him because he has a "nice smile".

[NanceGreggs]

116. Believe what you want to believe.

I really don't give a flying fuck.

The facts are the facts. You can fold, staple, spindle and mutilate them all you want. They're still the facts.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

118. Whatever position he had in 2008

By 2012 he came around on same-sex marriage (in fact the entire Democratic Party now supports it) Which prospective Republican candidate(s) will "come around" on same-sex marriage anytime this century? I don't care if we have to occasionally drag a timid Democratic politician over to the right side of an issue. At least, most of them eventually see the light. Republicans OTOH aren't going to listen to ANYTHING we have to say about anything.

[yuiyoshida]

23. So um, you would have chosen

McCain or Romney over Obama? Is that what you are saying?

[rhett o rick]

148. Of course not, and I apologize for being rude. Over half the school children in this country

live in poverty. The lower classes are on a swift downward slide into poverty and the current government isn't doing anything about it. While Pres Obama isn't 100% responsible I don't think he is fighting hard enough to save our children. Too many people are apathetic or ok with the status quo. I find that very frustrating and took it out on you. We need progressive change. Another 4 years of Pres Obama wouldn't be enough. He is very conservative in many of his stands. H. Clinton will be worse. Just how far into the mire are we going to go before we fight back?

[yuiyoshida]

151. I totally agree with you..

But when it came down to a choice between Obama and McCain or Obama and Romney..there was only ever one decision to make. Those others would have put us in a worse mess. Yes, I agree, get someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren (if she runs) but there has to be change, or its just going to be crap...

My worry is, that the Republicans got in this last time, to be in the Majority in the House and Senate.. We can not have a Republican President again.. not unless we want to see this Country Gutted and destroyed.

[rhett o rick]

154. I totally know what you meant. I over reacted with my first post because I have a huge chip

on my shoulder. I want change. It's past time to demand change. I stongly supported Obama both in 2008 and 2012. But I am disappointed that he has been so conservative in many important areas. Of course he is better than any Republican choice, but the problem the Dems have is we have to go for it. Take a chance on electing a progressive. Some here are fine with the status quo because they are afraid to challenge the Oligarchy.

[joshcryer]

27. "He has such a nice smile and that's all that really matters."

This shit is racist as fuck rhett o rick, just Google "smile black people."

It's a common stereotype about black people. "Their dark black skin contrasts their white teeth." It's abhorrent, and you should delete that shit.

[Bobbie Jo]

38. Meow

Last edited Thu Jan 15, 2015, 07:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Seriously?

It wasn't "terse" it was asinine.

I see you edited with your canned speil.

Whatever.....

[mythology]

48. This post should be beneath you

You are openly denigrating anybody who voted for Obama and you are the very least brushing up against a racist stereotype.

Sadly it appears it isn't beneath you.

[HERVEPA]

55. Condescending bullshit

[MineralMan]

73. Did that poster say anything about Obama's smile?

Why do you speculate on her reasons for voting for a candidate? I don't see that as any sort of progressive perspective. In many ways, such a patronizing attitude is offensive. But, then, that's just my opinion.

[zappaman]

77. I'd like to say this reply is beneath you

but it isn't.

[emulatorloo]

109. Well said.

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

135. "Terse"?

This was your response, originally:

But of course you would. He has such a nice smile and that's all that really matters. Right? nm

That was being "terse"?

[rhett o rick]

144. If you have something to say, why don't you come right out and say it, instead of

insinuations by question?

We need positive change in this country and more years of Pres Obama won't cut it.

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

145. It's not surprising

that you're evading the question. No more surprising than your lack of an apology to yuiyoshida for the vile response you made to her. The point I made in post #14 (also unaddressed by you, along with those of the other posters who found your conduct reprehensible) stands. You prove it over and over again.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. Absolutely not.

The very thought of this happening makes me very angry.

How do we make sure this doesn't happen?

[WillyT]

6. Loud And Proud, Peg... Loud And Proud... Make Noise... Withhold Funding... Tell Everybody You Know

Give them the info, and make the Democratic Party come to us for a change.

[AndyTiedye]

7. Probably the Best We Can Hope For

I have been voting for progressives in the primaries for years. They all lost.

In the general election, I vote for the Democrat unless he/she is actually worse than the Republican
(which has only happened once, in the 1978 gubernatorial election in Massachusetts, anybody remember Ed King?)

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Yes, because I know what the likely alternative is.

Is it my top choice? No.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. Bingo, baby!

Given I am already seeing the effects of being married our taxes, I really don't want to endure a President or Supreme Court who will strip me of my "gay privilege" of being married to the man I love. It is so interesting to see the "all or nothing" crowd.

[Jamastiene]

10. I don't know what we cannot have our own party.

Why do we have to have conservatives in the Democratic Party? Centrists who still lean left mostly wouldn't be nearly as bad as the conservative Democrats. Why are they allowed to basically be moles in our party and help the Republicans every chance they get? Why do we allow that bullshit? The Democratic Party is much too lenient on traitors who vote with the Republicans so much of the time. There should be penalties for not believing at least half of what the Democratic Party stands for. Just half should not be too much to ask, but apparently, to them, it is. I'm sick of it.

[JI7]

15. political parties are not religions or some private club , the party is whoever is in it

if you find yourself disagreeing with most of it you should form or find another party.

[ND-Dem]

24. and where's the republican equivalent? how come there are no left wing moles in the pubbie

party?

the game sure seems rigged.

[joshcryer]

30. There is overlap.

The difference is that when Democrats overlap, it's on economics, when Republicans overlap, it's on military spending or social policy.

So you have some Democrats that support choice, climate change, etc, but support lower taxes and deregulation, while you might have some Republicans supporting the same. Rand and Ron Paul come to mind where they talk about the military industrial complex, and Ron Paul actually had quite a following here in the lead up to the 2012 elections, saying that his views "desperately needed to be heard."

[joshcryer]

29. The Democratic Party is really three parties.

Conservative, Moderate, Liberal. A lot of people need to understand and recognize this. That's the whole reason the Third Way was invented, to unify the party. While the party votes in a block 98% of the time we bother ourselves with the 2% where lines get crossed. It's quite unfortunate because it lets the Republicans keep winning.

[peacebird]

31. Third way wasinvented to push right wing republite policies inside the "democratic" party

It's whole purpose was to pull the party further to the right

[joshcryer]

32. Third Way "glosses" over economics.

Other than that it's very socially liberal (pro-choice, recognizes climate change, pro-LGBT rights, pro-SS, pro-universal health care, etc). It basically says "we can ignore the economically conservative Democrats."

And it makes sense from a political perspective because "we are all Keynesian's now." Keynesianism won. We're not going to go back to Regan-esque/Bush-esque policies. It's obscene to think that we'll allow that to happen again. If we do, we deserve it.

They need to rebrand and call themselves "not-Republican-way" and maybe it'll be more palatable.

[jeff47]

58. It used to make sense. It doesn't anymore.

Back when Third way and it's ancestors started, the left-right distribution of voters looked like an upside-down V. There was one big peak in the middle, tapering off as you got more radical.

Third way made sense because moving towards that central peak got more voters.

That isn't the case anymore. The Republicans going insane has turned the distribution into an upside-down W. There's a left peak, and a right peak, and a valley in the middle.

Republicans are aiming at the right peak.

Third Way is aiming for the dip in the middle, and large liberal-leaning groups (young GenX, older Millennials) are not turning out because of it.

Third Way is no longer a good strategy.

[joshcryer]

60. The Democratic map is unchanged.

[jeff47]

62. Which map?

Turnout? The same people are turning out. Younger voters aren't.

Strategy? Yes, that's my entire point: we're still using the strategy from the 90s, despite no longer being in the same environment.

[immoderate]

113. Third-way Democrats are not Keynesian, they're Reaganites.

--imm

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. All you have to do is persuade fellow Democrats to ignore the people you don't like, in primaries

That's the penalty. The mechanism is already there for you. Use primaries to get the candidates you want.

[Cosmic Kitten]

39. If there are no consequences for "betraying" the base...

we get what we get.

Why is Nancy Pelosi still the Democratic House leader?
She FAILS continually.
She is responsible in part for the election losses.
She is responsible for plenty of horrible policies.
She has been feckless in fighting the right-wing.

But she still has a leadership position.
She fails fails fails, but there are no consequences...
unless she isn't failing her "real" constituents?
That's a great big problem in the party.

[whatthehey]

42. facts please

which Dem has voted with Republicans the most? How often? Is this more or less than the comparable Republican? How often did this Dem vote against the party platform, as opposed to your personal preference? Which should be the shibboleth to identify a member of the party - its platform, voted in by a majority of grass-roots elected delegates, or personal opinions of individuals?

[mythology]

49. The answer is no elected Democrats voted with the Republicans more than with the Democrats

People like to toss out terms like DINO, but when it comes to providing actual evidence, the best anybody offers is specific votes rather than looking at the overall picture.

[Cosmic Kitten]

66. The overall picture needs to examine the money trail

If we want to be intellectually honest it's not
even about dems and repubs frequently.
It's about who profits from the votes.

So when we look at who votes for what legislation
we need to look at who benefits and who made campaign donations.

Our congress is bought and paid for.
That is the "overall picture"

[pampango]

70. The choice we all have to make is whether to belong to a small party in which all members agree with

each other on everything or a national-level party which which is large enough to win national offices but within which there will be some disagreement on some issues.

Where you fall in the spectrum from demanding unanimity on policy beliefs - even if that means excluding many people from party membership - and standing for nothing as long as the party is big enough for politicians can get elected, is a decision we all have to make.

I think we all believe that there are core issues that Democrats have to support: civil rights (race, gender, sexual orientation), progressive taxes, a stronger safety net, support for unions. (Your list may vary but we all have core issues we expect Democrats to believe in.)

But what do we say to someone who is supports civil rights, a stronger safety net and unions but thinks that progressive taxes are not the way to achieve them? Thanks but no thanks. You are not pure enough for our party. (Of course, that would not apply to someone who, let's say, believed in civil rights but not in progressive taxes, labor unions or a strong safety net. Such a conservative would not be a 'real' Democrat, IMHO.)

The more "core" beliefs we insist on for one to be considered a 'true' Democrat the more likely we are to exclude people who agree us on most but not all of them. The nature of our party seems to be that each of us has core beliefs that we think all Democrats should share with us. When a professed Democrat shows that he or she does not agree with us on one or more of our core beliefs, while agreeing with us on others, we want to jettison them from the party.

Do I accept a B/C level Democratic candidate at the end of the day, after supporting my A level candidate for as long as possible, in order to keep the D/F level republican candidate from winning? Or do I take my marbles and go home if Candidate A does not prevail while proclaiming that both parties are the same and Candidate B/C is not better than Candidate D/F? We all want our A candidate to prevail. The question is: What do we do if that does not happen?

[tabbycat31]

105. May I ask about your involvement on the local level?

And what you are trying to do to make your LOCAL Democratic Party more progressive?

It's easy to sit and complain from a keyboard, but if you really want to change it, it has to be done by you in person. Show up at the meetings, become a delegate at conventions, run for office yourself.

[marions ghost]

140. Sounds good to me but

America is not set up to tolerate any option to the historic two parties.

We are stuck with a binary system that no longer fits (if it ever did).

It's not working for us.

[Ykcutnek]

16. The 4 to 8 years after Obama leaves office, I predict, will be very boring.

I will always long for more, but I can definitely stand it.

[MiniMe]

21. Sorry, I can't answer the question you asked without asking

Primary or General Election? It makes a big difference IMHO. Would I vote for Hillary in the primary? Probably not. Would I vote for her in the general election? Who is her opponent? If it was Hillary vs Ted Cruz, hell yes I would vote for Hillary.

[olddots]

25. Damn it Jim I'm a liberal

not a digital vest .

[joshcryer]

28. You can't make progress without Congress.

FDR showed that. Yet so many here fawned over "The Roosevelts" without recognizing he was a strategist, to the point of being silent on lynching laws while southern Democrats defended them! To the point of putting a KKK guy into the SCOTUS! To the point of snubbing the black Olympic runner who said Hitler, of all fucking people, treated him with more respect.

Now that Obama no longer has the Senate I'm sure you'll criticize him for wanting to give people free community college or guaranteed paid leave when they're sick or calling upon states to stop their internet provider monopolistic practice. Of course you will. You'll claim he is just pandering, etc. Nevermind he literally had a majority for 49 fucking days of his entire Presidency. Nevermind he has never once had his budgets pass (it's always been continuing resolutions, because the black man can't be allowed to pass a budget).

It is grotesque. Shameful. The Democrats are different and are better and will do better and achieve better.

[Cosmic Kitten]

44. he literally had a majority for 49 fucking days

Yeah, but what exactly did he or any Democrat
in congress do mobilize Democratic voters?
It became a joke how the Democrats were continually
panhandling for money.

Wasserman Schultz is a laughing stock.
Her pathetic pleas for donations probably turned
more people off than inspired participation.
She is doing more harm than good.
But then again she is a "new democrat".


It's not that You can't make progress without Congress.
It's that you can't make progress with this Congress.

[mythology]

50. You do realize that the party raised more money than before right?

You also realize that the party did fundraising tests and found that the doom and gloom emails got a greater response right?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/republicans-democrats-2014-fundraising-111449_Page2.html

It kind of shoots holes through your theory.

[Cosmic Kitten]

52. Does it shoots holes through my theory?

So they raised lot and lots of money!
It's not clear that manipulating voters fears
for money is a good strategy for governing

anyway...
WHERE WERE THE VOTES?
Turnout was historically low!
So Democrats panhandled plenty of cash.
Where are the results?

Apparently there is no correlation between
campaign cash and winning elections?

The "doom and gloom" fundraisers tell us
that if we don't fork over money, republicans win!?
Well they got money and still lost.

Are dems running a con?
Are we, Dem voters, the mark?

[HappyMe]

80. The constant doom and gloom emails

led me to finally block them from my email addy.

I worked my ass off for a progressive candidate this past election cycle so she would get re-elected. I did the work, I voted. I'm wondering what everyone else's excuse for not voting was. Democrats of every stripe sat home.

[joshcryer]

51. Ridiculous.

No words for what you've claimed here.

[Cosmic Kitten]

56. Where was the emphatic push by the Democratic Party to VOTE?

They did lots of fund raising,
but not much to emphasize voting.

Where were the Democratic leaders on Tee Vee
talking up voting while the MSM was talking down
the Democratic party chances.

Every day leading up to election day the MSM
reported how Democrats were going to lose.
The MSM pushed Poll after Poll reporting how
Democrats had NO CHANCE of beating republicans.

Where was the leadership to challenge the MSM?
Where were the Democrats in Congress making headlines
emphasizing how important is was to VOTE.
How desperate the situation would be once republicans
controlled both the House and Senate!
Why didn't the party emphasize how devastating
gerrymandering would be to the election?

The silence was deafening.
Instead, democrats are blaming voters.
The MSM is blaming voters.
And the 3rd-Way and DINOs suffer no consequences.

[joshcryer]

61. "liberals" shit on candidates.

[Cosmic Kitten]

63. What?

Please explain.

[WillyT]

74. Psst... It's ALL The Liberal's Fault...

Has nothing to do with the corporate ass-kissing wing of the Democratic Party...

That's what I got out of it.

[Cosmic Kitten]

75. Thanks for the translation ;~)

Your guess is better than mine.

[JHB]

33. Not even knowing that Court appointments woud be in the hands of...

...guanopaths rather than a center-right "pragmatist"?

Can you stand focusing so much on the presidency that everything else is left to rot?

[aikoaiko]

34. Better than a Republican!

But I do reject your premise that Obama is Center right. He's definitely center left

[whatthehey]

40. bullshit push-poll false assumption fail. derp.

[brooklynite]

43. I wouldn't know...I haven't experienced one yet.

[NCTraveler]

46. I don't think the talk about chained CPI sounded progressive.

I don't think there was anything progressive about the verbiage used during the debate or the wording of the ACA itself. He has been progressive in many other areas, words and actions. That being said, I don't think he has sounded overtly progressive which is the leading point of your op. Even the verbiage has been a mixed bag and from the direction of a center of the road pragmatist. He is Hillary.

[JoePhilly]

47. I'm expecting 4 to 8 more years of whining.

[Denzil_DC]

115. I think it's already begun. n/t

[WillyT]

124. I'm Happy That ALL Is Well In Your World...

Yet some of us joined this Party for the common empathy... the common good.

And like common sense... it ain't so common anymore.

[unblock]

57. another? give me two examples.

obama? hillary? hardly. both have long sounded exactly like center-right pragmatists to me.

yes, both throw the occasional bone to progressives.

which is exactly what one would expect a center-right pragmatist democrat to do.

i have never understood the surprise on this topic.

[Cosmic Kitten]

79. Obama did not campaign as a center-right pragmatist

Other than that, you are correct.

He has inspired hope and broken
social barriers for millions of people worldwide.
Maybe that is the change he represents?

[unblock]

81. the 2008 campaign had a disproportionate emphasis on the primary season

it is true that his rhetoric at that time was more aimed toward a democratic audience, as is normal for primary campaigning. but he always sounded to me like someone who offered progressives great rhetoric while avoiding making any promises that would alienate conservatives and businesses. his campaigning in the general and actions once in office confirmed this.

overall i'm not at all displeased with obama because i'm a pragmatist, albeit very much to the left of obama. i think the reality of washington and the msm is that we liberals couldn't have hoped for much more in only 6 years so far. i remain gobsmacked at the speed of progress on the gay rights front. it took a long time to get into this mess and it will take a long time to get out of it. hopefully, the 2016 senate map and demographic changes will continue a gradual shift back to reason overall.

[Cosmic Kitten]

82. He was my first choice as soon as he announced

And regardless of the policies, pragmatically speaking,
he did change how the world sees US social culture.
In other areas, he sadly maintain the status quo.

That won't be good enough in 2016.
The stakes are raised and republican-lite is unacceptable.
The nation and the dialog has been illegitimately dragged rightward.

If Democrats believe any of their own myths,
NOW is the time to prove it.
We need representation for ALL of us, not just the 1%

[riqster]

67. The only alternative is a Teapublican Administration.

Fuck that shit.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right. Paine

[rock]

71. Yes

Obviously true if my other choice is a (ugh!) repiggie!

[bigtree]

78. until progressives manage to get a majority of Dem primary voters agreeing with you

. . .we will face the same choice between an unacceptable republican and another compromising Democrat. Given that choice, a republican candidate against a 'pragmatic' Democrat, I'd vote for the latter every time without hesitation and with zeal.

By the time we choose a candidate out of the primaries, your opportunity is ended - so, I'd get busy now convincing the nation of Democratic voters of the efficacy and wisdom of your progressive politics. Otherwise, we're going to see our very diverse coalition of Democrats arrive where they have for as long as I've been voting; with a mostly moderate Democrat.

We can grouse all we want about the end product, but the fact remains that there hasn't been a sufficient appeal from any progressive individual or group which has persuaded Democratic voters to abandon their own pragmatic sense of who would serve as a 'winning' candidate (which has been the overriding standard; ideology and views notwithstanding).

[pansypoo53219]

84. the TEEVE GNEWZ still is in LOVE w/ ronny ray gun + tinkledown + will not ALLOW amerika to change.

[pnwmom]

88. More than I could stand a far right Republican governing a far right Congress,

and the public responding to that President like they did to Reagan.

Or a Libertarian President fronting for a far right economic agenda, pretending that he's all about human dignity and liberty.

You can't give a progressive President a far right House and/or Senate to deal with and expect a lot of progressive legislation out of the mix. But the President did get progressive healthcare legislation through, with a huge expansion of Medicaid -- though the right wing SCOTUS was able to rein that in. And he has taken strong progressive action on gay rights, immigration, and Cuba.

I'd like to know what else he could have done that he didn't -- within the reality of the Congressional hand he's been dealt.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

89. "The only unbearable thing is that nothing is unbearable."

*le sigh*

[Maedhros]

90. The solution is not to vote for center-right conservatives,

even when they put a "D" before their names.

[LiberalAndProud]

94. I'm not answering your poll, because what I can stand or not

really doesn't amount to a hill of beans as we consider the upcoming presidential election. Also, my vote in my state will be as effective as a fart in the wind.

Having said that, being in a state where the Republican primaries determine the eventual winner, I will vote my conscience. That frees me to not vote for policies that I find abhorrent without affecting the outcome of the election. I urge my friends in the swing states to do the right thing. Whatever that is.

[Agnosticsherbet]

97. I shall remember to fart in the wind before I vote.

Hopefully, it will sound like a trumpet blast.

[LiberalAndProud]

99. Think of me in my desolate polling place as you let 'er rip.

[Agnosticsherbet]

103. Oh I will, I will.

[ChosenUnWisely]

100. Stop voting and supporting them just becasue they have a D after their name

it is the only want to get real change.

[KamaAina]

107. If you're referring to Hillary,

she doesn't even sound that progressive any more, if indeed she ever did.

[Warpy]

108. It beats the alternative of a right wing Republican

who despises labor and thinks anybody who works for a living instead of inheriting money is a sucker who needs to be punished for it and hates women and wants them to be treated like the rest of the cattle and who hates kids unless they're in utero and being used to punish women for being female and only loves a god who hates everybody he does and thinks science should be suppressed because he doesn't understand it and ditto literature, art and music.

So yeah, another Wall Street Democrat looks relatively good and probably the best we're going to get.

[MineralMan]

110. It's going to be an ugly 20 months.

[Recursion]

117. That's the only option. That's it. Same reason conservatives complain their Presidents are RINO

center left pragmatists. GWB inspired the exact same despair among the conservative pony brigade (actual quotes: "why did I even vote for a Republican if he just acts like a Democat?" "Are we sure this isn't Bill Clinton's 3rd and 4th term?" "Why are we watching the biggest expansion of Federal government in history happen under our own party?" etc.)

This is it. This is the governable spectrum of the US, and it's narrow. This ship turns slowly. Elizabeth Warren would have gotten exactly the results Obama did, modulo their difference in internal administrative ability. You are in a fantasy land if you think otherwise. (Yes, I know fantasylands are comforting.) A President gets to pick one, maybe two, things during a term and nudge them, somewhat. That's it.

[BainsBane]

120. No, I prefer a Tea Party president

Do I win?

[woo me with science]

149. The nation cannot afford it.

[WillyT]

152. That's What I'm Thinking... Now, Or Never...

[Liberal_in_LA]

153. better than repub governing