If the Sanders movement is so formidible it can force Congress to bend to President Sanders' will

[Empowerer]

Where were you when President Obama needed help getting his agenda through Congress?

[VulgarPoet]

1. Watching people drop like flies, and then selling my conscience for college money.

Where were you, and why should I sell my conscience again for Hillary?

[FrenchieCat]

2. You sold your conscience to support Barack Obama?

Good to note.

[VulgarPoet]

4. No. I sold my conscience to join the military so I wouldn't incur debt for college.

Obama was a conscientious, and unregretted decision for me.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Well, at least that's good to know....

[roguevalley]

47. I don't recall him asking for us to help. I called and wrote myself

but he didn't ask. Bernie will. He will also down ticket correct a few ass holes for us.

[Matariki]

50. And his Cabinet won't be made up of

the very people we should be protected against

[Empowerer]

52. What does the Cabinet have to do with it?

You all are claiming that this isn't about Sanders but instead a massive grassroots movement will rise up and force Congress to pass Sanders' legislation. I'm simply asking why, if you all have all of this power, you haven't used it before now?

[ErisDiscordia]

105. Geithner doesn't ring a bell?

[roguevalley]

53. I hear you, Matariki

[Sunlei]

100. I know other people who did the same thing.military=Education. They're doing good today.

A lot worse choices you could have made at that time in your life.

[VulgarPoet]

143. No doubt, but to me, it still counts as an act of selling my conscience

I've been against war ever since I attended my uncle's funeral. It just makes me feel like a hypocrite, being adamantly anti-war and then joining the military so I could at least try to secure a better future.

[FrenchieCat]

3. They were here pointing the finger....at Obama....

I remember it like it was yesterday.

[H2O Man]

5. Gracious!

Fair question. I was active at the grass roots level. But I do believe that far too many sat back, thinking the war was won. It created a vacuum that the tea party filled.

[FrenchieCat]

10. I remember how the Tea Party was given momentum....

as the television kept showing the same 5 people being upset at Death Panels for
days.

[H2O Man]

12. Valid & important point.

(I still think that our side needed to be more active.)

[FrenchieCat]

22. I do too!

[H2O Man]

40. Definitely!

Since I've had the honor of knowing you, you have always impressed me with your standards in terms of values & action.

[cali]

6. Simplistic silliness. So why bother?

[Snotcicles]

13. They are all start to babble alike. nt

[FrenchieCat]

24. Snark does not a conversation make.

Why bother....only to insult?

If that's the kind of satisfaction that turns you on though....go for it,
but all means!

[Snotcicles]

44. Being I wasn't addressing you. Thanks, but no thanks, for your unneeded permission. nt

[FrenchieCat]

82. You said "they"....

which I assume is any Hillary supporter...

[aikoaiko]

8. His agenda from his campaign or his agenda after he was elected?

[kath]

83. Yeah, let's not confuse Candidate Obama with President Obama.

[Empowerer]

126. And you should not confuse Candidate Sander with President Sanders

There's a world of difference between being on the outside saying what you'll do once you're in the ring and actually being in the ring.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena." - Teddy Roosevelt

[aikoaiko]

138. Exactly, and HRC's starting point in the campaign is status quo. Where will she govern?

How much further to the right will she end up?

This is why I want someone with a solid core progressive personal history and political record. He'll be pushed to the right, too, but his starting point is further to the left than HRCs.

[kath]

147. Meh. Obama conned us. I don't think he ever really intended to do the things he talked about as

Candidate Obama. It became clear pretty early on that we were conned.

[1StrongBlackMan]

153. Okay ... Let's go with his agenda after he was elected ...

You supported his Jobs Bill, right? Where was the movement?

You supported his gun control measures after Sandy Hook, right? Where was the movement?

[aikoaiko]

162. Jobs bill? Yes, but it was complicated and I didn't understand the details.

Maybe others felt the same way.

Gun control? No, none of the proposed gun control laws would have impacted the Sandy Hook shooting which was supposedly the inspiration for the legislation. Add to the fact that the political speeches from congress were fill with anti-RKBA hubris, its not surprising there wasn't much support.

[1StrongBlackMan]

165. Okay. eom

[NorthCarolina]

9. Obama never took to the bully pulpit to ask for help in pushing things through.

He could have done exactly that with a Public Option and likely have been successful, but instead he took the road usually traveled by DC public servants.

[Gregorian]

15. I actually believe this is more at the heart of it than anything.

I knew we were in trouble when he said to hold his feet to the fire. Good luck with that. But this time it's different, from what I have seen.

[Fawke Em]

164. My first disappointment is when he hired Rahm Emmanuel.

[Empowerer]

17. He did that over and over. I saw him do it. Maybe you weren't paying attention

[NorthCarolina]

39. I would have to guess you dreamed it, but by all means

show me a video of him stumping for a Public Option AS POTUS (not campaign mode Obama) and I will stand corrected. Good luck finding one though. May prove more elusive than a unicorn.

[uponit7771]

46. goal post move, you first said he never asked for help...thats false

[DanTex]

129. You stand corrected. (Also, wow, he was young!)

[FrenchieCat]

20. Obama Care passed in March of 2010, without a single Republican vote....

after the Tea Party movement was made born, and proved to have a louder voice,
than either the President or his non-vocal supporters, who were too busy accusing him
of being in bed with the Insurance companies than anything else.

on November 2010, Democrats lost both houses of Congress, which he continued to have until he was out of office.

In August of 1993, 8 months into office, Bill Clinton announced his plan for Universal Health Care,
which was widely denounced by the Insurance Companies, and other monied groups, and failed a few months later.

In the election of 1994, Clinton lost both houses of Congress, which he continue to have until he was out of office.


There's a pattern, and I'm not sure how much good Obama screaming Public Option into a microphone would have done. If folks were interested in Change being more than changing the person in office, they would have been writing to their representatives in drove about the Public Option, calling radio shows, penning editorials, etc, and being as assertive as they are now, in this Forum, about how great Bernie is and how terrible Hillary is, but they didn't and they weren't. The thought that Barack should have just gone all angry Black man on the tele, and that somehow that would have rallied the masses and that would have done it, well that is wishful. Instead, we had the Tea Partiers promoted by the media, in town halls where I guess only conservatives resided. There would be no need for hard work from the masses, just Barack's sheer prowess would have done the trick. I don't think it would have...but of course, that's my opinion.

[betsuni]

26. +1

[ancianita]

66. I drove out of Chicago with the Mad As Hell Doctors out of Oregon to get single payer

in meetings in DC. Along the way the doctors stopped at four union halls -- Chicago, Pittsburgh, Allentown, -- I forget the last -- to speak on single payer and invite them to ride.

We get to Washington, they get their meeting, and Dennis Kucinich shows himself to be a do-nothing big talking coward when it came down to fighting it through. I learned that guy usually only took safe controversial votes, not principled votes. The trip was an enlightening bust. At least 100 of us made it, from Oregon to New York to Washington.

I'm answering, primarily, your paragraph that begins, "...If folks were interested in Change being more than changing the person in office, they would have been ..."

To be fair, those of us who do try are too busy doing it to give DU the clearer picture of American effort. But the effort is out there. And it really is a truly big country. So big it's hard to unite. Then again, if the masses weren't coping with having had so many votes and so much money legally stolen from them, they might have time to get off their asses and do more hard work. The rich have gotten way out in front.

Another thing I noticed is that religion has trained everyday people that anger is one of the deadly sins and they should repress the temptation. Yet more anger from the masses is exactly what drives fear into the hearts of Washington and forces a place for them at the table. They also remember that Obama said he couldn't do it himself. It's only been media hype that portrays them as "misled."

Just my opinion.

[uponit7771]

89. "...gone all angry black man..." +1

[Empowerer]

111. Speak

[Armstead]

133. People did advocate for it vigorously -- But there was no support at the top

It is not accurate to say a lot of people did not work hard to support more extensive healthcare reform. But President Obama and the Congressional leadership were resistant.

President Obama and the hand picked Congressional leaders who were in the back pocket of the insurance industry that oversaw the process rigged it from the start. They excluded single payer advocates from meetings and hearings. They refused to even push for the public option -- which was intended to be a compromise.

And no one was asking President Obama to go all "angry black man" and try to beat the public into submission to pass single payer. They simply wanted Democrats to actually stand for it and sell it to the public as vigorously as the GOP was lying about it. But instead they came up with a GOP-inspired plan hast is the opposite of single payer.

[frylock]

171. I'll never understand how passing the ACA without a single Republican vote makes for an argument..

in your favor. We could have done much better without a single Republican vote.

[mcar]

62. That is just not true

He used the bully pulpit time and time again, and asked Americans to contact their reps to demand action.

Funny, every time he did, the Obama haters here would deride him saying "talk is cheap." I wonder what they would say to President Sanders in those cases?

[ancianita]

68. Yes he did. I remember. I saw him on TV making his case to the public about issues.

[betsuni]

70. Yes he did, I remember too. Guess he just didn't have the right personality or something. nt

[ancianita]

72. ...

[uponit7771]

91. +1, hell... the number of times he asked for help is written... the people saying he never did are

... really saying something else like he never went "Rock Obama" on congress or some shit

[Sunlei]

101. I guess Obama wasn't clear enough, simple enough with HOW to "Make me do it"

[ErisDiscordia]

106. Worse yet, he ignored any little people pleas and petitions

[1StrongBlackMan]

156. Okay ... you can make it about one particular issue (that you didn't hear; but, was done) ...

Did you hear President Obama when he took to the Bully Pulpit for his Jobs Bill? What about his gun control measures after Sandy Hook?

[Gregorian]

11. I think the answer is related to Occupy Wall Street

We weren't ready.

[Motown_Johnny]

14. Why is this hard for you to understand? He has said it over and over again.

https://go.berniesanders.com/page/event/detail/july29organizingmeeting/wrqj

^snip^

"Let me tell you right now what no other candidate will tell you. And that is, no one who is elected President of the United States can do it alone. No one in the White House will have the power to take on Wall Street alone, Corporate America alone, the billionaire class alone. The only way that change takes place, is when we develope that strong grass roots movement. Make that political revolution, stand together, and then we bring about change."

- Bernie Sanders / Portland, Maine / July 6th, 2015

[Empowerer]

16. Exactly. But Sanders didn't invent this concept and he's not the first to say it

Activists have been doing and saying this for years.

My question concerns whether the Sanders supporters who believe they can help Sanders do the near impossible were as committed to helping President Obama achieve his goals.

[Motown_Johnny]

19. President Obama is not as liberal so he does not attract as many activists.

Bernie is aiming for the people who compose Occupy, BLM, The Fight For 15, as well as immigration reform and climate change activists.

These people are willing to do what needs to be done, but Pres. Obama's policies are more to the center than they support.

[FrenchieCat]

21. So, you think these activists

only wanted it one way, and because Barack Obama (who was not elected on a super liberal platform) was who he was,
they decided to pass on doing what they needed to do in order to gain what they thought they wanted?

[Motown_Johnny]

56. How will Hillary get the Fight For $15 crowd on her side when she won't fight for $15?

I think the politics need to match the objectives of the activists to engage them.

[Empowerer]

59. You have an odd view of what activism is

True activists don't wait for politics to conform to them - and sit it out until they do. True activists work to shape the politics to them.

[Motown_Johnny]

65. But they won't support a candidate who does not share their goals.

We need someone who is on record as supporting these goals. President Obama is not on record supporting the goals of the Fight for $15 nor the Occupy movements.

Hillary won't even consider $15 as a minimum wage and uses 9-11 to justify supporting policies that benefit Wall Street.


We need the energy of those movements in the Democratic party and there is only one candidate who can do that.



https://go.berniesanders.com/page/event/detail/july29organizingmeeting/wrqj

^snip^

"Let me tell you right now what no other candidate will tell you. And that is, no one who is elected President of the United States can do it alone. No one in the White House will have the power to take on Wall Street alone, Corporate America alone, the billionaire class alone. The only way that change takes place, is when we develope that strong grass roots movement. Make that political revolution, stand together, and then we bring about change."

- Bernie Sanders / Portland, Maine / July 6th, 2015

[Empowerer]

30. So you could only get motivated to fight after you found the right leader?

[uponit7771]

48. +1 the OP is a fair question....the replys so far have been bs

[ancianita]

71. OP's fair in a myopic way.A larger fairness picture is that the work people do in this huge country

is often ignored or unknown elsewhere in the country unless it serves media theater and profit motive.

The less acknowledged is the fact that larger economic forces cripple people's spirits and wills, and don't help Americans who want to do something, they who have few unifying networks except churches to help them be activists.

Activists' work, when systematic, committed and displayed in multiple ways, can almost take anyone away from family and become a second job.

That's a fairer picture. Bernie sees that picture. So did Obama.

The OP's internal logic is fair but small. Its spirit is defeatist. Now is not the time for that. Along those lines of thought...

I've said it before and will say it again. Politics is a long, long game.

Forces that use politics as their tool were here before we got here. It doesn't mean that we can't turn this big country, that "we" cannot bend toward more organizing with hope and unity not to be confused with uniformity, which is the Repubs' thing.

We have to be together. Not the same. It's a stupid ad ploy but a truth that, removed from that world, does work. We have to stop being defeatist and try that ad in politics.

[Motown_Johnny]

55. Not me, but the politics need to match the desires of the activists.

Hillary's "no we can't" approach to politics will never cut it.

[Empowerer]

57. You have that backwards. The activists are supposed to shape the politics, not the other way around.

[Motown_Johnny]

58. Yes, which is why we should have a nominee who reflects those priorities.

How can Hillary engage the Fight For $15 crowd when she refuses to fight for $15?

[Empowerer]

61. As I said, you have it completely backwards

But I didn't ask you about Hillary and she is irrelevant to this thread.

I asked you why you believe that your movement is powerful enough to force recalcitrant Republicans to do your will, but you have not used that power in the past to force Republicans to do your will before now?

[Motown_Johnny]

63. The OP asked where these people were.

I was trying to explain that they were sitting out because the politics did not match their goals.

I don't think we can get the (R)s to do our will. I think that motivating the members of these movements can help us replace those (R)s with (D)s.

[ancianita]

69. We forget because we have to much else to argue against and too much to remember.

But we have to try to remember more about this challenge to Americans for more political engagement.

[retrowire]

18. Oh that's easy!

We were hanging out here in 2015-16.

You see, the Bernie Sanders Political Revolution didn't exist then so we couldn't really help Obama out.

Happy to help.

[stevenleser]

95. Then do it now. There is 11 months left. Nt

[MeNMyVolt]

109. +1

[Empowerer]

112. EXACTLY!

It's rather amusing watching these folks brag and boast about how they're going to force a wholesale change in the system through a people's revolution - that's going to start a year from now as soon as their leader changes jobs.

[retrowire]

154. uhh when are the midterms?

lmao do it now?

gotta wait for the polls guys. XD and we get called the unrealistic ones. lol

[Empowerer]

167. You do realize there's more to "revolution" than voting in elections every two years

In fact, the revolution is what happens BETWEEN elections.

[JustAnotherGen]

174. I did my best with Obama

My mom is really actively engaged with getting assistance for older vets who are starting to get ill from their exposure to the rainbow of agents (orange is just one). My dad's death was acknowledged by the administration, they gave my mon full disability back to 1978, etc etc - letter of acknowledgement for his service. Now she's helping soon to be widows and widowers make up for the money lost for out of pocket expenses fed gov should have been paying all of these 30/40 years.

Obama has done and is doing that.

Lily Ledbetter was a good start but on DU2 I was told in the Feminist group that jobs were more important than a Paycheck Fairness Act.

ACA was a good start - I have an acknowledgment certificate for my activism on that.

Etc etc.

I'm exhausted. If Sanders supporters want a revolution they have to conduct it without me! My hands don't work well (Ankylosing Spondylitis)' my left hip is frozen and my spine is freezing ram rod straight. Let them do the heavy lifting - did mine when I could and it's my turn to sit back and relax.

[retrowire]

155. we gotta wait for the polls to change our congress silly! lol nt

[Ron Green]

23. Having just lost an election running on the same ballot as Brother

Barack, I went to work with a single-payer advocacy organization. I knew that with Geithner and Summers in his inner circle, his feet were a long way from any kind of combustion I could muster in D.C.

Local action is the key. Bernie will put that in overdrive, is my guess.

[Fumesucker]

25. So many people ignored OFA after Obama was elected

All that enthusiasm just disappeared while OFA begged young people in particular to stay engaged and keep pushing for change.

I remember it like it was just yesterday.

[dorkzilla]

27. Well I’m convinced, I’m voting for...wait, who is going to be left in a couple of weeks?

If Bernie’s supporters bow to your wisdom, there won’t be anyone viable left.

And aren’t you guys always the ones telling us “Bernie is NO Obama”? Well, then....

[virtualobserver]

28. The movement can't travel back in time without the flux capacitor

If Hillary 2016 is so amazing, why didn't she prevent the Iraq War and the 2008 financial crisis?

[SammyWinstonJack]

172. Ha!

[Armstead]

29. Hard to get people pumped up for an agenda that is not clearly in their favor

You mean we should have been holding rallies for his single payer health plan? Oh wait....that was taken off the table. Man the phones for the public option that was sacrificed? Call Congress and demand we be forced to buy overpriced private insurance with no affordable public alternative?

Maybe we should have been marching in the streets to demand action on Obama's attempts to pass GOP lite budgets and plans to undercut SS benefits?

Hey let's have a rally to demand that more of our jobs get exported and more of our national sovereignty be turned over to corporations with the TPP.

Perhaps Occupy Wall St. should have tried harder to bail out Goldman Sachs and the other Big Banks.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Yeah....you tell 'em!

as you speak for the ones who live in the world where they believe that passing legislation through congress is a piece of cake,
and that all one needs to do is announce it, talk loudly (even if it ain't televised) and hold strong to get it done.

That's not how our government has ever worked, and it won't work that way anytime soon, no matter how close Bernie gets to the WH!

Our government was set up in a way that change is hard and slow, not sudden and perfect!

The Social Security Act that FDR passed was a Widow's program initially. If you were a domestic (Black) or an agricultural worker (Black sharecroppers), you were not a part of it.
The Iraq war didn't not not happen just because millions marched....

But you should continue, of course, to believe as you do....
and I will pray that the changes you want will happen exactly how you want them, and when you want them.

[Empowerer]

37. You were powerless to nudge a few Dems a little more to the left to support Obama's agenda

Last edited Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:31 PM - Edit history (1)

But you think you can rise up now and force Republicans to make a 180 to vote for Sanders' agenda?

Wow - That's some mojo y'all got there ...

[Armstead]

38. Yeah blame poeple for electing politicians who say one thing and then do something else

Don't blame "the mojo" on people who elect Democrats who promise one thing and deliver something very different.

I'm in a better position than many in that regard. My Senators are Elizabeth Warren and Markey...They are what they are. Before that Kerry and before that Teddy the K. (With an unfortunate detour to goofy Republican Scott Brown)

They generally support what I support. Or close enough.

[Empowerer]

51. I'm not blaming anyone for whom they elect - I'm asking why, if you believe so strongly that you can

get Congress to pass a President Sanders' initiatives, you didn't weren't able or willing to get Congress to pass President Obama's initiatives.

So far, no one has answer my question.

[Armstead]

134. Because you are not paying attention and don't seem to really want an answer

I think you are smarter than both your question, and your refusal to understand the answers people have been giving you. You are being disingenuous when you claim to "not be getting any answers." You just don't like the answers. You understand them, perfectly.

President Obama is a good man and a good President. But he has too often set a course that is the opposite of true liberal reform. As I noted above, how can you support policies that are the opposite of what you believe, such as TPP?

Congress has been rigged for many years. A big part of the problems is the obstructionist GOP. But too many Democrats who have the power to at least fight back either do not want to do the heavy lifting ("No we can't) or they agree with the GOP or have been purchased.

In case you hadn't noticed, these have long been movements for progressive reform, within Congress and in the public. But Bernie and those Congressional Dems who sincerely have been fighting for reforms are vastly outnumbered, outgunned by Big Money.....and have to fight against both GOP Propaganda and Centrist Democrat obstruction and propaganda ("No we can't.&quot .

Generating public support for liberal goals also requires leaders who are receptive to that. The Democratic Centrist leadership has not been receptive.

This election is part of the larger effort to rectify that.

While you are free to disagree, it is patently obvious that is what this is about in larger terms.

[Nanjeanne]

31. I was working my ass off for the Public Option through the OFA

When it passed the House - I cheered

When the Blue Dog Dems in the Senate worked against it - I mourned

When President Obama stopped mentioning & made back room deals so we couldn't negotiate drug prices - I dropped out of the OFA.

I am energized again!

[stevenleser]

96. In other words, what you are counting on to work won't work as you have tried it before

In fact you had a better chance to get the public option than you would have getting any of Bernies agenda through a Paul Ryan let GOP house.

[Nanjeanne]

121. I don't have a crystal ball

But I refuse to lie down and die because something in 2008 didn't work. It's 2016 now and the country's attitudes have changed significantly. I'm very glad the LGBT groups didn't give up beep cause Bill Clinton signed DOMA and Don't Ask.

What a sad world we would be leaving our children if we told them DONT BOTHER.

[stevenleser]

173. So you never in your life have made decisions based on past experience? Or...

Are you just willfully doing it now because you desperately want to believe in something that is not going to happen?

[jillan]

32. The question is why did Obama dump OFA after he was elected? Jeez!

The woman who worked for OFA in my area was amazing. She found me. She saw my post on a webpage, contacted me, kept in contact with me, talked me into making calls, sending out flyers for Obama. She ran this amazing operation. People were in and out volunteering for 9 months before the election. We sent out pevls, called the people we sent them to, made sure people knew where to vote, organized rides for people who needed it, on and on. Lots of energy, lots of unity, lots of fun.

And then Obama was elected and she was let go. OFA became no more. She was devastated.

What a shame. People like her would have been an organizer to mobilize groups of people to fight back thru his entire presidency.

Bernie's movement will not end the day he is elected. He tells his supporters that every single day.

[PyaarRevolution]

33. Skeptical.

Bernie has a record, Bernie didn't comparatively come out of thin air. I held a lot of skepticism on Obama because of that and I was critical of him on issues shortly after the election.
I wasn't going to let him honeymoon. What I wanted from Obama(and didn't get) was an MLK, a Malcolm X or a Stokely Carmichael. But then I can't say I was surprised.

[Empowerer]

43. You shouldn't say you were surprised because you had no reason to be

Obama made very clear who he was and what he was going to do and not do. And he never claimed to be an MLK, Malcolm X or Stokely Carmichael. If that is what you were expecting from him, you have only yourself to blame for being disappointed.

[ancianita]

74. I knew you'd go there. Such a right wing slant. Who are you? And who are the "you's" you're

talking to?

You're really pitching some defeatism within the party, not just to the Bernie folks.

Something smells about your demanding answers. Are you even a Democrat with a memory?

Maybe you should try to come up with some enlightening ideas yourself. Tell the "you's", Empowerer.

You've offered nothing here. Nothing. Cheap, small, logical, simple sophistry.

Empowerer, indeed.

[Empowerer]

76. Right wing slant to say that Obama did not run an ultra-liberal? Okay.

[ancianita]

78. Right wing to blame voters for how their leaders talk, then walk. You said:

"... he never claimed to be an MLK, Malcolm X or Stokely Carmichael. If that is what you were expecting from him, you have only yourself to blame for being disappointed..."

Can't tell you how many laughing, contemptuous right wingers have said that to disappointed Democrats who only believed that his campaign attitude would translate into governing fight.

We realized, some faster than others, that the sheer amount of DC opposition he had, the sheer feedback bubble he was in, forced him to make some new chess move strategies. Outwitting the Republican uniformity-style unified House had to be done.

BO's already learned enough to help any future Democratic president. The voter momentum behind both will have its effect.

[Empowerer]

79. Apparently, you did not bother to read the post I was responding to, so I will quote it for you:

"What I wanted from Obama(and didn't get) was an MLK, a Malcolm X or a Stokely Carmichael. But then I can't say I was surprised."

[ancianita]

81. I'm aware. It's the "...you only have yourself to blame" that casts shade on everyone else

not like that poster. I don't agree with the basis of his/her disappointment, but I understand.

Obama's spirit was a continuing of theirs, and to that extent no Democrat is to only have him/herself to blame for being drawn to it. Except you say what right wing cynics said during his entire first term. Still. He was voted in again by a more clear-headed electorate.

Now, what does that tell you about Democrats.

[uponit7771]

88. What record?! He couldn't mobilize people to get SP passed in VT!! ............ VT!!!!

[BlueMTexpat]

107. +1!

This is most telling of all.

[handmade34]

110. to be fair

that wasn't Bernie's job as our Senator...

[2pooped2pop]

34. He didn't go forth and tell the people straight up what was going on.

Once the people understand, they will elect those that will work for the people and throw the rest out. That is one of the big reasons so many in politics now have endorsed Hillary. They know they are on the bye bye end if he wins. Maybe not immediately, but it will come.

Look how far left Clinton has moved in just these short months to try to get elected. That's the direction they will all move to stay.

[FrenchieCat]

36. He told the people over and over again, exactly what was going on.....

Following is the prepared text of President Obama’s speech to Congress on the need to overhaul health care in the United States
www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/us/politics/10obama.text.html

But perhaps it wasn't exactly what those people that will now make sure everything is changed
wanted at the time, in order for them to get off their ass. If it wasn't the perfect proposal with
everything they wanted in there, then I'm sure they said "F*ck it".

That's fine....
what's done is done!

[2pooped2pop]

41. I felt he always held back to appease the Republicans.

Tried too hard to get along and gave up too much to bet a deal.

[uponit7771]

49. cause thats the way congress works?!?!

[2pooped2pop]

93. thats the way current congress works

[AtomicKitten]

75. Hillary will work with the Republicans ... and that's the problem.

[Empowerer]

77. As opposed to marshaling the movement to rise up and force Republicans to vote for Sanders' agenda

Umm. OK...

[AtomicKitten]

80. Coattails. Bernie's got them, Hillary does not.

Hillary's friends and natural allies, the Third Way Conservadems, had their asses handed to them in the 2014 midterms. Democrats rejected their pro-corporate, pro-Wall Street, pro-perpetual war message.

Single-payer healthcare was in the 2008 Democratic platform. Now Hillary says no, it's just too hard.

Democrats soundly rejected that "NO WE CAN'T" losing strategy in 2014 and are still in no mood for it in 2016.

Bernie has the enthusiasm. He has the momentum. He will prevail.

[uponit7771]

87. That's NOT how gerrymandering works, that's my peeve with Sanders is he's not explaining to people

... what they're up against.

Sanders can bring in 3% more votes MINIMUM in each GOP district and still lose those individuals districts!!!

It's digitally gerrymandered, Maddow did a segment on it a year ago...

There's only one time in US history where congress has been this gerrymandered

[Empowerer]

113. And the primary reason it is so gerrymandered is that many of the same people who are now promising

a "people's revolution" not only didn't use their magic revolutionary powers to help out President Obama get anything passed, they couldn't even bother to drag their butts to the polls to vote in 2010.

But, just wait. They're going to have a revolution beginning in 2017 - as soon as Bernie Sanders is president. In the meantime, they're just getting rested up because there's nothing to do until then.

[2pooped2pop]

92. no doubt

They will have to feign that they are not working for the same corporate goals

[stevenleser]

97. Right, because they're obviously so buddy-buddy with her.

[Empowerer]

122. Yes, Republicans LOVE Hillary Clinton. They're just beating up on her 24-7 because they have a crush

on her and don't want their friends to know it . . .

[Scootaloo]

42. You really want to know?

In 2010 I was at the polls voting for democrats. where were you?

In 2011 I saw the way the administration was going and participated in occupy, protesting for the Administration to return to Single-payer and pay attention to the economic meltdown of mainstreeet. it turns out that neither of these were in the president's "agenda" and for my effort I was pepper-sprayed by smirking cops. Where were you?

Even so, I voted for the man and down-ticket democrats in 2012. And again in 2014, I voted Democratic - except for Kshama Sawant, of course. Where were you?

Unlike some DU posters, I do not have the financial wherewithal to buy a lunch date with the Vice Presidnet or other administration officials. Nor do I have the depths of imagination needed to lie about doing so, I suppose. The extent of my reach is what I can do among my peers and with my ballot.

What about you?

[VulgarPoet]

67. Sounds like crickets to me, Scoots.

[uponit7771]

86. The OP asked about Sanders movement or his ability to mobilize, not just one persons experience...

... this is a fair question; where's this track record of Sanders in his own state or nationally towards mobilizing people to influence congress.

It's much harder to do anything now than it was 6 years ago

[Scootaloo]

94. No, it's a dumb question.

It's looking at something new and still developing and asking where it was at some arbitrary and undefined date of the past.

Senator Sanders is functioning as a sort of nucleus that several different and previously disparate groups are coming together around, of their own accord.

Movements are made of many individuals. They are not commanded by a central individual. I would hope that the difference between "grassroots" and "astroturf" would not need to be explained on a liberal and savvy site such as DU.

Like all movements, keeping it going is going ot be a task. No doubt. But right now the energy is there and creating momentum.

[Empowerer]

116. Yes, movements are made of many individuals. So, where have these "many individuals" been until now?

Waiting for a leader to tell them what to do? And Bernie Sanders is the ONLY leader person in the country who can lead them? But he hasn't done so until 2015?

And if this ISN'T about Sanders, but about the power of the people, why didn't these people mobilize, work together and fight to help President Obama get HIS agenda through Congress? My recollection is that many of these same people who are so certain that they can successfully force a gerrymandered Republican Congress to vote for Sanders' far left agenda didn't lift a finger to help President Obama when he was trying to push his agenda through Congress - an agenda that may not have been as ambitious as they wanted but certainly would have gotten us all much closer to where they want to be. Not only did they not help him, they heckled him from the sidelines and then helped to ensure that he got an even more recalcitrant Congress. And worse, they did this in a decennial year, thereby guaranteeing that redistricting would cement the gerrymander in place for at least 10 years - a boneheaded move that showed how ignorant many of them are about grassroots politics really works.

But now, suddenly, these individuals are going to launch a world-changing revolution? But only after their guy gets elected - in the meantime, they're just biding their time, hanging out on their computers telling everyone how they're going to kick ass once they get in the ring.

OK...

[Scootaloo]

150. I believe people are answering this question all through the thread.

I'm still wondering where you were at the time. Do tell.

[Nay]

160. To me, it seems obvious that a leader is necessary. Especially a leader who

will be clear about his values and has a track record of advocating for them for his whole career. When the values of the leader and the values of the majority of the voters coincide well enough, there WILL be more of a push toward the common values.

This does NOT mean that Sanders and company is going to vanquish every Republican person and idea and emerge triumphant; we still have Democratic organizations that try to impede progressive Democrats in the states (the idiot Republican Brat in VA, who replaced Cantor, had a viable Dem opponent who got NO HELP from DC Dem orgs just 90 miles away). That sort of stuff was repeated in many states, and you wonder why Dem candidates aren't winning? Heck, half the time in some of the states the Pubs were running unopposed for many offices.

I don't know what it takes to fund and organize a few state Democratic machines, but that is what it will take to have all the state action you think should happen. The Pubs figured that out 30 years ago, Dr. Dean figured it out 10 yrs ago, so it's not like this is rocket science. For some reason, the national Dems act as if everything should just pop up unaided, like mushrooms after a rain. I could get all CT here, but I won't. Suffice it to say, the reason Bernie is getting people excited is that he is seen as a person who is not interested in playing the 'game' of politics; to him it's not a game, it's people's lives and national survival.

I was happy to vote for Obama, if only to break down a racial glass ceiling, but after he appointed Geithner and such people, I knew he did not have the fire in him to actually lead the charge to change things. Oh, and those people you deride who "heckled him on the sidelines"? They were trying to hold his feet to the fire.

[Empowerer]

168. So this really IS about Sanders . . .

[Nay]

170. Yes, about Sanders, and leaders in general. nt

[uponit7771]

45. The answers are telling so far... its all Obamas fault

[Empowerer]

54. Yep -

Yet they weren't able or willing to get the Democratic president and Congressional Democrats to move a little further left but now they are going to rise up en masse and get a bunch of right wing Republicans to vote for Bernie Sanders' agenda...

[uponit7771]

84. +1, Sanders couldn't mobilize people in his own state to get SP passed !! What the hell is going to

... do with a historically digitally gerrymandered congress.

[mcar]

60. Yep

Good question.

[uponit7771]

85. Yeap, it also speaks to Sanders track record in his own state and nationally in regards to mobilizin

... people and efforts.

Where was the guy!?

If he's supposed to be mobilizing people to influence this historically gerrymandered congress then where was he in the past/!?

[Yurovsky]

64. 2016 is not 2008....

i believe Sen. Sanders can and will speak directly to the people. Those who oppose the will of the people will not remain in office for long... Demographics will wash away the temporary GOP majorities.

[stevenleser]

98. Great. It's 2016. Why isn't Sanders waving his magic wand and helping Obama get

Parts of his agenda passed through a Ryan controlled GOP house now?

[ancianita]

73. K & R, dammit. This needs more answers.

[AgingAmerican]

90. Obama decided to make,deals with Republicans instead

He had fantasies of 'post partisanship' and got used by them. Hard to believe someone so smart could be so horrendously naive.

[Empowerer]

117. Then why didn't your people's movement get behind him and give him the support he needed to force

the Republicans to give him everything he wanted without his having to give them anything in return - you know, make a deal with them?

You seem to think that in less than a year, you'll be able to provide exactly that kind of support to Sanders. Why not start now?

[AgingAmerican]

141. Damn you are naive

nt

[stevenleser]

177. Exactly. The joke is that person then called you naive, when they are the ones backing a

Rainbows and puppy dogs agenda.

[Sunlei]

99. perhaps Senator Sanders can use the words, "Make me do it" but that didn't work for President Obama.

They (Congress) do count calls from citizens, our Gov has a petition system that requires 100k sigs....can't even get 100k people with cell phones to take a few seconds to sign a damn petition.

Internet rage, message board posts and tabloid media have always been totally ignored by our Gov.

[Fearless]

102. I seem to remember Obama abandoning US after he won actually.

[JimDandy]

103. You're back at the well for some more flame bait I see.

[ErisDiscordia]

104. Under the bus

Where were you?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

108. What part of his agenda? Be specific. If you have allegations, make them.

[99Forever]

114. Right here.

Obama surrendered without trying.

Take your gripe up with him.

[randome]

115. So you admit the 'grassroots' movement did not force his hand but now it's somehow different.

All this 'Bernie has our backs!' stuff clouds the issue that the people are not demanding as much change as Internet warriors at DU perceive them to be.

Probably change will always be incremental unless there are people in the streets demanding more.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Empowerer]

118. Apparently you were "right there" not paying any attention

[99Forever]

119. If juvenile insults is all you can muster...

... perhaps you should just remain quiet.

[Empowerer]

123. Not sure why you think that it's an insult to note that you couldn't have been paying attention

if you think that Obama "surrendered."

But whatever.

[99Forever]

125. Really?

You don't "think that it's an insult to note that you couldn't have been paying attention"?

Maybe that your fucking problem, huh?

And yes Obama surrendered. Talk about not paying attention. It's what neoliberals do. Talk populist when campaigning, then surrender without trying.

Public option?

Comfortable shoes?

TPP?

Not a single bankster prosecuted?

Where the fuck have you been?

[Empowerer]

127. If you wish to engage with me, you had better change your tone and your language

Otherwise, please take your foulmouthed diatribes elsewhere. I'm not getting into the gutter with you.

[99Forever]

130. I'll post as I want.

You are not a gatekeeper here or a staff member. You don't get to tell others what to say or how to say it. You don't like it? Use the ignore function. It bothers me not.

[Vinca]

120. Whoever said Congress will bend under the will of any Democratic president?

Hillary and Bernie would both be stymied by Congress. We won't be able to make all the change we want until the next census and the capturing of some State Houses and ensuing altering of gerrymandered districts. Bernie has never said he has a magic wand and there is little doubt about how much Republicans hate Hillary. I expect if she's elected the impeachment calls (for the emails) will begin on inauguration day.

[riversedge]

128. Sanders has over-promised and many folks will get bernt in believing his

promises.

[Vinca]

161. Better to aspire to greatness than accept the status quo.

If the Sanders "promises" remind me of anything I've heard before, it's Obama promises. People realize everything uttered during a campaign don't automatically happen. We ended up with watered down healthcare, the TPP rather than bringing manufacturing back to this country, Guantanamo Bay still open, etc., etc. Nevertheless, Obama has been a very successful president in my opinion.

[workinclasszero]

124. Well Bernie was high up in his Ivory tower

throwing rocks at democrats and calling for the President to be primaried.

Lots of his future bros were promoting Nader and Paul while railing against the evil democratic party.

[peacebird]

131. I wrote and called my Repub rep and my two Dem Senators on a regular basis. You?

[vi5]

132. And I quote many on here..."Relax...he's got this."

Anyone remember that?

"Just let the president handle that. He knows what he's doing."

"Give him space and room to do what he has to do."

Then when it all falls apart "Well what did you want him to do? Why didn't you help!?!?!?"

I guess to Hillary's credit she's telling us from the get go that we shouldn't expect anything from her because nothing can get done. A nice rare honest moment from her.

[Empowerer]

135. I do recall that was said by some. And I also recall that that usually referred to his strategy

I don't recall anyone - especially him - ever claiming that he could do everything by himself - that he didn't need support or that it meant that Democrats should sit out the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms. But I do recall many of his detractors sitting out the mid-terms in order to "teach Obama a lesson."

But even if, for the sake of argument, it did mean that (which it clearly didn't), since when does a "people's movement" not do what it thinks is right just because some anonymous people on DU tell them not to?

Poor excuse for the heretofore lack of activity by the movement that supposedly is going to sweep Bernie Sanders' agenda through Congress next year.

[vi5]

136. Riiiight.

Yeah, that's what it meant. And it wasn't just people on DU it was Obama's advisers and cabinet and staff. It was always "Let the president do his job. Making waves isn't helping."

And even if what you're saying is true (spoiler: it's not), maybe that movement has learned its lesson and isn't willing to make the same mistake again by voting for the status quo candidate.

[Smarmie Doofus]

137. It was never much of an "agenda".

I personally was for the most part trying to mitigate the damage done to public education and to unionism by private corporate interests unleashed and encouraged by..... Obama himself.

[restorefreedom]

139. i don't think anyone is expecting bernie to mind control congress

or to bend spoons with his mind, but i digress....

many i am sure wrote/emailed their reps to advocate. it is also important to point out imo that obama governed from a much more centrist position than he campaigned on. that tends to suck the life out of passionate supporters who wanted a strong progressive.

i think bernie will stay close to his progressive ideals and fight like hell for them, eliciting many progressive advocates.

[treestar]

140. And he should have demanded single payer

at the time of the ACA. By voting for it, he compromised, which it is said he never does. He even helped write it. So it makes no sense for Sanders to get the support of the same people who criticize Obama/Hillary for being OK with the ACA.

[AgingAmerican]

144. You guys are tying yourselves in knots

Frustration will do that...

[treestar]

145. no substance to your post

dodging the question of why isn't Bernie thrown under the bus for his support of ACA? That comprised his principles. His supporters keep saying he never does that. Why aren't they angry about his voting for the ACA, which they consider a gift to insurance companies. Insurance companies are the most evil organizations in the world. Why did Bernie vote to enable them? Why did he not convince the rest of the Senate to pass a single payer bill? I don't see why Bernie is getting a pass for this corruption when he is supposed to be so pure.

[AgingAmerican]

146. No substance to the OP

Just hopelessly naive gotcha questions

[treestar]

148. Still zero substance

and avoiding the question of Bernie's corrupt vote for the ACA. It should be seen as corrupt by most of his supporters, by the standards they set, but somehow they do not apply to Bernie. I just wonder why. Why is Bernie OK to compromise his principles so much that he voted for the ACA?

[AgingAmerican]

149. More made up naive crap

You are on a roll!!

[treestar]

152. Another dodge of the question

Why is Bernie not thrown under the bus for compromising his values and voting for the ACA?

[AgingAmerican]

157. Bernie never compromises his values

And you have no clue how basic politics work. Hopelessly naive.

[Empowerer]

175. Of course not - when HE makes compromises, it's ALWAYS for a higher purpose

But whenever anyone else compromises, they're sellouts.

[stevenleser]

178. Even better. As with another poster above they called you naive when they are the ones

Backing an agenda that won't even be taken up by the house republican committees.

[handmade34]

142. yes

where were all the good Democrats in 2010 and 2014? and all times in between?

"When I ran in 2008, I in fact did not say I would fix it. I said we could fix it," Obama told an audience... "I didn't say, 'Yes, I can.' I said, 'Yes, WE can.'"

The president continued: "If you’re dissatisfied ...then I need you to mobilize and organize a constituency that says this is not normal and we are going to change it."

wanting change means making your voice heard everyday... voting, fighting, protesting, marching, boycotting, sacrificing, writing, calling, acting, running for office...


this is why little got done and Republicans took over Congress... the President is important but just as important (or maybe more so) is Congress -and Supreme Court



so tell me what is going to be different, what is the strategy for a different outcome... there is NO rest when change is desired

[Autumn Colors]

151. THE SAME PLACE AS HIS WALKING SHOES, I WOULD GUESS (nt)

[Kall]

158. Such revisionist history

People were trying to get the message through to Obama that the Republicans he kept trying to reach out to had no intention of working with him, and that wasting time trying to appease them, and making legislation worse and worse in a search for the elusive bipartisan unicorn was both useless and counterproductive, and just let Republicans off the hook for the fact that popular legislation didn't pass. Not watering down a good negotiating position from the start, and making a popular public case, would have been more productive.

You may recall that he didn't internalize this lesson until after he made a budget deal in 2011 that gave Boehner "98% of what he wanted" and couldn't quite get a deficit deal through despite putting Social Security on the table.

You may recall those days. Rahm Emanuel was calling people trying to get that message through to him "fucking retarded" and Robert Gibbs was deriding them as the "Professional Left."

[1StrongBlackMan]

159. Interesting, and revealing, thread ...

You asked a simple question and got some interesting replies, none of which answered the question.

Proving the observation that the game plan is: 1) Elect Bernie; 2) magic happens; 3) Utopia realized.

[Empowerer]

169. Exactly!

Viva la revolution ...

[NurseJackie]

179. Astute observations!

Distilled to the very essence of the three core ingredients. Nicely done.

[Fawke Em]

163. Yay! Another #NoWeCant post.

[Empowerer]

166. No-just the opposite. If yes, you CAN next year after Sanders is elected, why not CAN before now?

What have you been waiting for all these years?

Why not start now, rather than waiting until next year? There's still an awful lot of work that President Obama needs to get done before he leaves office. Why not marshal your forces to help him do it? Not only would it do an awful lot of good, it will also give Sanders a hell of a good head start . . .

[Armstead]

176. Bill Clinton and Obama ran as being much more liberal than they governed

It is not the fact that they "couldn't get progressive/liberal" change through Congress. It's that they either didn't try, or fought for things that were contrary to what they ran on.

Free trade, single health universal care, SS, budget priorities, deregulation...

People did not elect Clinton to push for free trade and to deregulate Wall St. They did not elect Obama to kill off the idea of a single payer private insurance healthcare system. They did not elect Obama to appoint the same bunch of Wall St. insiders that the CLintons did.

[1StrongBlackMan]

180. Where was all this "can do" ...

when the Jobs Bill came up? Or, gun control after Sandy Hook?

You want to deflect this onto someone ... anyone ... but those claiming revolutionary magic, that is the subject question of the OP.

[Armstead]

181. No one is claiming revolutionary magic

That's a bullshit misleading characterization, and the dismissivness implied is insulting to the concept of democracy.

There is no monolithic mass of people who have been hiding in the corners and suddenly emerged to support this Pied Piper Bernie Sanders. It is -- just like the Clinton campaign -- a coalition of many people with many different personalities, histories, priorities, and methods of relating and interaction with "the system."

And there is no gang of Berniebros who expect to suddenly take over Washington and change things overnight if he were to be elected. And there is no army of purple fairies with magic wands waiting to spread pixiedust of love either.

If Bernie is elected there will continue to be -- as before -- different coalitions with either separate or overlapping priorities. Just as there has always been.

The difference, if he succeeds, is that there mighty actually be a political party that is more oriented to adcvancing liberal/progressive priorities, and will inspire more people to become more involved in various issues, and place more pressure on elected leaders in DC to do the right thing and/or eventually create more opportunities on state and local levels for Democrats structures and a public mood that are more truly democratic.

No miracles. Just steps in a better direction. I don't see a damn thing wrong with at least trying to achieve that. A whole lot better than a constant refrain of "No we can't do that."







.

[1StrongBlackMan]

182. Hmmm ...

No one is claiming revolutionary magic ... That's a bullshit misleading characterization, and the dismissivness implied is insulting to the concept of democracy.

There is no monolithic mass of people who have been hiding in the corners and suddenly emerged to support this Pied Piper Bernie Sanders.

Did anyone tell Bernie? ...

“Today … we begin a political revolution to transform our country economically, politically, socially and environmentally,”

Or, his campaign staff? ...

If Sanders is to win, he must get a sizable number of the disaffected and cynical voters to reengage in the political process…

I mean, I get it ... Bernie promises a step or ten farther left than what is currently in the body politic; but ...

The difference, if he succeeds, is that there mighty actually be a political party that is more oriented to adcvancing liberal/progressive priorities, and will inspire more people to become more involved in various issues, and place more pressure on elected leaders in DC to do the right thing and/or eventually create more opportunities on state and local levels for Democrats structures and a public mood that are more truly democratic.

But the question was ... and remains ... where were the marches, the public demands, with respect to the Jobs Bill and/or gun control, from the Bernie supporting left ... EVERYONE supported these measures; but, no one acted revolutionary.

[Armstead]

183. He is not proposing a March of the Week

You are merely reiterating a dismissive attitude towards people who are trying to open up the system. Peopel who are not experts or lobbyists or well-paid politiucians have no right to participate.

What, are people supposed to take a week off work and travel to DC for a march everytime there is another mass shooting or bill proposed?

Okay have it your way, Public involvement in public policy should be discouraged. We silly commoners should just leave it to the "adults" to continue to run things into ground, as they have been doing for 35 years. Let the corporate lobbyists and politicians decide what to do without our input.

Don't try to enthuse people about the idea of civic engagement on a level they can work into their lives, jobs and other commitments. Insult people who believe that things could change for the better if things were more open to meaningful engagement, led by the people who are sent to Washington to represent us.

Those people are such silly little fools. Democracy is such a foolish concept. Oligarchy is much more efficient.