the split in the party

[Two Americas]

I am certain that there is a split in the party, and that it is real and meaningful and not merely based on loyalties to personalities (AKA "candidates").

It isn't following any predictable right-left political lines, since supporters of arguably the most conservative candidate - Clinton - and supporters of the most liberal candidate - Edwards - are both disaffected, resistant to the Obama movement, and finding common cause.

So what is happening? What is the resistance to the Obama phenomenon about, and what is the significance of that for the future of the party? ClericJohnPreston is accurate, I believe, in his descriptions of the Obama followers behavior and thinking. I am not going to say "some" since it is a self-selecting and self-defining group, and anyone not thinking the same way and seeing things the same way is attacked as an outsider. It is very rare indeed when any Obama supporter objects to the way his or her fellow Obama supporters are identifying and treating outsiders. So it is not me painting with a broad brush, but rather observing the broad brush being used by those who are defining the movement every time they make dissidents into outcasts.

I had an Obama supporter tell me today that anyone using the phrase "latte liberal" therefore "might as well be a McCain voter" and should be treated as an enemy. We saw Obama supporters hatred and viciousness against the voters of West Virginia. I don't think these are isolated instances, nor merely a product of zeal or temporary passions caused by the primary battles. I think something deeper is at work there, and it is something that is an essential feature of the Obama phenomenon.

But beyond that, what is the fanaticism and zeal about? What is the cause, the goal of the people exhibiting that pack behavior? I think if we can understand that, we can understand people's resistance. What is it that makes you resistant to the Obama movement beyond the provocative and inflammatory behavior by many of the supporters? Why are people lining up on one side or the other?

I hope this post can be seen as an attempt to understand what is happening, and that people will honestly express their feelings and thoughts as to why they are resistant to the Obama movement, so that we can better understand what is happening, rather than as a volley in the ongoing bitter feuding for and against Obama.

To any Obama supporters who happen to stop by, I would ask you whether or not it would be a good thing, a wise thing, to gain a better understanding about the resistance to the Obama phenomenon, for the sake of the future of the party and the country. If you don't think that it is, I hope you will let others discuss this subject in peace.

[cornermouse]

1. Sorry. Goofed.

[Two Americas]

2. thanks cornermouse

I am thinking more of the Obama movement and what it tells us about the state of the party and means for the future of the party then I am about the qualities of the candidate, you know? Your points are well taken, though.

[cornermouse]

3. Sorry.

I'll delete.

[Two Americas]

4. no, no that is great

I agree with what you said - good post. I guess I am hoping to avoid some contentious for or against Obama feud here. But don't worry about it. I was glad to see you post what you did. There is hardly any discussion about the candidates actual qualifications, is there? It is needed.

[cornermouse]

6. Too busy fending off accusations of racism and other

hideous stuff if you say anything they don't like about his qualifications. You can't have a discussion under those circumstances.

[kelligesq]

96. kicking

[balantz]

5. I guess the party picks and grooms the middle of the road candidate.

This time they got one who would be able to talk a good talk and look good; have some wow words and some presence for the charisma that grabs people. One that could get a bunch of pissed-off younger generation voters to jump in too, younger voters raised in the Reaganomics generation, ones to whom Edwards looks like a far left socialist, and Obama looks like an acceptable progressive/populist. When people think Obama is a populist it shows how screwed up our government has become. After shrub and zany even Hillary can look like a populist.

Obama will play the game of the system in Washington while doing the "same old job" the Dems have been doing for a generation now. He will play with the corporatists who hold the purse strings and he will keep the masses happy just because he is a Dem., and a Dem. as we all know is better than a Pug. A true populist isn't even let in the door. Edwards was about as close as we could come to a populist, but he was an outsider, not a Party choice. He wouldn't play the corporate game, he wanted to destroy it.

The Party is accepted by the masses as perhaps in need of a band-aid or two, but healable. Too many just don't see that the system is broken and needs a complete overhaul.

Obamaists are buying who the Party is selling as the person for the job and they are thinking that they must be fervent lest someone take their candidate's place. They don't realize they are being used to further the goal of selecting the Party's choice with their determination and bitterness. Too many don't realize that the choice has already been made. The sentiments of so many Dem. voters is to get their person elected and right the wrongs of shrub and co. They think that's all that is needed to fix our monumental problems. Just get the "best" Dem. in office, then everything will heal.

The fact that Obama also answers to the long overdue need to heal the racial rift is another pillar of Obama fervor. That is fueling support from Dems. of all races, ages and genders who share such understandable sentiments.

The one thing that sometimes gives me a little joy from all of this is seeing black people in my town feeling proud. I may not care much for Obama, but that feeling I see in the black community gives me some happiness.

There's some of my thoughts on the phenomenon.

[ClericJohnPreston]

7. Great post Two Americas

And I am afraid, for the most part, the prosaic and well thought out post of yours will fall mainly on deaf ears, and willfully ignorant minds. It is the essential nature of this beast, this myopic love affair with a caricature, that defines Obama supporters.

The phenomena is not too hard to follow. Most people like to cede their thought to others, but rarely acknowlege this fact. They have been conditioned for a long time now, to blithely accept absurdity as their reality. Reality is so easily manipulated, that up is down, right is left. "Balantz" makes some wonderful observations about this trickery in his comments about how Populism is being defined, INCREDUOUSLY, by a moderate/conservative candidate.

Obama's supporters have a simple equation. A disproportionate adoration of their candidate and a disproportionate hatred of any adversary, meaning anyone not Pro-Obama. As clear as any balanced equation, there is a corresponding love/hate bi-polar view of the world. Their world is as simple as US versus THEM. Them is anyone from the most rabid Republican, to the slightest critic of Obama, with no intervening middle ground. There is no gradational thinking, no ability to discriminate opinions. There is only the ironic standard of Obama, love him or get out, a mixed wordplay and identical pathology of "America, love it or leave it".

So why are Obamites this way? How can a so-called man of peace, engender so much hostility? Simple, a very complex manipulation of the message and the follower, as savvy as any Army Psyops Operation. Obama is PURPOSEFULLY a blank screen, spouting hope and change so often two things take place; his followers PROJECT their own corresponding hopes and dreams and the empty words themselves, NOT POLICY PROPOSALS, become the message itself. Followers are so wrapped up in these hollow words, they really can't explain what Obama stands for, beyond a recitation of the words themselves. Remember all the LINKS,LINKS, LINKS they had to post anytime they were queried on specifics?

The key to Obamite venom, is the fact that Obama mixes into his speeches, just under the radar unless you are really listening, some very hard-edged critique and negativism against his critics. It is delivered in aw shucks style that is never held up to scrutiny. Add in the very large mass of neophyte voter, read INEXPERIENCED, accustomed to being controlled, and you have a recipe for monochromatic thinking gone wild, a rationalist's and pragmatic thinker's nightmare.

Finally, as you have often opined "Two Americas", these Obamites, without any anti-racist bona fides, no marches, no protests, no anything of personal cost, have bought their liberlism via a vote. They can now employ tokenism, in the guise of being such enlightened liberals, who actually support a Black man. Look at me, they proclaim, look how liberal I must be.

Somewhere, the Corporatists smile. They have their stacked deck, for all three candidates left standing are Corporate through and through. As ironic as the old McDonald's ad that you have freedom of choice ( between what, hamburger 1 and hamburger 2 ? ), you now have falsely credentialed non-populist populists, all beholdin to their Corporate sponsors, who can't lose.

Pathetic, isn't it? Worse though, the blindness of the minions who will rue the day they ceded their rational thinking to a corporate commercial.

[ClericJohnPreston]

8. An aside

bpeale wrote me they are having trouble accessing this board. Whats up with that?

Also, the great thing about a post which addresses vexing questions in an honest way, is that mantras to MUTE Democratic opinion, such as "lettuce ink" or "lead it sink", have no power here!

This thread is a kool-aid free zone.

[unc70]

14. I too had problems posting here earlier

I had carelessly failed to save my work in progress and lost my $0.04 on the matter. Will try again after reading other posts.

[unc70]

15. I too have had problems posting here earlier and just now

I had carelessly failed to save my work in progress and lost my
$0.04 on the matter. Will try again after reading other posts.

It just failed again when trying to post this a previous time

[raincity_calling]

57. I don't know.

I am an Obama supporter. After Edwards dropped out, I thought it was going to be a relatively easy transition to be an Obama supporter. I started looking at him and then concluded "I can't go there." So I then took a look at Hillary. I was surprised that I began leaning in her direction because I pretty much wrote her off as a result of sponsoring a bill to make burning the flag illegal and then the Kyle-Lieberman bill. But, nevertheless, I liked her healthcare and energy "purported" positions (note: I don't trust any of them, I just try to choose the lesser of the evils)better than Obama's "purported" positions. However, when she and Bill started their Rovian style campaigning I was completely turned off. So I took another look at Obama. I stuck with him. I know the DU Obama supporters have a bad rep, but the Obama supporters I have met personally are not anything like the nasty ones I have seen or read about on DU. They are just the opposite. They are positive warm people who are inclusive (unlike Hillary's campaign). On the other hand, some (a minority) of the Hillary supporters I have met in person (I haven't met that many) are like rabid dogs when it comes to Obama, and they are women.

One of my issues with Obama is that he "talks pretty" but there is little substance, i.e. policy details. But, you may recall, after the 2004 election, the question was why do the Dems always lose (I believe primarily because the GOP steals elections) and the conclusion, by those who read "Don't Think of An Elephant" by George Lakoff, was because the Dems are policy wonks - their campaigns focus too much on policy details and not enough on Democratic values. So here you have Obama, who focuses on Dem's values and less on specific policy, and sure enough, it appears to be a winning strategy, and now everyone is criticizing him for not providing more policy detail - calling him an "empty suit."

At our recent Congressional district caucus, where we elected national delegates, it was so moving to see the diversity and acceptance of all types of people. We elected an Iraqi, an Iranian American, an African American, a Hispanic American, a woman of Jewish faith, among others. This is good. We had more African American and immigrants at the caucus, as well as several disabled American, than I have ever seen at any Democratic Party gathering in the past 5 years. Maybe Obama is not as liberal as some of these people think, but to engage these people is positive. The more people engaged in the process and at the grassroots, the better.

Hillary is entrenched in the status quo. If it turns out that Obama is too, then we are no worse off in that respect. We benefit with Obama from the involvment of the grassroots; people who have not been engaged in grassroots politics in decades or ever.

What is special about Clinton? She groveled at the feet of publisher Scaife, the man who sought to destroy her husband. She is citing Rove's comments as a basis for showing she can still be the nominee. As a feminist, I wish I could support Hillary, but I can't. I don't like her GOP/Rove style politics.

If I were not terrified of a McCain presidency, I would probably vote for Cynthia McKinney. She is a candidate I fully trust and respect.

[ClericJohnPreston]

64. Lucid comments

which I appreciate not punctuated by obscenity or calls to "get out".

However, we come to an impasse at the point you state that Obama, as apre-planned attmept to avoid being "wonkish" on policy, is approvingly general. You say he espouses Democratic Values.

This couldn't be further from the Truth.

Obama doesn't espouse core left-wing Democratic values....AT ALL. Unless, you think most left-wingers would consider a bi-partisan cabinet after 8 years of Republican stranglehold nightmare. He also speaks approvingly of Reagan and fails to comment on the obvious divide in our culture between the haves and have-nots.

JRE knows there are Two Americas. Obama speaks to the all important CORPORATE one, as a special pet and guardian of all WALL STREET interests. That translates to status quo, nothing more.

I have no hopes or dreams with Obama because I see him for who he is, not waht adoring non-thinkers project upon him.

I wonder with al your experiences, how many of the people you mentioned, these grass roots have ANY political savvy or experience? How many of them are starving inner city dwellers or rural poor? I'll bet......NONE.

[raincity_calling]

66. Regarding who the Obama supporters are --

The Obama supporters I know are all over the map. Most of the members of my legislative district, which is a very liberal district (one of the most if not the most in Seattle, support Obama. These same people are very active in politics - some I would consider savvy politically, some not (I don't think I am savvy, but I am cynical and very liberal). The Obama delegates at last weekend's congressional caucus were all over the map too. Many first timers, some who were active at one point, dropped out, and are now inspired or invorated once again by Obama. I think these people are just tired of highly partisan rhetoric, and all the hate speech that permeates politics, and Obama doesn't do that. He creates a positive vision of everyone getting along no matter what the color of their skin, ancestry,or nationality, and yes, political leanings.

I hear what you are saying about Obama not being as liberal as many believe him to be. That is why I initially supported Edwards, and why, after JE dropped out I looked at Obama and then said "I can't go there" (I also didn't trust him)and began leaning toward Hillary.

One of my liberal friends read his books early on and liked him based upon the books; she says this is probably the first time she paid more attention to "character" rather than issues. I said I initially focused on character and issues which is why I initially supported Edwards (although, there were always questions in my mind even about JE because of some of his votes while a Senator). Truthfully, why these friends did not choose Edwards initially I can't say. It seemed like a no brainer to me and I know that we all think alike.

I think what draws my liberal friends to him, is they don't like/trust the Clintons (neither do I) and they like Obama's vision of a more united America - less divisive. They are tired of divisivness.

Speaking for myself, I believe having a vision of what can be is an important first step to getting there. I think a collective vision can be very powerful and this country desperately needs a positive vision of itself and a positive vision to which to aspire.

I will always vote for a Democrat if there is any chance that a Republican may be elected. I would vote for Hillary if she were my only choice. Being the cynic that I am, when it comes down to actual policy, I really don't think there will be much difference between Hillary or Obama. They are both politicians and both support the corporations and the status quo. The hope that I feel with Obama comes less from him and more from an inspired grassroots.

[raincity_calling]

67. Realized I didn't respond to your comment

Regarding "You say he espouses Democratic Values.

This couldn't be further from the Truth.

Obama doesn't espouse core left-wing Democratic values....AT ALL. Unless, you think most left-wingers would consider a bi-partisan cabinet after 8 years of Republican stranglehold nightmare. He also speaks approvingly of Reagan and fails to comment on the obvious divide in our culture between the haves and have-nots."

I agree with the bipartisan cabinet not being a Democratic value after the past eight years. I hope he doesn't follow through on this "campaign promise."

If you are referring to his comment about Reagan quite a few months ago, my recollection is that he referred to Reagan as a tranformative president, which he was. I don't think he said he approved of the transformation itself.

Regarding the have and have nots, no he doesn't speak as directly about this as JE does. But Obama does speak in general terms in the sense that he talks about every American having the ability to own a home and live the "American dream," of being able to have good schools, jobs, etc. He is talking about a strong middle class and everyone having an equal chance to be part of the middle class.

[AndyA]

9. Yes, I think the Democratic Party is severely split right now.

But I also believe the bottom line is this: once the nominee is known, the party will unify and support the Dem nominee if for no other reason than to keep another Republican out of the White House.

I do not like Barack.

I do not like Hillary.

I think both of them will be better than ANY Republican, but they do not represent the best possible person the Dem Party could have chosen.

I don't care what gender the nominee is, nor do I care what religion, hair color, sexual preference, or skin color they have. I want a person who will honor their commitment to the American people, respect the Constitution, and fix the myriad problems we have in this nation.

The fact that Hillary and Barack are so close in the numbers this late in the game tells me there will be no clear winner. When the nominee is eventually announced, everyone concerned is going to have to unify and pull the party together. Frankly, I don't see this happening unless both Barack and Hillary are on the ticket.

At that point, the Dems have the best chance of winning, but we could have done so much better. But too many American people are sheep, and they allowed the M$M to paint the picture for them, and they fell in love with making history instead of fixing the country.

Fools never learn. And being a nation of fools is what got us in this predicament in the first place.

Can you imagine if we had Edwards/Kucinich instead? Or Edwards/Feingold, Edwards/Dodd...it could have been great. Now, the best we can hope for is better than it's been with shrub. :shrug:

[ClericJohnPreston]

11. Some nice points

but I thought we were analyzing the Obamites.

This isn't as simple as the M$M did it. They were merely ONE of the tools used to mystify the public, through the usual feint and distractions.

I point my finger squarely at the "actor", the supporter themselves, whose ceding of their thought, submission to manipulation, FAILURE to correct themselves, EVEN WHEN THE PARADOXES of their candidate are self-evident, yet stubbornly cling to an unalterable path, AS THE BLAMEWORTHY.

The Obamites are OBLIGING and willing in their ignorance of fact and fiction. I blame them. Period.

[Two Americas]

12. pulling the party together

Back when the Democratic party did have broad public support, no one worried about "pulling the party together" nor was there so much talk about "support." One voted. That is what one did. One small act on one day. The rest of the time was spent living real life, having real discussions about real issues, and doing the things - such as organizing Labor movements, organizing to fight for Civil Rights, to fight for the poor to name a few examples - that were not beholden to or dependent upon any party or candidate. We, the people, led and demanded that the politicians follow us and support us. Voting was the last step, an effect and not a cause, and a very small step. Today the only thing people talk about is voting - all framed as a "personal choice" - and the only thing people do is harass others to vote a certain way. There is no national political discussion, there is no political action, there are no political movements or political organizing, there is no pressure on the politicians - we are expected to represent them as some sort of crazed and fanatical public relations agents rather than demand that they represent us.

What is it that would be "pulled together?" Nothing actually happens. It is a feeling or something. What it really means is "conform" in thought, word, and deed. It means say nothing heretical. Say nothing that might upset someone. Say nothing that might "discourage" someone else - do not say anything that might make them feel a certain way that they do not want to feel.

What does "support" mean? Say nice things about? Give money to? Again I think "support" means say certain things and don't say certain other things. It means conform to the mob of fans or hero worshipers.

I think that we are so accustomed to this demand for conformity, this suppression of freedom of thought and speech, that we don't realize that there is hardly anything that one is permitted to talk about without being attacked and silenced.

When I was younger, "politics" meant the exploration in depth of any and all issues of public life, courageously and fearlessly. Today "politics" means the exact opposite - restrict your areas of inquiry and the range and scope of the discussion to very narrow and specific parameters, and do not say anything outside of those boundaries, and do not apply politics to anything other than voting and cheer leading.

Support, unity, pull together - they all mean the same thing: shut up and get in line.

[maryf]

88. From the rural thread

Raejeanowl makes a good point in the rural/demo hate thread: on edit link in Two America's comment #77:

"The party needs to get back to its roots of supporting and advocating for the social work it was accomplishing in these areas fifty years ago, and put away the damn preaching. They metaphorically need the bread more than the circuses. Perhaps then there would be less reason for concern about them being led astray at the voting booth."

to me this is what being a democrat is about, supporting the common people, seeing all taken care of without imposition. He/she says it pretty well I think!

[waiting for hope]

10. Thanks TA - I'm seeing a split too.

The problem I am having is that the total disregard Clinton is receiving, and it's a very real fact that it's almost 50/50 across the country on support. Her win in Kentucky and West Virginia were by far bigger margins than Obama's Oregon and it was too close in Indiana, a state by definition, Obama should have won. There are very real concerns about who's more electable and the voters who have gone Clinton's way are die-hards - that they are still behind her after some questionable campaign tactics tell me that frankly, they are not bothered by it and see her as the best choice. As for the Obama phenomenon, I'm a bit taken aback about it. The sheer hatred toward Clinton and supporters is akin to something I would read on Free Republic. The real problem I feel is that there is very little difference between the two:

Clinton Obama US Senate Voting Record Comparison
http://youmob.com/mob.aspx?cookietest=true&mob=http%3a%2f%2fmashfree.com%2fcbvote.htm

and that the "movement" is closing their eyes. I think it has more to do with the fact that Obama promises something new and there are so many Democrats that have felt disenfranchised over the last two terms of Bush, insulted by being called a terrorist just because your vote goes to a Democrat and the opportunity to take it all back has them at a fever pitch in their zeal. After November of 2006 and the subsequent "do-nothing" congress, I've lost my zeal for any real change in DC - Edwards would have done it, but the media knew that he was the "real change" candidate and was willing to back promises with deeds. That scared them and I think Obama was a safer choice.

As for the pack mentality, it's an easy trap to fall into - I've seen many a long time, impartial Du'er join into the fray. There was a time when there were 20 or more Edwards threads on the Greatest Page, but that felt different for some reason. It was about the issues and the substance of his campaign. Now they are about "I'm supporting Obama Now" and "I hate Hillary with every fiber of my being" ... We are lost here - they have an eight point lead now with Obama over McCain but it hasn't even started yet - just wait until Rove comes out from under his rock and works his mojo on the media. Obama is going to need those West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania voters and how he will win them over is anyone guess for I feel that he doesn't have the ability to connect with them - and that's the true test of a leader.

[Two Americas]

13. great post, many good points

Especially your observation about the ability of the candidate and the campaign to connect with voters.

I just posted this elsewhere:

It is not merely a matter of race, nor of "elitism"

Rural and blue collar voters vote against the "professors" - an intellectual, erudite, nuanced, cautious, academic personality style. We nominate professor Gore, professor Kerry and now professor Obama. Brilliant and talented men, all, but with a certain style. We cannot really complain when the voters reject them over superficial matters of style, since I am convinced that we select them for exactly the same reasons. We can relate to them, we find them attractive and charismatic, they fit our ideal of personality type and background. Millions of everyday voters, however, cannot relate to that style, cannot identify with these men - in fact their style and manner of speaking sets their teeth on edge. We can't imagine that everyone would not fall in love with our heroes, or we think that there must be something wrong with those who do not fall in love with them, so we keep repeating the same mistake over and over again.

LBJ and Truman had rugged "everyman" styles and appeal. The Kennedys and FDR, while born to wealth and highly educated, did not project an image of superiority or entitlement. They could speak to the common man, as it were, as equals. You can see the difference in posture and body language, in hand gestures, in tone of voice and in phrasing. Gore, Kerry, and Obama talk and act like they are in the lecture hall up in front of the undergrads. LBJ, Truman and the Kennedy brothers talked and acted like they were in a noisy, rowdy union hall, rubbing shoulders with the riff raff, as they fired up the troops for an impending strike.

I am not saying this is fair, nor the way things should be. I don't fault Kerry, Gore and Obama for their personality styles and do not mean to diminish their skills and accomplishments. Their style is a handicap in national political elections, however.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6059678

The Edwards campaign was exactly inverted from the Obama campaign, founded on ideas and principles, which attracted people, which then fed into support for the campaign. The Obama campaign starts with a charismatic personality, attracts zealous fans who fall in love with him, and then any ideas and principles are an afterthought if they exist at all.

The Edwards campaign consisted of every day people pulling together over something of political substance, and Edwards was seen as the servant of those ideas and that (suppressed and prematurely dead, sadly) movement. The Obama campaign starts with the personality of Obama, followers are expected to be loyal true believers rather than having a shared commitment to anything, and the ideas and positions are barely thought about or discussed. After Edwards left the race, notice how we - battered and abused and unwanted as we are - still pull together, still have so much in common. Had Obama dropped out, his followers would have scattered to the four winds. Without his personality there is nothing to the Obama movement.

[balantz]

16. There's a reason that people are called sheep.

It's because we feel safer if we are huddled together to graze and sleep while the good shepard watches over us. Who wouldn't want to feel secure, especially today? But the old saying of wolves in sheeps' clothing also applies here.

Us Edwards people see the wolves in sheeps' clothing and see that the good and shining shepard is one of them. We see through the shepard becuse he is willing, like all the other good shepards are, to work with the wolves. We rallied around Edwards' message of real change. We wanted to see Washington turned UPSIDE DOWN and shaken free of the wolves. Because of that we retain a more objective outlook on the situation.

People are sheepled by the culture in which they live. And that can also change as the culture changes. Myself being somewhat younger than some of you, and not having been politically aware or active in any way until very recently, I won't be able to accurately portray the times past. I will be real simple and general here and leave a lot of blanks, but here's briefly what I see. And feel free to correct me on any of this.

In the sixties there was excitement, change, experimentation, revolution, real hope in the air. That framed the cultural atmosphere.

In the seventies that movement became degraded by a number of dynamics, a big one being the neocon agenda being set up for complete rule from behind the scenes.

With Reagan in the eighties the cultural air changed to apathy and general giving in to the neocon agenda.

The boom of the nineties was just a reaping of the Reagan years; living high on the hog so to speak. Just because a Dem. was in office no longer really meant great social changes. To the contrary, the atmosphere was conservative in many ways.

Now couple what had become the cultural atmosphere up to the shrub/zany years with the cultural atmosphere of nationalism, fear, accepting Washington as it is, bitterness, confusion and etc. and you have where we are now.

The leader Americans are groomed to follow now will be one that fits neatly into the slot of the cultural atmosphere.

The sheeple have baaaahed, and they have baaaahed well. The wolves are grinning from ear to ear.

[balantz]

17. I should have added the media.

That has been a huge factor in channeling and moulding American culture.

And like I said in my first post above, the possibility of healing the racial divide is very attractive to America.

I put all of those things together, and more, to see why and how people act as they do.

[Two Americas]

21. just heard something interesting on FSTV

Jeff Cohen was saying that 30 years ago people were alarmed because 50 large companies controlled half of the mass media. That was seen as very dangerous and in need of immediate attention, lest we lose our democracy and slide into tyranny.

Today 5 corporations control 90% of the mass media.

I hope everyone here realizes that when we argue with people at DU what we are up against is the immense power of mass media, the talking points and ideas and premises and constructs that are internalized by people to such an extent that they think they are originating the ideas that pop into their minds - almost always this is the case when there is disagreement here.

[balantz]

23. People don't see how thoroughly we are moulded by the media.

I can only be thankful I don't suffer that illness as much as so many others I see.

But then, my entertainment is no longer supplied by the media. I have cut myself from that teat.

[Two Americas]

41. another weird thing

Many Democrats flatter themselves that they are not influenced by the MSM, that they can "see through it," and that they "are opposed" to what they think the right wing media outlets are disseminating.

What they do not see, is that the right wing media is not merely whipping up the faithful (they actually are not doing that at all) and not merely advancing reactionary causes (they don't care about those very much) but they are defining the terms of the battle, and telling the liberals what positions to take by giving them a false view of the right wing and the things that they as liberals are supposed to be against.

Watching Fox news and thinking "that is what the bad guys think, and I will now be against all of that" is to be merely a puppet on a string, and to play out an assigned role in the drama.

The goal of the propaganda is twofold: first, to divide the public into two more or less equal camps and keep then at each others' throats; secondly to ruthlessly exclude any true political discussion, any hint of economic discussion, any hint of left wing political views. That ensures that the wealthy and powerful few are never challenged, that the economic system is never challenged, that the actions of the wealthy and powerful few are never examined, by either the liberals or conservatives. Reality is excluded, and the left is excluded. Liberals are tossed a bone - they can join up with the culture war modern liberals and hate "fundies" or something, and then think that some sport of progress might be made.

Do you know that we could get rid of every fundy, every knuckle dragger, and nothing would change. Why is that? Because that is not the real battle. The wealthy and powerful few, through their agents in the Republican party, are just using all of the culture war issues, they don't care about those issues. They use them to lure people into voting Republican or not voting, but most importantly they use them to steer Democrats and liberals off into a dead end, into a foolish and hopeless battle with phantom enemies over nonsensical issues.

The reason why modern liberalism, in its ultimate expression in the Obama campaign, is so fanatical and irrational is because there is no substance there. People are trying to make up for the lack of substance with zeal and true-believer group think.

[balantz]

43. Exactly!

I've mentioned before that the corporate-elite and their M$M must have decades of data by well paid psychologists and sociologists that they use to control us.

When we get tangled up by our emotions and our political and social stances that are based on our perceptions of who we think we are, then we are easy prey. "I am a liberal; Those are what the bad guys are; I believe this way; that's just not right!; they are wrong!;" etc. We become putty. These self-stances about what it is to believe one way or another is a successful campaign of tribalizing, separating and manipulating us, and it begins at birth. Even our families help indoctrinate their own children. It is an ancient practice of the ruling class that has become quite refined and very effective, Look at ALL the tools there are to use: media; drugs; religion; emotions; fear; pride; the list is endless. We are blinded by these dynamics and fail to calmly and objectively see the truth of the propaganda peeking out from within the manipulation.

[ClericJohnPreston]

18. Once again "balantz" we see eye to eye

and realize the GREATER picture is at work here; the social dynamics we are seeing have been evolving to this control of the masses for some time. Obama is no more than a human relief valve, the APPEARANCE of hope and change, mere empty words.

Is this Election about issues, or STYLE? Is there really such a difference between Corporate "A" and Corporate"B"? The folk behind all this control are the experts who manipulated the message to create the zombie cult in the first place. Does Obama really say anything meaningful? Enough to warrant the wild-eyed freneticism? The giveaway is the vitriol and isolation of the Obamites.

Did MLK foster such divisions? Did RFK? The reason for the manipulation is as clear as the fact that confused ANGRY cultists don't ASK QUESTIONS. Rather, they blithely accept whatever pablum is fed to them for distribution in that echo chamber of theirs.

The proof is right on GDP. These people are not "thinking" in the rational sense, but emoting like the sheeple that "balantz" just described.

Pathetic.

[balantz]

20. MLK and RFK actually challenged us to look into the structure and machinations of our society.

They inspired and encouraged us to think for ourselves and make real hard inner choices that would affect our world.

They didn't ask us to jump on a boat to the promised land, they asked us to build that boat.

[Two Americas]

19. history has been rewritten

"In the sixties there was excitement, change, experimentation, revolution, real hope in the air. That framed the cultural atmosphere."

It was the Civil Rights movement, the Free Speech movement, the insurgent movements within Labor that were the most important features of the 60's. Hippies, and rock and roll, and Woodstock, and drugs and counter culture were mostly at the very end of the 60's, and they replaced and sabotaged the political movement. Everything became co-opted and commercialized. The anti-war movement collapsed in a Yuppie orgy, but the war itself went on for years. Yet those superficial and secondary features - fashion and lifestyle - are what are used today to characterize and are presumed to accurately represent the 60's.

One theme from the late 60's - "do your own thing" - has persisted and had far reaching effects. That idea of personal freedom (withing carefully constrained parameters of conformity and compliance, ironically) has atomized and isolated people and it is now almost impossible to organize people for any effective activity of any kind. Only cults work, and practically everything has been turned into a cult. This allows people to express themselves, and make their personal choices, while still huddling for safety in the flock. Reality is now whatever a person says it is, and one's personal feelings trump everything including reason and logic, and are seen as sacrosanct and transcendent.

[balantz]

22. As a child in the sixties and seventies

I adopted the good stuff for my identity.

I also suffered the excesses, and felt dumped as I witnessed the counter-culture I identified with, the revolutionaries, appear to go up in a puff of coke.

To me, the rise of Reagan was the sick icing on the cake of our defeat.

[balantz]

24. Anyway, I think I'm kind of veering off topic here.

What I am pointing at is an observation that Americans are thoroughly controlled.

The choices are made for us even though there is the appearance that we are making the choices.

Am I seeing this correctly? I see complete manipulation of where we put our money; from the stuff we buy to the candidates we support.

I see complete manipulation of where we place our vote.

People think they are in control of what is happening, when in actuality they are being lead around by their noses. If you point this out to them they know it on a deeper level, that they have sold themselves to the social structure of the elite. But they become angry when they are shown this and they turn on you for pointing it out.

It's the sheeple thing.

[ClericJohnPreston]

25. You don't really want to know.....

who would. Either you accept a slow slide into liberalism, starting with a President with a (D) behind his name whose politics are equal to Eisenhower. Some liberal. Or, you don't accept it.

Unfortunately, plasma weapons and all sorts of crowd control from Guantanomo to the fact THAT NO ONE COMPLAINS, makes the air ripe for an American Gulag. Unthinkable, huh? Not seeing it is what is unthinkable.

Anyway, IMHO, it would take purely cataclysmic events to wake up those sheeple "balantz". By then, we are back in the soup again, aren't we?

[balantz]

26. Yes, I agree.

Sorry, I changed the post that you responded to, but they still seem to fit together O.K.

[ClericJohnPreston]

27. No worries

edit is our friend :)

Anyway, you and I have closely aligned regarding the rampant Corporatism of this Country, the failure of people to perceive it, and the sham that this Election is, when you consider the deck has already been stacked.

[balantz]

28. I think what you said is correct.

But I think it is difficult for a lot of people to accept.

I think even those who know the corporations run the show in Washington and through the media aren't able to accept how thorough the control is. It seems too much a crazy conspiracy theory. Perhaps it is too painful to push through the full on acceptance of the reality of such a thorough manipulation by the elite.

It is difficult to realize that we are being completely taken, and that so many in power who say they work for us and say they wish to take care of our needs actually answer first to the corporate elite.

If the majority really knew the full extent of the manipulation they would be screaming in the streets. But to get to that point of accepting the truth of the total manipulation means being on the outside. It means dropping one's entire belief system, one's life-long security blanket. It is at first a scary and insecure experience to realize that the anarchists on the fringe of society are seeing at least some things quite accurately. Not many are willing to see this truth.

[Two Americas]

29. here is the odd thing

I may have an unusual perspective, because I lived for decades in a poor urban AA neighborhood, and then in a very conservative rural farming area for the last few years. I also tour and perform in all sorts of very out of the way places, from little churches in eastern Kentucky to poor inner city AA churches and everything in between. I never see "like minded" liberal people where I go and where I have lived.

When I talk to political activists it is almost as though we don't live in the same country.

Here is what I see, and why I get so frustrated. I talk very radical socialist ideas everywhere I go, and always get a very supportive and enthusiastic reception. All of the people in those places that I go, poor people, working class blue collar people, minority people know "the full extent of the manipulation" and now that corporations dominate our lives, and know that a major overhaul or revolution is needed. Hardly anyone in those areas ever expresses support for or defends the system. But here on DU, it is the rule rather than the exception.

I don't understand the disconnection. When I go to Ann Arbor or Ithaca or Madison - or to the upscale neighborhoods on either coast - and talk to the activists, THEY are the only ones who are violently resistant to what I have to say. Yet they are dead certain that it is the sheeple in the flyover areas who are "asleep" or resisting change or ignorant or conservative.

I don't understand this. I have seen this first hand for decades, and am very confident that my observations are accurate.

[balantz]

30. well if you can't figure it out after a long time observing,

I would certainly only be guessing.

So I will :7

Here's a couple of thoughts:

Uptown folk have been culturally separated from simple, country and inner-city regular folk for too long?

The uptown folk are more connected to the system? "Liberal" or not, their lifestyle is supported by the system?

[Two Americas]

31. maybe, yeah

I have guesses, too. :) I think your guesses are good ones.

Many people here at DU and in the activist community are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. They think that what they see and hear and think is representative of the general public, and don't realize that they are only 10% of the population and are profoundly disconnected from and ignorant about the rest of the people. I just never see white liberals and activists in the poor neighborhoods, in the blue collar neighborhoods, in the minority neighborhoods, in Appalachia, and so many other places.

The party has, unfortunately, become the party of the successful, the educated, the trendy, the fashionable, the metropolitan and sophisticated, the intellectuals. All of those things are now sen as evidence of moral rectitude and correct enlightened thinking, so those outside of that circle - the vast majority of the people - are viewed with contempt and hostility for not measuring up, not "making the right choices," not complying and getting with the program. Ironic that "tolerance" is so intolerant, that "choices" are so restrictive, that "freedom" requires conformity.

The very nature of the hyper-competitive free market system that is growing to consume everything in our lives, and the built in inequalities in society, mean that most people cannot enter that inner circle if they wanted to, and millions do not want to, and millions would just as soon not be in the rat race in the futile pursuit of suburban nirvana, but think that they have no choice. It is all causing some sort of national nervous breakdown.

I said that I talk socialism in areas that liberals think are oh so conservative. I don't talk gun control - what sense does that make in rural areas where firearms are a way of life and have nothing to do with politics? What sense does that make in urban areas, where people know that the cops already have enough excuses for stopping and searching young Black men, and where they know that the criminals will always get weapons? If guns are restricted, the price will go up and crime will increase to support the greater cost and to profit on the demand, just as with drugs. But suburban fears will be assuaged. we need to return to traditional liberalism, and attack the root causes, not the symptoms - poverty, lack of education and opportunity, poor city planning, and racism. And we need to reject the right wing model of addressing social problems by harshly punishing individuals.

I don't talk "organic" - it is an insult to conscientious and safe farmers, and it is a cruel joke in poor neighborhoods. But organic makes upscale suburbanites feel better, so it has become part of liberalism.

I don't talk bikes as a way to save energy. That is a joke in farm country, and in urban neighborhoods as well. We need public transportation, not more bike paths. But bikes make suburbanites feel good about themselves, so we must advocate for them.

I don't talk hybrid cars, when people are struggling for any sort of transportation at all.

The entire modern liberal program is now severely skewed and biased to cater to the whims and desires of the fortunate upper 10% in society - those with household incomes of $70,000 a year and up. The other 90% are left out, discounted, held in contempt and ignored.

[ClericJohnPreston]

32. Brilliant

analysis Two Americas, and well done balantz, as well.

Each of you has hit upon the essential problems at the heart of this National meltdown. Each of you has matched observation with rationalist thinking, to arrive at the conclusion that there is something is wrong at the heart of the body politic and societal consciousness.

Unfortunately, thinking appears to be no longer in vogue. The irony of people on DU castigating, correctly, Bush for his anti-intellectual lack of curiousity and narrow-mindedness, is that they themselves cede all thought and inquiry to a collective cult of personality. Do any of these zealous fanatics ever question the inconsistencies and paradoxes in their candidate? Do they understand or have the perspective to see how outrageous their adoration for no more than words, and condemnation of Hillary is so borderline psychotic in it's vitriol?

That would require THOUGHT, and it has become so vogue to fall into line and repeat mantras and slogans as if the form were substance. We now have life imitating ART. Problem is that the ART is cautionary warnings that are being ignored at every turn. Two Americas speaks of the fact that freedom is conformity and choices are restrictive.

Familiar anyone?

Why it is the language of Orwell's "1984", as frightening a look at a totalitarian society, anithetical to freedom and liberty. It's mantras? WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

This "doublethink" had as it's premise, holding simultaneously two opinions which cancel each other out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them. How can anyone who supports Obama not see the bizzare result of believing in liberalism, yet being intolerant of ANYTHING, which doesn't match their groupthink. Obamites are antithetical to democracy, rationality, and most ironically, hopes and dreams. Theirs is a dystopian world, with fear and rejection the prominent element of their belief system. They block out any negative thoughts, isolate themselves and attack any dissenting point of view. Is that Democracy or "1984"?

These people are neo-liberals, barely discernible to real liberals from neo-cons. They are the flip side of the same coin. The neo-cons at heart are protecting an economic system that rewards power and oil and promotes war as the antidote for reigns on their control. Neo-cons have empowered the CORPORATIONS. Neo-liberals have their own pocketbooks in mind. They proclaim their liberality because they support a safe Black man. Has anyone one of them ever done anything personally to combat racism, beyond tokenism? No, these so-called liberals, more evocative of Eisenhower Republicans, are concerned with themselves, their pockets and their possessions. That is why the working class has no time for Obama, he is of the Corporate class, looking to protect insurance companies and especially ( if you look at his record ), WALL STREET. It doesn't get more Corporate than that.

In this new world, I, balantz, and Two Americas are now defined not as liberals, but socialists or anarchists, dedicated to disempowering the Corporate stranglehold on this society. The "national nervous breakdown" that Two Americas references, is the DISCONNECT between the stated policies of liberalism and the REALITY of current Democrats of the Obama mind.

Disheartening, sickening and thoroughly predictable. I see hard times ahead, as even now the nightmare of Corporate greed and domination imposes $4 a gallon and rising. Bushco has emboldened them to new heights and there is no way in Hell they will cede power, through the magical thinking of Obamites, to the "people". This power will have to be wrested and soon, for I can see the day when that domination, failure to question and ignorance, doom this Democracy.

[Two Americas]

33. more good insights there

I am running into the "oh yeah what's your alternative then?" line of argument a lot lately. "We have heard all of the bitching, but unless you have a concrete alternative, it is all just hot air. The reality is that we have a choice between Obama and McCain, and all of your fancy words won't change that. Sure there are problems in the country, but some of us are doing something constructive." Just tonight I finally decided that it is hopeless to try to counter that argument, because people don't see that as an opinion they hold, they see it as "reality" and you might as well try to convince an atheist that God exists, or a religious person that God doesn't exist. That is an interesting posture that people take - "don't get me wrong I agree with you, but..." - simultaneously agreeing with you, supposedly, and yet at the same time opposing you to the death. That confusion and self-contradiction must reflect some sort of inner dialog they are having with themselves, and a traumatic one at that.

Right now we have no alternative. I do think that the Edwards movement was the end of any hope for the old FDR coalition and for the party to ever be a big tent again and be the working man's party. The "progressives" - upscale folks with a culture war agenda who are deeply conservative on all traditional political issues of power and economics - are making a bold and apparently successful effort to take over the party and rid it of heretics. That could mean the end of the party, as it has been composed for the last few decades. Too many people are being left out, or run out of this "unity."

There is a good chance that an alternative will emerge, though, and soon.

[JANdad]

34. You write what I think amd feel...

And put into words much better than I can:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3323522

[Two Americas]

42. wow

Very powerful post, edwardsguy.

[Horse with no Name]

74. This IS the best post I have EVER read on DU

Bar none. This is also the very heart of what poisons our party (as well as our country) and why many of us saw something a little different in JRE. Elitism has NO place in government, yet it caters to the elite.

[lildreamer316]

85. Seconded.

Thank you, again.

I also refer you to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3369897&mesg_id=3369897

I was reminded of it when I read what Two Americas wrote, just now.

[Greylyn58]

86. Thirded--couldn't agree more!!!

[Two Americas]

76. I have better a better understanding now

I "went to see for myself" since we both said that we couldn't figure this out, and I think I cracked the puzzle. I needed to go to Oregon and see first hand and talk to people to understand the divide and the dynamics. I knew that something was different outside of "flyover country," that something was going on politically that we couldn't see very clearly in the Midwest.

Gentrification.

It is so obvious what is happening after just a few hours in Oregon and a few conversations. There is a war going on between those trying to gentrify the country, or to gain domination for a gentrified view of politics and society and a class of gentrified people. The divide is not so obvious in the Midwest, but it just screams at you in the Pacific Northwest. Not only are there many more people living and promoting a gentrified life and view, but also the effect of that on those left out or opting out is more drastic and obvious. The gap, both in incomes and in attitudes is much smaller in the Midwest. It is extreme in the Northwest.

This explains the difference between the primary results in West Virginia and in Oregon. It explains the battles here, and the miscommunication. It explains who does and who does not become an Obama fanatic.

[balantz]

80. I was just thinking that this morning.

I am continually being snubbed by those "Democrats" who are better off than me.

I am poor, wear old clothes, have a long pony-tail and a beard. I go on errands uptown to get stuff for my landlord; homeopathic medicine, etc. and the receptionist there is probably making $20 an hour (and her husband makes very good money). She talks to customers about trips to Europe and etc. while I wait quietly for them to finally end and I get a turn. She then looks down her nose and quickly gets me on my way. I have experienced this all my life on the west coast to some degree, and here in this desert city, but it seems to be getting more prevelant as the economic divide becomes more of a chasm. These people proudly call themselves liberals. It's funny, I am probably more educated in many ways than some of these self-righteous people, but they may not give it a thought that I might actually have some value as a person or a member of society, or that I am equal to them as a citizen and a person. All I could think about driving home this morning was the phrase "Good Germans." I was actually a little afraid about what I was observing.

[Two Americas]

81. it blew me away

Often I can't figure out what people on DU are talking about, and almost every time that happens it turns out the person is from Seattle or somewhere else on the West Coast. As I said in another post, within a few hours of crossing the Oregon border the light came on for me and everything made so much sense. The divide in the Pacific NW between the gentrified liberals and the common people is in such stark relief, and I think that divide - not a right-left divide - is what is driving and completely controlling our politics.

I had also noticed over the years that visitors from the West Coast (other than farmers) didn't "get it" about the Midwest - couldn't hear the music of the people so to speak, weren't interested, couldn't relate to Midwesterners. KNow I see why - they thought they were in eastern Oregon, among the unwashed and the ignorant, and that they may as well have been in some "Dueling Banjos" fantasy scenario in some dark and foreign place full of "un-evolved" people.

I want to speak for the common people the rest of my life, and it is clear that the strongest, most entrenched hostility and opposition to that comes not from conservatives or Republicans, but from the self-described "evolved" and "enlightened" liberals, the agents of gentrification. The contempt that liberals have for the common people is deep and goes way beyond the contempt the Republicans have for the people.

There is a certain dramatic scenario that we now see unfolding and becoming clear, that ties dozens of ideas together that seemed unrelated before - lesser of two evils, violent revolution is the only alternative to the status quo and that is unacceptable, work within the system, be practical and realistic, whaddya gonna do write in Karl Marx, the people rejected Edwards - each of these supposedly all about methods and approaches but actually a way to suppress the free exchange of ideas - and then all of the arrogant hatred and bigotry that have been unleashed by the Obama campaign, against women, against rural people, against poor and uneducated people, against anyone who hasn't been bitten by the Obama bug. I think that all of that is the movement, not features of the movement, and that Obama is merely a catalyst for expressing the movement. That is why he is called a "change agent" - he is a vehicle for the full blown expression of the gentrified modern liberalism movement that has gained increasing control over the party over the last 30 years.

[balantz]

82. It looks to me like

the fascists and the neocons have won and taken over, the term "Good German" does apply, and we are in for a world of hurt.

People will stay with the system that supports their coveted life-style. People turn away when you try to point out that this is like Germany in the 1930's.

It will be interesting and cruel to see what unfolds next. Poor people the world over are feeling the manufactured pinch.

[balantz]

83. Anyway

We are being divided.

And the poor are being shut out.

[Two Americas]

87. join.....or die

I am going to continue to head off into uncharted territory with my thinking and with my remarks. I can see no comfort anymore in anything happening politically, and an ever-shrinking oasis of sanity into which to retreat as the juggernaut gains momentum and flattens everything in its path. Ideas that today seem strange or irrelevant will soon become self-evident and very powerful. But for the time being, we are swimming against the current, we are out in the wilderness, alone, hacking out a path through the brambles and the swamps and making our way tentatively through a very dark and dangerous forest.

For a long time now there was some hope in liberalism and in the party, it was a lifeline to hold onto as pounding waves of a vicious right wing cultural movement swept across the country, and that gave emotional comfort to us as well as some structure and direction to our political and cultural thoughts and activities. Now we are being driven from that. It is asa though a certain faction in the party and liberalism was willing to tolerate us, as they slowly and methodically moved the party a certain direction and still felt that they needed us. But now, they have their ultimate vehicle in the Obama campaign, their vision seems within reach, all has been answered for them and anyone in the way will be beaten into submission. We must join this movement or die - if not literally and physically, than in terms of influence and power. Or, if it is not already too late, we can band together and fight for our lives. I don't know if we can do this yet. While most of us here see the futility of joining one of the sides - for or against Obama - there are still some issues lingering that we are divided over, and in modern politics each and every little issue can be a "deal breaker" and deemed worthy of fighting to the death over and then seeing those who disagree as implacable enemies. In the absence of an overarching and comprehensive political context, there is no consistent or rational way to discuss political disagreements. It then requires agreement on each and every isolated and disconnected issue for one to find a political ally in another person. The liberals and conservatives have solved that for us by presenting "turn key" political philosophies for us, with each position on each issue pre-determined. Of course, these "positions" on "issues" that we are to take just means what we are to say about them, and little else. If we are to join the liberal side, then we are expected to say that we are opposed to racism, for example, but we are not called upon to actually be opposed to racism, to actually think about it very much let alone actually do anything about it. So the charge of "racism" can be hurled around by Obama supporters by people who do not have the foggiest notion as to what racism even is. For them, it is a "position" - they say they are against it - and it then becomes part of the verbal arsenal to use against opponents once they can be declared to be "racists." And what makes those opponents racists? Why, they are disagreeing with the anti-racists, by refusing to support Obama, for example, so therefore they must be racists.

An epic battle is unfolding between the "liberals" and the "conservatives," although those labels are virtually meaningless anymore. It is a battle between two small factions, and what is at stake is the future of suburbia. Will it be like Seattle, like a college town such as Ann Arbor, Madison or Ithaca, or will it resemble the suburbs of Grand Rapids, Michigan, the most conservative district, that is to say the most Republican voting and the most culturally conservative, in the state? That is what this battle is over - a struggle for dominance by two gentrified groups, neither of which wants or needs us nor do they care about most of the people in the country. One must join or die. Your livelihood, your contributions, your safety and security, your rights - all are threatened if you refuse to conform and submit to one of the two groups. Both are ready, more than ready to convert you. Nothing can exist outside of one of these two worlds, which is to say nothing is seen as valid or legitimate outside of the two worlds, the two realities, so you will be condemned to being misunderstood, dismissed and ignored should you say or do anything that does not fit the pattern.

We are caught between two ravenous monsters, as they prepare for a showdown in what is really more of a religious war than a political war. Most of the people in the two groups are good and decent people, just herded along and caught up in the mob. One group can best be described as evangelical Protestantism run amok, though there are libertarians who are not nominally believers or church members, and the other as New Age spirituality run amok, though there are many who are active in the Unitarian church and other "liberal" Protestant denominations. It is what they have in common that is important for us, not their differences, because what they have in common is antagonism to the political left, and especially in the case of the liberals, contempt for the people. They are both committed to an ethic of self-actualization above community, to the "ownership" society, and both see material success and status as being reflective of moral rectitude. They are both primarily reactive to one another, as opposed to pro-active, they both define themselves by their opposition to each other, mainly seeing themselves as anything but those others although both are highly restrictive and exclusionary.

So we must join, or die - die in a thousand little ways; our dreams, our hopes, our place in society, the things we love, our access to resources and an audience and a safe and productive place in the world - or we must band together and resist. We have been conditioned to think of liberalism and conservatism as being the opposites of one another, with everything fitting in somewhere on that polarized spectrum defined by those two. Now we must think of the two as one, two heads of the same monster, and imagine not which head we must choose, but how we can effectively oppose the monster itself and defend ourselves from it. The ideas and dreams that drew us to the Edwards campaign are equally in opposition to modern liberalism as they are to conservatism. Our failure or unwillingness to recognize that harsh truth is the source of all of our frustration and discouragement, while accepting it is the key to all of our freedom and power in the future.

[maryf]

90. Wow! you done yourself proud here!

Thanks Two Americans, brilliant post.We can pretend its all ok, and lead la la lives now, and wait, with that little niggling knowledge deep in our subconscious that something ain't right, and is getting worse, and go into shock when the monsters roar, OR we can face the monsters full on now, recognize that the world is never gonna be the same for us, but maybe, if we resist, battle, seek, accept, and tell the truth now, there will be a decent world for future generations. I'm in, give me the red pill of reality.

edited for commas!

[maryf]

91. kick

[maryf]

89. on a tangent (as usual)

"Reality is now whatever a person says it is, and one's personal feelings trump everything including reason and logic, and are seen as sacrosanct and transcendent." as a teacher, this truly is affecting the classroom as the parents are passing this on to their children.

More on subject, is it any wonder that the personality cults of our candidates exist? Each candidate somehow satisfies each "devotee's" emotions. Again, I wish we had the candidates listed as x,y or z, with proxy speakers with all the same degree of attractiveness, age etc., who would voice their candidates issues. Gone would be the glamours, the prejudices , the drama, the emotional friction. We would all just hear what each stands for. Boring? maybe, Realistic, nah, but wouldn't it be nice if folks were forced to really think about, really hear what each candidate is spouting, what their true plans, issue stands are, even if vicariously through a proxy. Maybe we'd have Edwards or Kucinich now. Maybe we'd all remember what being a democrat used to mean. Oh well. I just said my unreal reality now I'm happy! ;)

[balantz]

35. O.K., there's a split in the party.

As you point out there are three avenues of the Party; left (Edwards), right (Clinton), and center (Obama). I know that in itself is not very accurate, but there is the three way split.

Hasn't this been going on for a long time?

Why are the far left so disorganized?

I think you have said before that there are a lot more of us Dems further to the left across the nation (correct me if I'm wrong) than the middle or right Dems. So why the lack of cohesion and effort to get a progressive/populist past the M$M to the people?

Is it mainly the M$M shutting us out? That's what I perceived last winter.

[Two Americas]

40. I don't think it is right versus left

I don't know how to describe this is sophisticated intellectual political terms, so I will say it the way I would to the folks on the farm, or the folks in my old poor city neighborhood, the way that they would all understand and agree with.

The split is between regular common sense everyday folks - whether they are blue collar or professional and regardless of income or education - and zealous, aggressive, self-righteous people with an agenda to remake culture and society and force everyone to comply or else. The first says "live and let live" the second says "those stupid idiots need to be dragged kicking in screaming into the new reality."

The first group is 10 times larger than the second. The first group tends to be to the left on economic issues and power sharing and justice and fair play, but may be conservative or moderate to one degree or another on the various modern liberal causes.

"Hasn't this been going on for a long time?"

About 35 years.

"Why are the far left so disorganized?"

The small faction that drives liberalism and the party - successful, upscale, economically conservative, committed to most of the status quo, devotes more energy to fighting the left than they do the right, and injects culture war issues into politics to keep things confused and in an uproar.

"I think you have said before that there are a lot more of us Dems further to the left across the nation (correct me if I'm wrong) than the middle or right Dems. So why the lack of cohesion and effort to get a progressive/populist past the M$M to the people?"

Two reasons. First, the people with more resources - a very small faction - can dominate the narrative and control the discussion.

Secondly - and most importantly - we THINK there is some big barrier, so we are paralyzed. The barrier is in our imagination.

"Is it mainly the M$M shutting us out?"

That is a problem and a challenge, but it could be easily overcome. Mostly it is our own fear that is in the way.

Imagine the people organized and defined this way -

1. 70% are working for a paycheck, struggling, left behind in one way or another including homeless and unemployed, and in full support of FDR type New Deal politics. Some vote Dem, some Republican. They are not rabidly on one side or the other in all of the culture war battles.

2. Then we have the fanatical right wing conservatives and the religious right followers, about 15% of the population.

3. Then we have the modern liberals, about 15% of the population - mostly from the upper 10% in household income, and with a belief system that drives them to want to radically remake society in an aggressive way, and as a mirror image of the vision of the religious right fanatics' vision.

Most of the political discussion over the last 35 years has been controlled and dominated by groups 2 and 3, as they ferociously battle it out and try to drive the public into the battle with them and are "in the face" of people as they try to force showdowns and drive people to one extreme or the other.

Here are two important things to remember - both factions that control our politics - the religious right and the modern liberals - are deeply conservative on matters of economics and power; 70% of the people do not agree with either of them.

Among the 70% who are left out of the political picture and have no voice, those who are traditionalists vote for the Republicans, those who are modernists vote for the Democrats. Actually that is not quite right in one important way, so I will re-state it:

Those who are opposed more to the modern liberal faction vote Republican. Those who are more opposed to the religious right faction vote Democratic. No one votes for anything anymore, and half of the voters effectively vote against both factions by staying home.

Forget about the politicians - they just follow the social trends and respond to the pressures from the interest groups. They reflect the political reality they don't create it. We can't assess anything about the political climate by looking at them. Look at the people, as I did above.

The real power behind both parties and all of the politicians is not the people, it is the wealthy and powerful few at the top, the upper percentage or two in wealth and income, which I didn't talk about in my analysis above.

The Republicans (the leadership and the politicians, not the Republican voters) are waging a relentless battle on behalf of the upper 1%, the haves and the have-mores - their interests and desires - and against the people, and are very successful and effective at it.

The Democrats (the leadership and the politicians, not the Democratic voters) are forced to take money from the same powerful interests, and so are compromised right from the start. They will not take up the battle against the Republicans on behalf of the people. It would be difficult for them to do that in any case - they would be biting the hand that feeds them - but in addition to that, they are to one extent or another stopped - their hands are tied by the modern liberal activists, who force them to respond to culture war issues and causes, and violently oppose any left wing political positions - positions that would deal with power and economics, positions that would get 70% support from the people, positions that would advance the needs and interests of the 70-90% of us who are have-nots to one extent or another.

That small but very domineering faction, with great access to resources and the luxury of time and other privileges, whom I am calling "modern liberals" for want of a better term, controls liberalism and the party, and they are determined that we all be enrolled in the to-the-death showdown with that other small but dominant faction, the religious right, and determined that we do not take on the wealthy and powerful few, that we do not fight back against the corporations, that we do not take up the cause of the have-nots, that we do not move one inch to the left on economic issues - even though that is the shortest and easiest path to power for the Democratic party. They will have their quasi-spiritual showdown with the “fundies, rednecks, inbred, stupid, knuckle draggers, hayseeds, racists, ignorant, sheeple” and they will force all of us to see that as the only alternative to the Republicans, and badger us to conform and comply, and try to silence and destroy us if we don’t.

[balantz]

44. So really what we are saying

is that it is not merely a splitting of the Dems, but a split on many levels which ultimately is driven by the split between the elite and the common people.

Even the Republicans are split in this social phenomenon.

But as we touched on above, all of the differences of "tribes", or belief stances are perpetuated and manipulated to keep us commoners divided into the bigger camps or tribal affiliations; like Dem or Repub, Liberal or Conservative.

And then they use us with nationalism and religion in the "us against the others who would destroy us and our way of life."

It goes on and on.

Wouldn't the common joe sitting on his couch with his credit card, watching the fast cars for sale want to join the elite group?

Or the same scenario with the conscientous liberal watching the Prius commercial and wanting to play the feel good role and buy into that? Be a part of that group? When the real problem of fuel consumption and pollution lies in things like the tons of fuel burned by the military of the elite everyday in our skies.

[Two Americas]

47. I think not

"Wouldn't the common joe sitting on his couch with his credit card, watching the fast cars for sale want to join the elite group?"

I think not. That is what we are supposed to believe. Since we are not allowed to believe that the mass of people are decent and that we could easily find common cause with them, and since we must believe that the Democratic party represents the only possible alternative to the right wing, and since we are not to question the quasi-spiritual doctrine of modern liberalism, then we have to come up with convoluted explanations as to why things are the way they are. So we are told that there are all of these "joe sixpacks" out there who are stupid sheep, ignorant and uncouth, probably delusional religious types and gun lovers, no doubt mentally ill - a bunch of "losers" - and that they are all our enemies.

Very, very few people want to join the elite group, and very, very few people are motivated primarily by competition and greed. Thinking that every one is, thinking that this is "human nature" and that it is "reality" that we must accept and not question, and that the only cure is to reform humankind - as most liberals say - is to accept, embrace and promote the main and foundational premise of right wing politics. Once you have done that, you can dress it up with what ever sort of "progressive causes" you like, you are still 99% in support of right wing politics.

That few of the people is not true - of course it is not true. It does not require an analysis to see this, it takes opening our eyes. Talk to people. Get to know people. The view of the people that liberals promote is false, completely false. All liberal politics are set up to make it look as though the liberal view of the people is true, but as we can see very clearly the modern liberal approach to this is not working politically. Already, it has been not working on three quarters of the population, the non-voters and the Republican voters, but now it is not even working anymore on half of the Democrats, and I think that is what the persistent support for Clinton represents. (Clinton gets no credit for that, necessarily, it is a protest vote, nor is it merely a matter of racism, as Obama supporters would like to have us believe.)

Most people want out of the rat race, not to win it. Most people do not want money to rule their lives. Most people are disgusted by the culture of greed. Most people are forced into consumerism, and yearn for simpler life. Most people know that we are being lied to and manipulated by commercialism, and that our lives are controlled by corporations. Most people want cooperation and collaboration in society and in everything they do. Most people want to give the less fortunate a hand, to protect the weak and to alleviate the suffering.

Most people are already on our side. They do not, however, trust the liberals nor the Democrats to get us where we need to go, and they are not stupid nor ignorant in that assessment.

Blaming the people - which most liberals do - is to deflect blame away from themselves and their heroes and leaders. Blaming the people is completely oppositional to ever building any political strength to fight back against the ruling class.

[balantz]

49. So there is not that dynamic at play in America?

People aren't lead around by their desires?

There aren't a lot of people who want to get a slice of the pie and live in some excess? Use the available credit to get the good things?

That isn't a tool of manipulation? Don't people fit themselves into particular self-identities to uphold?

I see it with my own two eyes. And I meant no harm or talk down when I painted those pictures.

You said: "joe sixpacks" out there who are stupid sheep, ignorant and uncouth, probably delusional religious types and gun lovers, no doubt mentally ill - a bunch of "losers".

I didn't use those words myself.

I do use the term "sheep" though.

[Two Americas]

51. in my view, for what it is worth

"So there is not that dynamic at play in America?"

No. It is being forced on us.

"There aren't a lot of people who want to get a slice of the pie and live in some excess? Use the available credit to get the good things?"

Of course, if you continually wave candy in a child's face, the child will be tempted. We could then say "see? That is just how children are. They are only interested in candy."

"That isn't a tool of manipulation?"

It is a tool for making money. Yes, by manipulating people through sales and marketing.

"Don't people fit themselves into particular self-identities to uphold?"

Mostly not. Only the few, rootless and striving and educated, do this. Since that describes the core of liberal activism, liberals assume all people are trying to create identities for themselves and to re-create themselves anew and build a conscious and intentional life in a methodical and self-conscious way. Most people are not, and they think that is weird.

As people's old identities are destroyed - family, community, meaningful work, traditional skills and art, culture - there is a vacuum that needs to be filled. This is why people turn things into cults, as they are the Obama movement. They are hungry to belong, hungry for meaning, in need of self-definition and an identity, so they project all of that into everything. But it is a relatively small, and upscale and educated, segment of the population that is engaged in that. Most people don't have the luxury of doing that, find it creepy, and have meaning already in their communities, their skills and work, their family. It is the upwardly mobile and enlightened ones who are adrift and subject to being swept up into cults and insulated mutual admiration societies of "like minded" people. Their success and enlightenment is seen by them as a matter of overcoming "all that old stuff." People who like the "old stuff" resent that, and resist it by voting Republican.

"I didn't use those words myself."

I know. I am taking that from hundreds of posts here by others.

[balantz]

52. I see what you are saying.

Had our government continued to embrace and finance things like arts and education, government spending on "quality", people wouldn't be forced as much into the narrow choices of the industrial lolipops.

But there are two sides to it. Manipulators and manipulatees.

But the manipulated are the ones to be forgiven. We depend on our government to take care of our real needs while we find ourselves caught up, busier and busier just trying to survive.

The government is not upholding their promise. We are forced into this economic and cultural deprivation while the rich keep getting richer.

It is monarchy and serfdom.

And back to the topic, we are being sold another plastic candidate who vaguely promises change.

But there must be some public responsibility for the ignorance. That's where you point out the failures of our own Party to defend us instead of help to abuse us further.

[Two Americas]

54. that is great

All I ask is that people understand this point of view. It isn't the whole story, but it is a neglected and rarely heard point of view in activist circles, and that I think has much power and validity, so I may overstate it in a effort to reach people.

"...there must be some public responsibility for the ignorance..."

You maybe would be surprised at how many struggles are going on right under our noses that the liberal activist community completely ignores. I see it in farm communities, minority communities, in the labor unions, and in the immigrant communities. There is an almost complete disconnection between the liberal activist and the people.

One prime example of that was when millions and millions of immigrants were in the streets marching for economic justice and equality and human rights - are those not supposed to be causes we are interested in? - with little interest or support from the liberals. It was amazing to read when that was going on people posting things, as usual, such as "oh the stupid sheeple. Whatever can we do? When will they ever wake up and take to the streets?" Uh, hello? They ARE in the streets, as we speak, they just don't LOOK like "our type of like-minded progressive people."

I was having a discussion with a Green party advocate a while back, and I said that the Green party was all geared to the sentiments and prejudices of upscale professional whites and was out of touch with the people. He came back with "sure that is true in my local chapter, but that is because I am in Silicon Valley and that is the only type of people here." I said that I was quite familiar with the area, and I could assure him that someone was mowing the lawns, someone was scrubbing the toilets, cleaning the offices, delivering the mail, waiting on people at the counter, cooking the food, laying the brick, driving truck, repairing the roads, stocking the shelves, waiting table, answering the phones, wiring the buildings, fixing the roofs, driving the cabs and busses, doing the carpentry, mopping the floor, washing the windows, hauling the trash, and performing the thousands of jobs that are essential to keep the community running.

All of those people were completely invisible to him - like extras on the movie set in the drama that he and his Green buddies were starring in.

There is a profound disconnection between most modern liberal activists and the people - worse yet, there is an antipathy and opposition to the people among modern liberals. It is real, not something I am imagining or that I dreamed up to make an ideological point. The Obama campaign is the ultimate expression this modern liberal faction in my view. People will deny it in one context, and then brag about it in another - "we ARE the superior people" and then "don't accuse us of acting like we think we are the superior people." One important thing - if you are going to be a superior person - is that you deny you are thinking you are a superior person, because superior people wouldn't think that. They have to believe it and not believe it at the same time. There is a contradiction there, and much cognitive dissonance, which is why people start foaming at the mouth and snarling at you if you point this out.

[balantz]

55. What may be interesting is that I am one of those who mops the floors

and hauls the gravel and fixes the roofs.

My little story is probably common. I grew up lower middle class and was exposed to some passion for the arts and learning about interesting things. Then I went into the trades out of high school and started a family, but never became much more than a glorified laborer, and eventually developed depression and severe alcohol and drug problems. I went to a junior college when I was around thirty wanting to become an anthropologist or something. That lasted not quite two years and I quit because I got a good maintenance job that ended up lasting for only three years. When I lost that job (the best one I ever had) I lost my credit and went into debt. So now I am worse off than before. And I didn't even mention the worst of my most recent experiences because things REALLY went downhill for the decade after that. I'm not trying to gather sympathy here, I'm only mentioning these things to share that my experience is from the perspective of one who has been very lower class economically for much of my 28 adult years. From my perspective it is hard to separate the reasons and where the responsibilities lie for my predicament, or the predicament of countless others I see everyday; regular fellow sheeple. Countless numbers of us DON'T realize the "American Dream" and fall through the cracks one way or the other. When hard economic times hit, they really hit us hard.

I'm not sure I even know first hand what you mean by "political activist".

I do think the corporate-owned media is hugely responsible for not covering the real plight of the struggles that are important to us. The news at best gives us feel good stories that are not always very good representations of what is going on.

[balantz]

56. I am ultimately responsible for my experience.

I wasn't trying to find blame in society. Although I think I would have fared better in a more liberal atmosphere where the arts and creative endeavors are supported and encouraged.

I was just pointing out how my experience is probably not unlike many others.

Most of us struggle one way or another and rarely see ten dollars an hour.

[balantz]

45. The struggle is ultimately a worlwide thing.

Anymore there are no borders for the elite or for the common people.

Not being at all educated in politics and social systems I have to ask, how does this all relate to democracy, capitalism, socialism & etc.?

This kind of "dissent" we are discussing I imagine raises the hackles of the oligarchy and I guess is kind of dangerous. People who take this to the streets might get shot because they are talking about taking the power to the people. They are talking about revolutionary THINKING, and the spreading of truth and the tools of self-government. The discussion can even ultimately get to talking about equal distribution of wealth and resources on a global scale, which is not what the elite get rich on. I imagine that in a fair world there has to be some kind of mixture of capitalism and socialism. It boils down to freedom and a truly democratic government of and by the people, what so many think we still have.

[Two Americas]

53. right

Capital has gone global and respects no borders - "Capital" meaning "wealthy people" who can go where they want and do whatever they want - so Labor needs to respond - "Labor" meaning all of us who have to earn a paycheck to eat.

Here, at the heart of the empire, we have a "house Negro" class - the 10% of the population who earn $70,000 and up, live in suburbs, have benefited from higher education, are mostly white and professional. They have been bought off with status and comfort, and are not reliable allies of the people. Their job, their role in exchange for the favors they get, is to promoted and defend the system. They have a mythology about this - that if people only "made the right choices" or "got therapy," or were smart enough, or "got an education," that all could enjoy a suburban lifestyle of wonderful lifestyle "choices" - like riding their bike on their bike path and shopping at the organic coop and having a secure and prestigious job - and self-actualization, and that we could turn the whole world into suburbia and that this would work. Of course, that is an lie, because almost all people are locked out of that, and many do not want that in any case.

Notice how most liberal activists unconsciously identify with the ruling class. They say "we" invaded Iraq, for example. Many blue collar people would say "they" invaded Iraq - the rulers. When liberal activists say "America" they always mean the ruling class. "America" did this or that, "America" is this or that sort of country, they will say, and then support that by describing things the ruling class did, and call the ruling class "we." The average person means the people when they say "America" or "we." Big disconnection there, and the people are alert to it. The combination of liberals saying "we" about the ruling class, and then blaming the people for what is wrong with the country is a fatal mix politically. Working people know from those slips of the tongue that liberal activists are not in fact on their side, and they are correct in that view. Liberal activists are not on the side of the people. They favor the faction in the ruling class that is most likely to let them preserve their "house Negro" status.

[cantgetfooldagin]

36. i have been reading this thread since it started. real interesting discussion.

[cantgetfooldagin]

37. all things aside...

how do you folks like my new look? for some reason i couldn't post to this forum and i couldn't get an answer from anyone about it. bpeale rides again!!!

[ClericJohnPreston]

38. Hey Barb....

welcome ;) Please feel free to post your thoughts!

[cantgetfooldagin]

39. i will, but i have work to do first. and i feel like i'm behind the curve on this one.

this has been a helluva discussion though. very thoughtful and informative. gives me much to think about. i will have to focus my thoughts a little first.

[bobbolink]

60. Welcome to DU, cantgetfooldagin!!

And welcome to the Edwards forum!

:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

Your long post is amazingly on target, and it's obvious you put a lot of work into it.

Much appreciated!

:hi:

[cantgetfooldagin]

46. Comment 1 ... long one

First of all, never in my life have I seen supposed democrats attacking other democrats. Never. This phenomena is so strange to me, that I have to wonder if, in fact, these Obamanites, these other “so called” democrats, are actually democrats or if they are wolves in sheeps clothing (i.e. republicans).

The Obama koolaid must be so strong that it causes its drinkers to lose all sight of reality ... to suspend their normal ability to reason. I can’t quite put my finger on it. There’s just something so odd about it all. If you question, they attack ... they call you names ... they run you out. It’s some kind of herd mentality driving them, kinda like when an animal is sick & they attack that animal until it leaves. I see this in my own cats. In fact, I run to the vet with the animal if I see this kind of behavior in my house. But what do you do with a human being exhibiting this behavior?

Two Americas: <<It isn't following any predictable right-left political lines, since supporters of arguably the most conservative candidate - Clinton - and supporters of the most liberal candidate - Edwards - are both disaffected, resistant to the Obama movement, and finding common cause.>>

Two Americas, I find myself, even though I dispise both candidates remaining, coming to the aid of Clinton being attacked. And when I hear that Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama under any circumstances, well ... I can just completely understand why. The vitriol coming from the Obama camp just turns me off, even if I was so inclined to consider their candidate. As it is, I find myself in the NEVER camp when it comes to voting for Obama. And I mean NEVER, under no circumstances. I know that we shouldn’t judge a candidate by his supporters, but his supporters are just so, so, so out there, that like my mother used to say ... “you are who you associate with” and Obama does little to reign his supporters in, so in essence, he is condoning their actions by his inaction. I believe we are aligning ourselves elsewhere because we fear this aggressive herd behavior and we fear being attacked.

Two Americas: <<The Party is accepted by the masses as perhaps in need of a band-aid or two, but healable. Too many just don't see that the system is broken and needs a complete overhaul.>>

I don’t think the party is healable any longer. The damage is so far gone & has been damaged for so long, that the Obama camp thinks it can heal it. They don’t see that in this particular election, the damage done by their followers has so alienated the base that there really is no hope of unity anymore. The young are just that...young. They don’t think they need anyone. They think they are invincible. They think they will never die. They think they can overpower anyone. You only think this way when you’re young. When you mature, you realize for the first time, that you are human and you can die like everyone else. That the force of your words can alienate & drive off someone you might actually care about. That is when you learn to temper your words and curtail your aggressiveness. And therein lies the problem. They haven’t learned these lessons yet, and so they drive off those they are trying to convince, and when those they are trying to convince don’t buy it, then they resort to name calling and hatefulness. Once the base of the democratic party is gone, there will be no hope for the democratic party in the future. That base are the actual worker bees, not the youngsters spouting their crap. Those youngsters will not get in the trenches & do the hard work that has to be done to keep the party viable like the oldsters will. The base is the collective memory of the party too, and without that, what do you have?

Balantz: <<The fact that Obama also answers to the long overdue need to heal the racial rift is another pillar of Obama fervor. >>

When I pointed out in one forum that those KKK supporters are not going to go away & they are just praying for Obama to stir up this racial sentiment to prove them right. That these people will not vote for Obama under any circumstances and he cannot, therefore, win in the south. Because I voiced this, I was labelled as despicable. All I was doing was trying to point out that racism, however bad it may be, is still alive and well in the United States of America. Refusal to acknowledge reality will end up with you being beat over the head by it. I didn’t say I believed in racism or that I condoned racism (I was an ardent supporter of Dr. Martin Luther King & was, in fact, alive when he was), but I was painted with that brush because I pointed that out. But from what I can remember, it was Obama that first brought up the issue of racism in South Carolina, not Clinton. I can remember that when I heard him bring that up, it was like someone slapped me in the face. I was shocked. And well, it’s spiraled downhill from there.

ClericJohnPreston: <<So why are Obamites this way? How can a so-called man of peace, engender so much hostility? Simple, a very complex manipulation of the message and the follower, as savvy as any Army Psyops Operation. Obama is PURPOSEFULLY a blank screen, spouting hope and change so often two things take place; his followers PROJECT their own corresponding hopes and dreams and the empty words themselves, NOT POLICY PROPOSALS, become the message itself. Followers are so wrapped up in these hollow words, they really can't explain what Obama stands for, beyond a recitation of the words themselves. Remember all the LINKS,LINKS, LINKS they had to post anytime they were queried on specifics?>>

Every single time I ask an Obamanite what their candidate stands for, all I get is “go visit his website.” When I say NO, I want you to tell me what your candidate stands for, then they provide a link to his website. I have yet to get a satisfactory answer from them. And it dismays me to see former Edwards supporters acting the same way. What happened to them? They used to question things, they used ask questions & demand answers ... and now they, too are a purposefully blank screen spouting hope and change. What the hell is with that? All I can say to them is when you visit someone’s house to campaign for Obama, what are you going to say to them? Visit some website? What if that person is elderly & doesn’t have access, what will you tell them then? Or will you attack them because they don’t have the tools available & you are ill-equipped to answer their questions.

ClericJohnPreston: <<The key to Obamite venom, is the fact that Obama mixes into his speeches, just under the radar unless you are really listening, some very hard-edged critique and negativism against his critics. It is delivered in aw shucks style that is never held up to scrutiny. Add in the very large mass of neophyte voter, read INEXPERIENCED, accustomed to being controlled, and you have a recipe for monochromatic thinking gone wild, a rationalist's and pragmatic thinker's nightmare.>>

And I hear that critique & negativism and wonder why I am the only one who hears it. Why can’t his followers hear it? Why is that critique and negativism then projected onto Clinton instead of where it belongs ... on their own candidate. We cannot wait until after yet another election to get surprised by who we have inadvertently elected. I don’t want to have a beer with him. I want him to govern. Haven’t we all visited this have a beer with him crap before? Have we forgotten already (and Bush isn’t even gone from office yet)? I think what’s missing here is critical thinking skills. I know in my daughter’s former high school, they don’t even teach that anymore. I had to teach that to her myself.

(more in another post)

[Two Americas]

50. brilliant insights there

cantgetfooldagin: "It’s some kind of herd mentality driving them, kinda like when an animal is sick & they attack that animal until it leaves."

Yes! Like the weak chicken in the barnyard, all of the other hens peck on it, so it gets weaker, so they peck more.

cantgetfooldagin: "I know that we shouldn’t judge a candidate by his supporters.."

I think that we should. It is a representative democracy, so politicians represent their followers. Obama is supposed to be inspiring people - why shouldn't we look critically at what he is inspiring them to do and think? Politics is about the people, and the politicians merely reflect that. The only important thing about a politician is what he or she brings out in their following. If they were dictators, or CEO's, or spiritual gurus rather than politicians in a representative democracy, it would be different, but even then we would judge a leader by his followers, and well we should in my opinion. If Obama is a leader, who is he leading and what is he leading them to do? His whole campaign is carefully and cynically designed to create just this effect.

cantgetfooldagin: "Once the base of the democratic party is gone, there will be no hope for the democratic party in the future."

True, but that may be better for the people like us who are trapped in this nightmare. The brand name is way over-rated, and the small faction seizing control of that brand name do not own the most important thing about the party - the people. I like the story of how William Seward joined the Republican party - 1858 I think. He was one of the top two or three Whig politicians. The Whigs nominated him to the Senate, and in his acceptance speech he said "follow me" and walked down the street to the Republican meeting and declared himself to be a Republican, and almost everyone followed him.The only thing that loyalty to the Whig party meant, was loyalty to a brand name, and loyalty to a long dead past, and loyalty to a set of unworkable ideas - compromise with conservatives and go slow on fighting slavery, mainly. All of the people in the Whig party were still around, and all of the causes of the Whig party still existed, but they had made a clean sweep and started over so that the causes could more effectively be advanced. They did not abandon each other, and they did not abandon the principles.

Now, the question is, do we face a crisis on the scale of the crisis over slavery? I say that we do. Now, is the Democratic party as hopelessly weak and ineffective to fight the battle that needs to be fought as the Whig party was in the 1850's? I say that it is. Now, is the time right, and would we gain a hundred people for everyone that we lose were we to throw off the shackles of the party as currently configured? I say that it is and that we would.

[balantz]

48. The Brezinski news video on the front page of DU.

I wasn't able to get the whole video to work.

I have a feeling to not trust Brezinski for some reason, though I can't remember the specifics why. Does anyone know what the reasons might be to not trust him?

The Obamists are praising him there on the front page.

Is Brezinski O.K.? Or is he really the evil viper I feel he is?

Is he just a very intelligent and conniving neocon who knows what boat to push into the water and when? Or do I have that wrong?

[Catchawave]

58. Carter's FP/NSA

Now advising Obama. You decide :evilgrin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

[balantz]

59. It's really hard to say. I will say he looks creepy, but that's not a good judgement.

These guys have been putting their fingers in things for a long time! I vaguely remember this guy being around Washington as far back as I can remember.

Reading about him I would say he is certainly a manipulater of world events. He is a top player.

I'd say he is part of the oligarchy, an elitist. But most of them are, aren't they?

I don't care for some of his actions I read that he initiated throughout the years.

People like him never retire and have enormous influence in the world.

[flyarm]

84. yes he is evil!..your reactions are correct! eom

[Two Americas]

61. heartfelt thanks to everyone

I want to thank everyone here, especially Bobbolink, ClericJohnPreston and balantz for your thoughts and your courage to stand against the current and speak out against the howling mob.

I am now convinced that it is no longer possible to work within the context of modern liberalism - the organizations, the party, and the community of activists - and tackle and overcome, or even adequately address and discuss the problems the country faces. But beyond the futility and frustrations, I think that it is hazardous to our physical, spiritual, and mental health to continue to do so. It requires moral compromise at every step, acceptance of the unacceptable, and there comes a time when each person needs to say "enough" and make a decision.

We are told to hope and believe that if we take all of our concerns and fears, all of our thoughts, all of our efforts, all of our time and resources into electing Democrats. or a particular Democrat, and if we frame everything within that context, reduce everything down to that one solution and see that as the only solution, that somehow something good will happen. We are told that if we question that, we are being childish, impatient, too radical, impractical, unrealistic and on and on. Now we are told that we are not even welcome or wanted.

Modern liberalism and the party as currently configured is the place where hopes and dreams go to die - a slow, painful and agonizing death. Just as the promise of the TV commercials - that by buying this or that brand your life will be miraculously improved - is false, so to the promise that a new brand of Democrat will miraculously improve anything is also false. The opposite is true - counterfeit hope and belief destroys genuine hope and belief. Nothing is more effective at destroying dreams and hopes than the false promises of dreams and hopes, and having that false promise forced on us is highly suppressive and fatal to any real hopes and dreams.

If it were true that the community of modern liberalism were serious about the plight of the poor and homeless, it would be different. But there is no consensus, there is no urgency, and there is no serious commitment.

If it were true that we were forming societies of mutual support and defense, so that each of us were not left alone to battle with the corporate behemoths that dominate our lives, and left vulnerable to the bullies and petty tyrants that are ascendant and that we encounter in every single phase of our personal lives, it would be different. But we are not, and among us are those who will lecture people about "personal responsibility" and "making the right choices." Being part of any group or organization that tolerates that thinking as legitimate opinion is a moral compromise that I am not willing to make any longer. If that is an accepted part of modern liberalism, then I cannot in good conscience participate in that.

If it were true that the modern liberal community stood strongly with the victims of the extra-Constitutional Gestapo round-ups and detentions and abuse of poor brown people, it would be different. But that is not happening, and I think it will not ever happen. I can't stomach "differing opinions" on this subject anymore, can't bring myself to debate it with people.

If it were true that it were possible to live a true and honest life for oneself, let alone actually help others around us, by building a liberal counter-cultural lifestyle, if it were true that tossing a little money to charity, or by promoting the party or liberal causes earned us moral integrity and meant that we were part of the solution rather than part of the problem, then it would be different. But those are not true, and those activities and ideas lead us to attack and undermine anyone suggesting that a more radical, a more engaged, a more determined, a more committed and a more risky path is necessary.

If it were true that we could accept, comply with, cooperate and compromise with, defend and admire the petty tyrants and bullies in our daily lives and see them as clever "winners" and then not get a perfect reflection of that in our national leadership, government and politics, it would be different. But most liberals and Democrats are engaged in the hopeless task of balancing a personal life of bullying and being bullied, and then somehow supporting the opposite of that politically. This is the prime example of the extreme cognitive dissonance that one must surrender to, or continually battle and so be seen as a pariah, in order to participate and belong to the community.

If it were true that what I am saying here was seen as positive, powerful, and hopeful it would be different. But it is seen by too many as "negative" and "discouraging," or as insignificant and worthless - at best annoying - "yeah we have heard all that, but what is your solution? Hmmmm?" they will jeer.

If it were true that by first taking care of yourself, that then others will be taken care of later as a result of that, it would be different. But that is not true. Taking care of oneself first and foremost makes us callous and indifferent at worst, and condescending and demeaning at best, toward those around us. We need to take care of each other - always. One of the supreme ironies of modern life that I se, is that on a person to person level, conservatives are often far more generous and tolerant than liberals. If the Gestapo were after you - if this police state we are sliding into were real rather than hypothetical (and it most surely is) - I know many conservative people who would hide you, no questions asked. Too many liberals would ask "is he guilty?" about you, and be hesitant to help you until "they knew the facts" and could assure themselves that you were worthy of help and protection and not a "loser" or "mentally ill." Democrats and liberals are officially tolerant and compassionate and charitable, so that alleviates them of any sense of responsibility to be tolerant and compassionate and charitable with those real human beings around them in every day life.

If it were true that by being here we were part of a movement that strongly advocated for feeding and housing the destitute, for public education, for regulation of industry and finance, for protecting the little people, for rebuilding the public infrastructure that protects and supports our farms and our food supply, for rebuilding public transportation, for universal health care as a fundamental human right, for equal access to the courts and legal justice for all, for protecting and restoring the environment for the benefit of all, not the few who can afford eco-tourism or enlightened personal consumer choices,the it would be different. But none of this is true. We have a list of a grab bag of "good causes" that "we are working on" and that each little activist can pick and choose from, and do petty little isolated things so they can feel good about themselves. We have no consistency, no cohesion, no clarity and no will to fight - no ethic of self-sacrifice or commitment to community.

If it were not true that to be part of this community required us to see half of our fellow citizens as the enemy, and see our job as "being in their face" and confronting, antagonizing and hating all who do not agree with us, based on the most superficial and petty pretexts, it would be different. But that is what we are being asked to do in order for us to demonstrate our "loyalty" to "the cause."

I know that many, many people are suffering from the heartbreak, the confusion, the gut-wrenching agony, the never-ending frustrations and obstacles that come with being a modern liberal or party activist. We continue to suffer, and accept it, because we think there is no alternative. But if it is to be "every man for himself" - and it clearly is; if activism and social concern are to be subordinate to and subject to individualism and personal choices, then why agonize over any of this at all? Why not just look out for number one? Why not just embrace a "don't worry be happy" approach? Stress does not come from challenges and threats and dangers - it comes from an awareness of challenges and threats and dangers that we can do nothing about. Is there anything more stressful than the position that modern liberalism and the party place us in? That is almost the only thing that it now means to be a liberal - become intensely aware of the dangers, while simultaneously knuckling under to the idea that nothing can really be done about the dangers.

I don't know what the "alternative" is. But I am not going to let that stop me any longer from saying that this alternative - what we have been doing - will never work. That frees me up to go find or create an alternative, and succeed or fail at that, delusional and quixotic or not, that is how I want to spend the rest of my time now. The "alternative" to hitting yourself with a hammer and the solution to the problem of the pain that is causing, is to STOP hitting yourself with a hammer. That isn't "giving up" or quitting, it is starting, it is the necessary step in preparing yourself for new and more productive methods.

Thanks again to everyone who has put up with me, read and considered my posts, and offered so many great insights and observations and brilliant ideas.

[balantz]

62. What? Are you done now?

I thought we were just getting started!

:7

[Two Americas]

63. yes

Yes, I am through. The collapse of the Edwards campaign, and the rise of the Obama campaign pushed me over the edge. But as I said in my pm, I see this as a new beginning, a bright and positive thing

Not through with the conversation - that has been great. I don't think the conversation we are having here is welcomed or supported, though, within the party, among the activists or in the modern liberal paradigm. But why do we accept and believe that any conversation, any political action, any political ideas that are not right wing must happen and can only happen within the context of the current set up?

I have been involved in a number of political projects over the years, most recently some on behalf of small farmers and also immigrants, and also turning farming communities Democratic in the mid terms. The approach we took was very effective, and I cannot understand the approaches that liberal activists and the liberal organizations are taking, nor why they are so hostile to our methods.

What we did was two fold - first, used our network within the farming community - non-political channels, real life - and rather than promoting the Democratic party or liberal causes we talked straight and honestly with people about the crisis the country is in, and trusted them to arrive at their own conclusions. I think that this is a big part of the reason why rural counties all across the Midwest went Democratic, despite the fact that surveys still show that people do not have a high opinion of the Democrats. We should not underestimate the effect we can have as individuals or small groups, by the way, because there are so many things that no one is doing, and no one is saying, that a handful of people can have an enormous effect. Those farmers have heard all of the talking points, all of the advocacy and promotion of causes, been harassed by the right wing zealots and by the liberal zealots. But no one is talking to them with respect and as equals, no one is talking seriously about the crisis the country is in - they only hear partisan screaming. Not only did we get no support from the party activists, they were violently opposed to our approach. They want to scream at farmers about gun control and organic, or about being right wing fundy war mongers, and otherwise have no interest in farmers.

The second thing we did - and I cannot understand why so few people do this - is talk directly to state and national representatives and senators, the governor, and their staffs. Oh, they get barraged by "email blasts" and flooded with phone calls, but they are at sea and drifting, buffeted and pressured by special interest groups, and no one is talking serious politics to them. This is so mysterious. All of them are very much interested in a revived New Deal. So if the people support a revived New Deal, and if the politicians are willing, then what is the problem? The problem is that the liberal activist community stands between the people and the politicians, blocking the voice of the people, holding the party and the politicians hostage to the liberal causes, and driving them into the culture war battles. In that context, corporate dollars will always speak the loudest. There is no voice of the people reaching the officials, and the people who most need to be heard are the ones most locked out.

Now everything we did, everything we said, was thoroughly and violently rejected and opposed by the activist community. It won't work, you can't do it, who do you think you are, you aren't being practical or realistic, your ideas will never work, let the pros handle it, you don't have the backing, you don't have the money, those right wingers will never listen, you don't know what you are talking about...

Something is way off. I am tired of wrestling with it within the activist community. I think there is a hidden agenda that over-rides and sabotages the left. When I try to describe it, I meet hostility and resistance, but I know you are open to hearing this. It is an upscale suburban agenda, a certain way of looking at life, at people,and at politics that has an extreme bias toward the "good people" - those making the right choices, educated and successful, accepting of authority of various kinds, defending the system, committed to the game the way it is played on a deep and profound level, with personal expression and self-actualization - for the few, the enlightened - taking precedence over everything.

As I have said, modern liberalism has become libertarianism with an "organic" label slapped on it. As I have also said, the Democratic party and liberal organizations hang out a sign - "welcome downtrodden, persecuted, abused and forgotten people, we are your advocates" and then when we try to come in they complain about us tracking up their elegant carpet with our muddy boots. They need to either take down that sign, or get rid of that damned fancy carpet.

Modern liberals want to be the sort of people who are "against" injustice and inequality - as part of their personal development and their self-image - but they do not want to actually oppose injustice and inequality.

[ClericJohnPreston]

65. Two Americas

the truth is never easy, and always denied. It is far more comfortable to live in a fantasy, than to accept the reality that at heart, we Democrats are unthinking, unfeeling, uncaring; in other words, REPUBLICANS.

I can't argue with a single point you made. To me, the Obama movement embodies and symbolizes the WORST of the self-centered, socially despotic, corrupted people we have evolved into.

Sure, you, me, balantz, saracat and many others here, "get it". But, we are drowned out not by the voices of reason, but by the din of riotous non-thinkers, preoccupied with their self-interests and gloating as to their superiority. I wouldn't want a one of them by my side, they sicken me. AS I stated earlier, I hold THEM accountable, differing with balantz. They CHOSE wilfull ignorance, even when the deceptions, generalities, inexperience and controversies abound. I find this lack of moral reckoniong, repugnant.

Two Americas, though our meeting is brief, you have seen that I have been right since the outset, regarding Obamites, their cultism, their lack of real perception. You have also finally seen, that all the well-intentioned "liberals", except for a precious few, have sold out for a better life, damn the poor.

I spoke earlier of Life imitating Art. I brought up "1984" as a case in point. Add to that the John Carpenter "They Live", a cult-loved 1988 sci-fi piece about CORPORATE aliens sapping the public morale, depleting our resources, and promising a better life for all who join.

We have no aliens here, but rampant Corporatists who would stoop to any level, set brother against brother, all in the name of retaining power. Obama respects that power, is a favorite of Wall Street, non-threatening to the Elite.

Our Democrats have lost their way. You remember, at another place, I told you it had to be more about a FUTURE MOVEMENT, something as an alternative to Anarchy, which has as it's guiding principles, social and economic opportunity for all, and a DISEMPOWERING of the Corporations, with the retun of power to men of conscience.

This is how I see the epic struggle before us. I welcome all fellow men of peace and reason.

[raincity_calling]

70. hmmm

I understand all of your anger and frustration and disallusionment. I understand how some people can choose to support Hillary and some choose to support Obama. They are both corpratists. Nevertheless, in an imperfect world, pragmatically speaking, I think there are valid reasons for supporting both (believing that neither are ideal choices). But why must there be so much venom? I honestly do not understand the venom that is coming from either side. Why can't we respect each other's choices?(now that is easy for me to say when someone is supporting a Democrat; if you were supporting McCain, it would be much more difficult for me say that.) :-)

I think most of us here, the Edwards supporters, are seasoned activists. Neither of these candidates are who we really want as our president. We all know that no matter who becomes president it will still take us, activists, to continue to pressure those we elect.

There are a lot of ways to do what we need to do. Some will be more effective working outside the Democratic Party, and some will be more effective working within it. It is all good, so long as we are doing something. Why can't we be more supportive of each other? Why do we have to be so hostile to each other - we all have the same goals. We all need to be kinder to each other.

[balantz]

71. There's nothing wrong with kindness.

But we here are accepting the fact that the system is broken, and until it is overhauled it will never be a system that is by and for the people. It is just more of the same over and over again. These choices are funneled by the corporate-elite. They are the ones who will continue to benefit as long as they are the ones who control the whole shebang. You seem to be speaking with the feeling that there is still some hope that the party will work for us. We see that it is just another voice of the elite and the party is and has been abandoning us. The corporations rule, and until that changes we won't have a truly representative government. The candidates that are left standing are there because the corporations allow them to be. That is who the candidates, and almost every member of congress are working for primarily. We are left in the dust once again.

[raincity_calling]

68. You are right with all of the above.

I see hope in the sustainability movement, which is far broader than environmentalism. It is the community acting to take care of itself without waiting for government to do it, although local governments are beginning to show strong support. The sustainability movement has a strong focus on community and community self-sufficiency. It is really begining to take hold in the Northwest.

[balantz]

69. That sounds good. Thanks for sharing that.

I lived in and around Portland Oregon during the eighties. I really like some of those communities and people up there. And the country will always be in my heart as well. I still have my webbed feet and my cloudy, drizzly gaze and humor.

[lildreamer316]

72. TwoAmericas, and ClericJohnPreston:

I just finished a perusal of this thread, and am in amazement.

I am just now delving into several groups, having dedicated most of my time to supporting whatever Al Gore has been doing. I was also a strong supporter of John Edwards, although I did not post in this group at all. I'm in NC, so I did some work on the ground.
Now, finding myself at a crossroads; deciding on a candidate who is actually IN the race; and then seeing the absolute craziness that this place has become, I've been searching for those with clear heads. Surely, I thought, I can't be the only one who only sees a shell when she looks at Obama? I thought I was really missing something.

All I can say is, glad to know I'm in good company. You both, as well as several others here, have clarafied my thoughts and feelings for me.

Thank you..so much. And please continue to expound. It is much needed; if you can bring yourself to it.

[ClericJohnPreston]

73. Thank you for that

I appreciate that we have an excellent written record finally culling together all the arguments about the candidacy of Obama, and the failures and true interests of the Democratic Party.

It seems almost Matrix-like how oblivious most are to the events and reasons for same, that swirl around them. This is just a Giant Chess board and all the drones and cultists are mere pawns, IF THEY ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BE.

I expect the worst of global Corporations, they are truly evil, but I put the blame squarely on those who are WILLFULLY ignorant of Truth.

[Two Americas]

79. thanks

Hi lildreamer316. Thanks for weighing in on the discussion.

[ClericJohnPreston]

75. Yikes

I took a small foray into GDP last night, the first time in a month. To quote the esteemed actor James Donald, who played Major Clipton in "The Bridge On The River Kwai", "MADNESS, MADNESS."

[Two Americas]

77. exploring this some more

The more I talk about this, the more convinced I am that we are on to something. That will bring clarity as we understand it better, and is in my opinion the most constructive response to the collapse of the Edwards movement.

This discussion relates, I think -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3357932

[cornermouse]

78. A lot of lines being drawn in the sand and pointing

fingers in the linked thread. The same people calling for unity are the ones responsible for the majority of attacks. They accuse Hillary of splitting the party for not quitting when they wanted her to quit. I look at them and think about whether I want to be like them. I still don't know why Edwards quit and wish to God he hadn't. They get out there and do entire threads celebrating tombstones. I'm reading the threads and wondering if the person in question would have been tombstoned in the past. They even attacked Skinner. You have people openly supporting the polygamists. Elizabeth, Hillary, Chelsea and any other woman who made them mad have been called all sort of names and have written horrible things about them that I never thought I would see on DU. It's been crazy and it's been an education that I would have preferred to do without.

[Two Americas]

92. view from down under

Here is a post from another board by my friend Djinn that I thought was good in response to a rabid pack of Obama supporters.

Elections (hint Nothing To Do With Revolutions)
Djinn

I doubt there’s any point to this. It will simply be read as the keyboard warrior wailing for bloody revolution but as my views are consistently mischaracterized by people who are either too stupid to appreciate nuance, too ignorant to understand history or deliberately distorting what I say because it does not fit into their uninspired insipid political outlook, I figured I’d at least leave something here that explains my real views as opposed to the reimagining’s of the mental midgets.

One of the very few times in American history where the government made some effort to govern for the majority was during the time of FDR’s New Deal.

The Democrats ONLY instituted the extremely limited (and watered down in intervening years by Democrats and Republican administrations) social compact you currently have because there was a demand from below and a burgeoning alternative.

It is historically ignorant to insinuate it’s the leftists/detritus/whiners/keyboard radicals who are fucking up the Democrats and sending them running into the arms of the ruling 5%

It was the rapid growth of Socialist and Communist Parties, the organization of the unemployed and the increasingly far left control of unions that forced the Democrats to take a small detour down democracy lane. It was strikers physically defending their picket lines that saw Democrats pay attention to workplace justice. It was the unemployed organising that meant politicians gave a hoot what happened to them.

You don’t need to get the Socialist Party elected; you just need to get their vote high enough to scare the shit out of Democrats. They do NOT respond to working within the party as has been evidence by the rapid lurch to the right since FDR’s days. Or in other words since the scaling down of DIRECT COMMUNITY ACTION.

All the insistence here that one has to work within the party as the only way to drag them to the left (or even the best/most effective way) is ridiculous and completely arse about tit.

Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel how about looking to what has actually worked in the past.

Change the attitudes of the people around you and eventually a critical mass forms that politicians must pay more than simple lip service to if they wish to remain in power (and in some cases breathing – see Ceausescu)

Without that critical mass there is absolutely NO incentive for the ruling class to hand over some of their power. Democrats know that no matter how many foreigners they kill to advance the wealth of the already obscenely rich, no matter how many NAFTA type deals they strike, no matter how they “reform welfare” that left leaning people will STILL vote for them. They know they have NOTHING to fear because you are all simply too frightened to take any real action. After all they reason, “what are they gonna do, vote Republican”

Organise your workplace, your church, your local dole office (or US equivalent) – it’s FAR more effective than campaigning for politicians. Even as the mass is building you’ll find you’ll get “wins” faster with direct action than with campaigning for stuffed suits.

Stop begging politicians to listen to you – they work for you – demand they start governing for the majority (hardly a radical socialist idea for fuxache) and if they don’t SACK THEM.

Or you know, just keep insisting that everyone else other than those wedded to the Obama train is a loon.

[maryf]

93. Good points

"Stop begging politicians to listen to you – they work for you – demand they start governing for the majority (hardly a radical socialist idea for fuxache) and if they don’t SACK THEM."

Example: Nancy Pelosi is not showing any fear that both Shirley Golub in the democratic primary, and Cindy Sheehan in the general election, are both running against her, but you gotta know its doing something to her politics. Rare case however, trying to find someone to run in a race is tough, which is our problem in CD20, getting someone to run just to scare our rep left! We've got a willing core of dedicated folks to go out and get the petitions and run a grass roots campaign, just no body willing to run!!! (and we all petitioned for Kucinich, and were instrumental in getting him on the ballot!)

And when will the day return when the representatives start representing again!!!

[maryf]

94. PS

love replying to my own posts (unintentionally kicked myself the other day), Anyway a fellow DU'r started a web site for potential candidates to battle entrenched Dems or Repubs who don't represent: peacecandidates.com, Haven't been there for a while, but they have a list from around the country. FYI.

[bobbolink]

97. Wake me when we have a povertycandidates.com

[maryf]

98. great idea

I know a lot of posts cover poverty, but it would be a good site to start on its own, wish I weren't technically challenged!

[bobbolink]

99. That, too. MUCh needed resource.

What I'm saying in that reply was that "peace" is SEXY.. it's important.

It's easy to support.

Poverty, not so much.

:grr:

[maryf]

100. The connection

Is that due to all the funds going to the illegal occupations affecting all the economic consideration, the number of homeless and severely impoverished is rising exponetially, not to say that is the source of the problem but certainly an exacerbation of the problem. Maybe this can be a way to use the sexy peace movement to amp up the poverty issue?

[Two Americas]

101. poverty is the only issue

Seeing that is the key to all political success and social progress, and the survival of human society.

Poverty is the only political issue.

[Two Americas]

95. kick

Kicked and saved.