Why do we campaign and elect a democrat?

[newinnm]

Is it so we can have someone in the Whitehouse with a "D" after his or her name or is it so we can advance a political agenda? It appears to me that many people think that just having a democrat is good enough and that it doesn't matter what agenda he advances.
There are obvious issues that he is going to pursue and those are the easy ones. Our job is to push him to go further with the progressive agenda and if that takes us publicly criticizing his actions that we don't like than so be it.

I see so many people say words to the effect that they trust Obama and hes better than Bush so we should let him carry out his master plan and everything is going to be ok. Didn't we do that with Clinton and what did we get. We got to where we are now. And for those who say Clinton bears no blame for us being here then I would say bull shit. Had Clinton shown true progressive leadership then we wouldn't have had an opportunity for Bush to be in office.

To those who say that I am not being loyal when I hold the Presidents feet to the fire I say, get used to it. This is a participatory system of government. I will not just sit by and trust that everything is going to be ok when it looks like it might not be.


-nnnm

[firedupdem]

1. While Clinton wasn't perfect.......the election was stolen in 2000. nt

[newinnm]

2. Thats the easy answer.

And it makes us comfortable to say it was stolen and there is nothing we could have done.


-nnnm

[cali]

7. Excuse me? The fact is that it was stolen, genius.

And pray tell, how could we have stopped the SCOTUS coup?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

13. really? the civil rights movement was built on "burning down the cities"?

No, it really wasn't. And your melodrama and bullshit hysteria will never accomplish a thing. As for the over our dead bodies crap, count me out. Never did like that live free or die nonsense.

[firedupdem]

16. +1 nt

[olegramps]

66. Gore should have refused to concede.

I don't give a damn if it resulted in civil revolt. The Supreme Court had absolutely no authority to do what it did. Period. Elections, according to the provisions of the Constitution are solely under the control of the State. My family sent numerous Telegrams encouraging him to reject the Supreme Court decision and demand a fully recount of the vote.

[pinto]

3. I think it's so we can have someone in the Whitehouse with a "D" *and* advance a political agenda .

One follows from the other, no? And, I'd include Congress in that process. Obama has been clear about his support for the separation of powers in our system. That's an invitation to a participatory system of government, imho. And it includes us.

I like what I see in Obama, though I don't agree with every public stand he's made to date. I'd say the same for many of our party's members in Congress. It takes two - or three or four in this case - to tango an agenda into legislation.

[newinnm]

4. Absolutely

But in reality I wouldnt care if it were a green little man from mars who were in the white house as long as the important things that our country needs were being addressed.

-nnnm

[pinto]

14. For practical purposes, to advance an agenda, I'd want that little green man from Mars to wear a "D"

If there are Democrats from Mars... :think:

[Solomon]

65. I think the poster just gave himself/herself away with

the little green man comment.

[Mz Pip]

5. Because Republicans are so much worse

Am I thrilled with the Democratic Party? Not really. Will Obama do things that will disappoint me? Probably?

The Republicans would do more to annoy me, disappoint me and push the country even further right.

I ask for the moon, but will settle for a piece of cheese.

[BlooInBloo]

10. "I ask for the moon, but will settle for a piece of cheese." - Eminently reasonable.

[Mz Pip]

26. If I don't expect too much

I won't be too disappointed. I've grown cynical in my middle age. :shrug:

[cali]

6. really? you see so many people say that we should just let Obama

carry out his "master plan" and leave him alone? Where? Because on DU there are literally only a handful of people who say anything close to that. There are far, far, far more threads criticizing him than praising him. That's fine. Pretending that criticzing him is some brave, novel and dangerous move, is utter nonsense- a steaming pile of it, in fact.

To claim that criticizing him meets with cries of "disloyalty" is to construct a very lame little strawman, dear. it's a pathetic claim with no validity- at least here on DU.

Your claim that Clinton ushered in bushco is another fallacious pile of shit. Clinton's inability to keep his zipper up and fucking a 21 year old intern had a lot more to do with bushco's vote total being close to Gore than his lack of Progressive action. That and the fact that Gore ran a shit campaign, was not good enough in the debates what with his sighing and sweating, and the fucking idiots who voted for Gore.

You can now return to patting yourself on the back.

[newinnm]

8. Thank you..I think I will!

[Drunken Irishman]

17. Bravo.

And I find it interesting so many are already throwing in the towel on the Obama administration after only four months.

When has a president ever only been given four months to make or break his presidency?

It's ridiculous.

And yes, Gore deserves a lot of blame for 2000. He's made up for it with his actions post-VP, but he ran a horrible campaign that couldn't find a message and unfortunately, could never really gain momentum.

For all the grief we give Pres. Bush, his 2000 campaign was genius. It was genius because he sold a lie. He told the American people he was a moderate and it allowed them to ease up on the possibility of electing a Republican, even after eight years of prosperity.

I think what did Gore in, however, were the two debate performances. Sure, the media was successful in lowering expectations to the point where if Bush didn't trip over himself, he would have won, but this happened in the VP debate between Palin and Biden with less impact. Mostly because Biden didn't screw it up. He played it safe and even though Palin looked better than many built her up to be, most Americans thought she lost the debate.

In 2000, though, Gore played right into his weakness. Most felt he was out of touch, while Bush was a common man. Gore's sighing reinforced that. They also thought he was wooden and awkward and combative, which was reinforced in the town hall debate when he got up, walked over to Bush and entered his personal space. To anyone who watched that, it was probably the most awkward moment in a debate that I can think of. I cringed when I saw it and knew that it was going to be a moment replayed over and over.

Hell, let's be honest, guys, if it weren't for the surprise DUI story and the Social Security flap at the end (where Bush said it wasn't like Social Security was a government program), Gore probably would have lost both the electoral college and the popular vote.

It was just a very disjointed campaign and we can blame everything on Clinton and the Supreme Court, but it doesn't change the fact Gore struggled for much of that campaign.

Revisionist history is not going to help us here.

That's why Democrats lose. They revise history and don't fix their mistakes.

We did it in 1984 and then again in 1988 and wondered why the Republicans kicked our asses in two straight elections.

Well Pres. Obama finally realized how to run a national campaign and successfully won in a way Bill Clinton could never do.

And even with all the crap that has been thrown at him, he still has a pretty amazing approval rating (64-27 according the Gallup).

So he must be doing something right.

[polmaven]

21. If President Clinton could have run

for a third term, he would have been elected in a heartbeat. If Gore had not run AWAY from Clinton, he would have been much better off.

I find the apparent OP premise that Clinton wasn't progressive enough so people voted for Bush more that a little backwards. It is, as you state, a "fallacious pile of shit".

[tavalon]

46. I've had that invective hurled at me multiple times

as well as the already tired statement that we haven't given him enough time. Funny thing is, I preface almost all of my criticism of his mistakes with mentioning the amazing amount of good he's done and yet, I still get accused of being disloyal and wanting McCain somehow.

[Aloha Spirit]

9. I trust Obama because he has demonstrated his trustworthiness.

edit to add....
For every promise that one may contend he has broken, I can name at least ten that he's kept or is working to keep.
Promises kept= trustworthy, right?

[Dragonmaster67]

37. Yeah.

I guess you can say that. Obama is a guy that does what he says hes going to do.
Even if the things he does are useless or harmful, he still follows through.

[firedupdem]

42. Fail...

You show up today with useless and harmful? Hmmmmm

[sandnsea]

11. To elect a Democrat - not a Green

some people have simply got to learn the damn difference. If you want a party to the left of the Democrats - then there was never a better time to really organize and push it forward.

[Peacetrain]

15. Good Grief.. here we go again

Edit to add:


Yes we have a Democrat in office.. He may not be your flavor of Democrat..

Now if that is your issue, then point out what you would rather see.. but for the love of all that is good in this world..please try and understand.. we are not the Republicans.

The Republicans have gotten themselves into a purity state, and are losing everywhere.

We are the Big Tent Party, till we can no longer stand the fact that we have to sit beside, moderates, progressives, socialists, greens, etc..then we will too start demanding party purity and lose the congress, and WH, and the republicans will be free to once again do what they want too, just as they have the last 20 years

[azmouse]

18. ...

[onenote]

19. easy talk, no back up

"Had Clinton shown true progressive leadership then we wouldn't have had an opportunity for Bush to be in office."

That probably took you less than a minute to type. But it will take longer than that to back it up. I'd be curious to see any evidence that it was Clinton's alleged lack of "progressive leadership" that caused Al Gore to not end up as president. For that matter, I'd like some evidence that Al Gore would've done better had he run farther to the left. Also, while you're defending your bold assertion, you might explain how it is that Clinton got re-elected in 1996 by a wider margin than his initial election in 1992 if his failure to be a progressive leader was so costly.

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. Fail

[Uzybone]

22. Completely incoherent post

keep holding those feet to the fire though!!

[Bluerthanblue]

23. "I will not just sit by and trust that everything is going to be ok when

it looks like it might not be."

I'll bitch about it on a message board and soothe my fear by telling myself (and everyone else who'll listen) that I'm "holding his feet to the fire"-

:shrug:

Even if what you say is true (which I don't believe) what exactly are YOU doing to improve anything?

[Ken Burch]

32. You're assuming that message-boarding is all that that poster was doing.

And what entitles YOU to take such a lofty perch of judgment?

[Bluerthanblue]

41. the lofty perch of judgement was spoke- i

replied to his words.

He offered nothing other than complaint- no answers, no solutions, simply negative words and self-justification. I'm not judging him- he's doing that himself. He's also judging anyone who disagrees with him.

Do YOU really think that publicly criticizing what the President does, is going to change anything in a positive way? It would be far better for him to write directly to the White House- and encourage others who feel similarly to do the same. That way he makes his feelings known, without simply being just another tool for the media play around with.

You're assuming a bit yourself- what entitles YOU to that "lofty perch"?

:shrug:

[Ken Burch]

43. I claim no perch for myself.

It was just that your harshness towards the other poster was well out of proportion to any harm he or she could have done.

As to public criticism, well, yes, sometimes that is necessary. Would there have been a Civil Rights or Voting Rights Act if no one had criticized the Kennedy/Johnson administration for dawdling on endiung segregation? Would there have been any chance to even get Nixon to pull the troops out of Vietnam in January of '73 or of getting Reagan to support human rights in the Phillippines or South Africa if there hadn't been a LOT of public criticism of their policies through the act of organizing protests?

Writing the White House, all by itself, isn't going to do anything,

[Bluerthanblue]

59. you are right that

my reply was harsh, and i apologize for that.
If the OP had advocated ways to advance his agenda other than simply complaining i wouldn't have been as annoyed.

The whole "holding his feet to the fire" meme that people seem to like to use really rubs me the wrong way. Obama didn't campaign on a strongly 'progressive' or 'strongly liberal' platform. I worked to help elect him and voted for him knowing this. I don't think it's honest, or fair to condemn him for not adopting a different agenda, OR to foolishly conclude after 5mos that all is lost.

I'm interested in hearing ways that ALL of us can make a positive difference in this world. We've got enough negative crap to last us forever- and after the last 8 years i'd think we'd want to approach this from a more constructive position.


thanks-
:hi:

[tavalon]

47. Thank goodness most of us know how to walk and chew gum at the same time

I write to the WH just about daily and I've been to many a protest during the dark years and I did guerrilla artwork to inform people about the dangers of electronic voting and the fact that Bush stole two elections in a row...............and I bitch on a website. You are making an assumption I don't think you can back up.

[Bluerthanblue]

58. I'm not making any assumption- The OP didn't

advocate anything but complaining-

Had he done something different, my reply would have been quite different. It's easy to blame the administration for all our unmet (as yet) expectations- If that's all we do- and the OP didn't advocate ANYTHING other than that, then we are simply adding to the problems. imo- You at least mention ways in which people can involve themselves in promoting the causes they feel strongly about.

I also don't agree with the OP that we've elected a "political agenda"- We elect a team who share many of our own political ideals- but we as a 'party' don't even agree on all aspects of our agenda, so how can 'we' elect someone who addresses everyones personal agenda?

I lean to the far left- i also realize that most within this party don't- I don't expect Obama to suddenly adopt my own perspective now that I helped to elect him, nor will I bitch about him not doing so.

He said he'd increase troops to Afghanistan, not my preference, but i understand why he is doing it.
He never campaigned on 'single payer' health care- i wanted him to, but the reasons he gave for not doing so made sense- he did say that all Americans should have access to health care- (i'm still one who doesn't) and i believe he'll honor that asap.
He said he'd get us out of Iraq- 5mos. in, 'we're' still there, but beginning to draw down, and work towards the goal of getting out.


The OP blames Clinton for Bush- THAT is a pretty big assumption that HE doesn't back up- He's also assuming that the majority of America desires a "Progressive Agenda"- i wish that were so, but i don't believe it is-

My response to the OP was harsh- as has been mentioned by Ken Burch above, I regret my tone, but I don't regret pointing out that if all he advocates is complaining, then he's not moving us forward- I asked him what he advocated doing, he's offered no answer-

[HopeOverFear]

24. Good for you! *hands you a cookie*

[cali]

25. if this was kos, it would be donut from me for this OP

[HopeOverFear]

33. lol

[Dragonmaster67]

38. Wtf? Lol

You want a cookie? *Hands you a cookie*

[CakeGrrl]

27. Why don't you work on those Blue-Dog Senate "Dems"?

You know, the ones like Nelson who are open to filibustering their Democratic president's choice of Supreme Court justice right alongside the Republicans if they're too "activist"?

Get back to us when there are more progressive Democrats in the LEGISLATIVE branch. Obama cannot accomplish everything through executive order.

:eyes:

[avaistheone1]

61. Obama could do alot more. Why did he not invite single payer do

participate in the White House Consortium on Health Care? Obama instead only had ears for the health insurance industrial complex. Very disappointing.

[MarjorieG]

28. We also have to convince others to vote Dems as a progressive. Whatever that is.

Views and positions are not ours alone.

We can try to mold, make our points, but cannot have a hissy fit when other views are considered.

[rocktivity]

29. Because Republicans are the lesser of two evils.

Especially the current vintage.

x(
rocktivity

[Clio the Leo]

30. I'm sorry to tell you that he's not going to push Democratic ideas ....

.... JUST because they're Democratic (or liberal or progressive, etc.)

He said as much in his interview with CSPAN, "I dont look at ideas as Democrtic ideas or Republican ideas, I am interested in what works." (paraphrasing)

Video is here
http://cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/24/HP/R/18950/President+Obama+discusses+Foreign+and+domestic+issues+in+Exclusive+CSPAN+interview.aspx

(sorry I cant tell you the time as I watched it this morning, but we all need to see the whole thing any way. :) )

Now .... that is not to say that we can't urge him to stick only to a progressive agenda, but it's a caution to anyone expecting him to do JUST that. Anyone who does may become very frustrated over the course of the next 7 and a half years.

[Fire1]

36. Too late! They've already flipped out.

I don't mind sharing a tent with varieties of dems, IF they can see the forest for the trees and not expect Obama to walk on water or think he can magically turn capitalism into socialism with no retaliation or backlash. Tall order, I kmoe.

[Clio the Leo]

40. well crap! :-) NT

[Ken Burch]

31. K&R

The Clinton years are the model for what a Democratic administration should NEVER be again: ceo's mattered, the poor and labor didn't.
The hard right was relentlessly active and pretty much always won, progressives were silent and excluded and never won.

No good came to the party OR the country from that administration being run that way.

[tabasco]

34. So we can start cleaning up the MASSIVE PILE OF SHIT left by the repukes.

DEMOCRATS - cleaning up repuklican disasters since the Great Depression.

[NoPasaran]

35. What did we get with Clinton?

Eight years of peace, eight years of prosperity. That's all the agenda I need.

[tavalon]

48. Got NAFTA too and that huge sucking sound was actually jobs being outsourced

rather than a blowjob by an intern.

If you're going to reminisce, be complete about it.

I adored the Big Dog but even I can see that he wasn't perfect and in fact, was way too cuddley with the oligarchs.

[wyldwolf]

49. "If you're going to reminisce, be complete about it."

Take your own advice.

From 1993, when NAFTA was enacted, to roughly 2003, the economy grew by 54% and the jobless rate plummeted from 6.9% to 4.9%, manufacturing output INCREASED by 63%. The bureau of labor statistics calculated that NAFTA created over 600,000 jobs for the manufacturing sector overall.

The U.S. unemployment rate was 6.9% in 1993, the year NAFTA was agreed to. It was 6.1% in 1994. The rate fell steadily until reaching 4.0% in the year 2000. Even in 2002, the year after we had a recession, the rate was 5.8%, lower than the year NAFTA went into effect.

Manufacturing jobs? We had just about 17 million in 1994. It actually rose to 17.56 million in 1998 and was at 17.26 in 2000 (still higher than in 1994 the year NAFTA went into effect). Then we had a recession in 2001 and since then the number of manufacturing jobs has fallen quite a bit, down to 14.3 million. So that is a loss of nearly 3 million since 2000, which might be due to the recession. If it were due to NAFTA, then why did it take so long for the loss to happen? Anyway, the country ALSO lost 2.3 million manufacturing jobs in the 15 years BEFORE NAFTA as well.

But what about wages? Real hourly wages have risen since 1994 for all workers. For all workers, hourly wages rose 38.4% while the Consumer Price Index (CPI) just rose 27.1%, hence the real gain. For manufacturing jobs, hourly wages also rose more than prices, with a 34.1% gain. But a pre-NAFTA comparison is in order. From 1984-1994, hourly wages for all workers rose 33.5%, while the CPI rose 42.2%, indicating a fall in real wages. The same happened for manufacturing jobs with hourly wages rising only 33%, well under the rise in prices. So it looks like workers did better in the years after NAFTA went into effect than before.

[DrToast]

39. Who is this "we" you're referring to?

[democracy1st]

44. you sound like a rightwing fool with the Clinton bashing

[depakid]

50. He sounds like a pretty realistic person to me

and if things continue on the path that they seem to be going- it may well be a lesson the democrats learn the hard way. Again.

[tavalon]

45. It is the job of all citizens to pay attention and to give feedback to our government

To do otherwise is to be at least lazy and at most, derelict in duty.

[TexasObserver]

51. Yes, it's so we can have a Democrat as president.

If the only thing a president did was appoint the Supreme Court, THAT alone would be sufficient reason to elect only Democrats to the presidency.

I don't care for some of the things Obama has done in office, or not done, but ditch the "do we just want someone with a D after their name" line. It doesn't sell.

[Steely_Dan]

52. Pendulum Theory

I've always been of the opinion that political trends do not change "in a moment" or the result of an election. Trends and the political direction of a government is more like a pendulum. The pendulum has swung so far to the Right over the past several years that no reasonable person can (or should) expect that the Pendulum will somehow disappear from the Right and suddenly reappear on the Left. Many of us wish it would, but that simply isn't reality. Obama's election will go a long way towards stopping the pendulum from swinging any more to the Right. For me (even as a progressive) is a huge step in the right direction. I am not pleased with many of actions taken by our new President. And I hasten to add that simply stopping the Pendulum is not enough. However, I am willing to give this new Administration the time they need to not merely stop the pendulum, but to actually get it to wing in our favor.

-P

[emulatorloo]

53. Strawman argument n/t

[newinnm]

60. Not really.......

A straw man argument is a rhetorical device that is meant to easily prove that one’s position or argument is superior to an opposing argument. However, the straw man argument is regarded as a logical fallacy, because at its core, the person using the device misrepresents the other person's argument. The person does this because it then becomes easier to knock down the weaker version of the opposing argument with one's more substantial counter argument. The term straw man derives from the use of scarecrows for military practice, such as charges. In reality, a scarecrow is far easier to defeat than an actual person.



So tell me where my post fits into this definition?

[sandyd921]

54. That goes for all the Democrats in congress as well

including all the DINOs. What's the sense of electing Democrats who advance the political agenda of the other side?

[RetroLounge]

55. We didn't

we elected Obama

RL

[TankLV]

56. Becaue we have to look at EACH election AT THE TIME...

and, ALWAYS, the DEMOCRAT is the LESSER of TWO evils, or actually BETTER, as in the case of the LAST election.

It's really THAT simple...

[leftofthedial]

57. so we can turn DU into a mindless perpetual pep rally

and fan club meeting.

"One, two, three, uhh, three! Go-o-o-o- D!"

[cali]

64. except that there are consistantly more threads criticizing Obama

than cheerleading him. but don't let that stop your passionate humping of the strawman, honey.

[dionysus]

68. you guys make damn sure this place isn't about cheerleading. at least half the threads here are

critical
:shrug:

[kwenu]

62. All democrats don't have the same exact agenda.

[MiniMe]

63. Exactly what progressive agenda items are you talking about?

Obama didn't run as a progressive, he ran as a democrat. And a relatively moderate democrat at that too. But what agenda items are you talking about? Hold his feet to the fire about specifics, not about generalities. Are you talking about DADT? Obama wants congress to pass a law to repeal it, he has said that if he does it by executive order that the next President can overturn it again, and congress won't put passing legislation as a priority if he overturns it by executive order.

I haven't been happy with everything the President has done this far, but he is moving in the right direction. And he can't do it alone. Seriously, unless you can, or will provide specifics, I can't agree or disagree with you so far. One thing I know for sure, he sure is better than John McCain, and that was our choice in the election.

[dionysus]

67. you sure told us.

[Beacool]

69. Here we go again..................

Same old BS about Clinton. Yeah right, it was Bill's fault that we ended up with Bush........

Give me a break!!!!

Bill is still the best president in my lifetime. I'll take Bill over plenty of other previous presidents. Not progressive enough for some of you? Too freaking bad!!

x(

[mkultra]

70. ok, who let our fringe get off the leash.

Down boy down.