10 years ago, Jim Webb was a rising Democratic star recruited by MoveOn and Dean

[Recursion]

Today, it is universally acknowledged (even by him; he just suspended his campaign) that he is too conservative for any serious chance at the Dem nomination.

Do people still think the party is moving to the right?

[Robbins]

1. Yep

Clinton is center right.she makes him look liberal on foregin policy.

[BootinUp]

2. You can't reduce the myriad of issues down to left vs. right

I would say Webb was always a maverick type, that's his personality. I did appreciate having him as the Senator from Virginia and supported him, but it was clear right away that he was unconventional and that the marriage was going to be rocky. Just my opinion.

[frazzled]

3. There's a big difference

between using a conservative Democrat to turn a red state "blue" and thereby gain control of the Senate (with a Democratic majority leader instead of a Republican and the chance to control the agenda and all the committees) ... and having that conservative Democrat be the standard bearer for the party.

I'm all for winning Congress, and if we never hold our noses and support moderate or even conservative Democrats in red states, we will forever be in the minority.

That's a big diff from saying the party is conservative. If we cling to our purity, we lose.

[Mass]

4. No, but this is not the issue here. Webb has not led a serious campaign

By comparison, O'Malley has campaigned again and again, but I know people who worked with Webb on his campaign and have thrown the towel a long time ago because Webb's campaign was just a vanity exercise based on the idea that he was a leader (and others were not).

[Recursion]

6. Agreed: I've campaigned as much as Webb did

I have trouble believing he was ever serious, at this point.

[TM99]

5. Yes, Jim Webb has always been an admittedly 'conservative' Democrat.

He has not lied. He does not triangulate. He has not pretended to be 'progressive' when he is not.

The party which is now run by the neoliberal New Dems pretend they are progressives but always reveal themselves to be quite conservative (and yes even on social issues!) once the surface is scratched deep enough.

Webb won't lie and try to compete with Sanders by 'moving left' or pretending to be a progressive when he is not.

Clinton on the other hand has zero problems with such lies.

[AgingAmerican]

7. Of course it is

It has moved further right under Obama than under almost any US president.

[Recursion]

10. Justify that

Gene Taylor. Ike Skelton. Jim Webb. These were elected Democrats 10 years ago and aren't now.
5
As we lose red seats our caucus has moved pretty clearly to the left, which is why this year's nomination is so dramatic: we've probably never had a party this liberal.

[Raine1967]

8. That is a really interesting point.

I don't know for sure if I agree in total, but it is very thought provoking for sure.

One things I have long believed, and it by no means is a slam on Howard Dean, is that the 50 State strategy in order for it to work had to include Conservative Dems.

Webb was pretty good for Virginia at the time. It's amazing that we have two D Senators in Virginia now.

[Recursion]

13. I don't think it's a "slam" at all; I think 12 years ago it was a given

We had to recruit Democrats who could win in conservative districts and states.

Dean was really good at that. We stopped doing it.

[firebrand80]

9. Dennis Kucinich 2004, Bernie Sanders Today

Both candidates saying very similar things. Kucinich went nowhere, Bernie is competitive and has a chance to win a state or two.

The party (and country) has clearly moved left under Obama.

[Recursion]

11. Bingo (nt)

[Robbins]

14. no the party moved right

polls are proving this.

[Recursion]

17. Which polls? The polls that had Webb more popular 12 years ago than today among Democrats?

Or do you have different polls somewhere?

[firebrand80]

18. Then to my point, How do you account for

Sanders doing so much better than Kucinich did 10 years ago?

[frylock]

25. Social media.

[Bread and Circus]

26. You are confusing what a portion of liberal voters want and "the Party"

There is also a difference between "the Party" and "the party leadership" as well.

3 different things.

The big swell of support for Sanders is not "the Party" moving left but rather a voter driven sentiment that "the Party" has lost its way over the past few decades.

Under Obama there is definitely been movement on leftward social issues. But he cant really take credit for it but he can be commending on supporting it.

However economically we didn't really get change we can believe in at least not in any fundamental way even accounting for the ACA

[firebrand80]

28. I think liberal voters are too hard on Obama

He's been about as Liberal as you can be, given what he was up against.

My point is that Liberal voters didn't get the President they wanted in Obama, but they're a helluva lot closer to getting the President they want than they were 8 years ago. The way I see it, Sanders isn't even a particularly good candidate, and he looks like he's got around 30% of the electorate in his back pocket. If you had Elizabeth Warren running, Hillary might be in serious trouble.

In my opinion, instead of hand-wringing over polls, Bernie Supporters should be excited that a leftist candidate that would have been a joke 10 years ago is a viable candidate today. The voters that Bernie captures today are going to loom large in the next 4 or 8 years. By then a centrist Dem of today may well be getting the Jim Webb treatment.

[kelliekat44]

12. Only if you are so far to the left there is no room in in any other direction. nt

[Armstead]

15. That was an anamoly because of the Iraq War

Overall the country has moved far, far to the right over the lst 35 years

The Democratic Party has contributed to that by not offering a clear liberal alternative to the GOP, and too frequently echoing or actively supporting GOP/Corporate/Conservative bullshit.

In the past few years, things have gotten so bad the country has indicated a willingness to start swinging the pendulum back in a leftward direction.

Bernie and O'Malley reflect that. But the overwhelming power of the Centrist Democratic Establishment and its candidate pays lip service to that during the primary. But in terms of issues of wealth and power, it shows no indication it plans to actively support any actual movement towards clear-eyed liberalism, except around the margins top placate the "progressive base."

Important note -- There are many worthy exceptions among Democratic leaders. But they ate not the ones calling the shots.

[Recursion]

19. And what do you say to Republican activists who say the *exact same thing* about the GOP?

Seriously. It's almost crazy. Conservatives say the Republican party has not offered a clear conservative alternative to the Democrats. Their only President in living memory (W.) had to govern as a craven triangulator (he expanded both Medicare and the Department of Education).

There are many worthy exceptions among Democratic leaders. But they ate not the ones calling the shots.

So then why didn't Webb have even a ghost of a chance? He's clearly the most conservative of the Democratic contenders; surely they would want him to win, right?

[Armstead]

20. I'd say they are right

The GOP is a corporate franchise. They have their own problems, but they are just as unresponsive to the "base" they have attracted.

The whole "misdirected anger" thing about the Republican base is too complicated for a quick post here. But I think the frustration being expressed there stems from the same feeling of estrangement from a political system that is owned by the oligarchy, and is caught in perpetual gridlock.

Webb didnlt have a ghost of a chance because he is not very appealing, he got ignored and he's an erratic loose cannon who actually did have some fairly progressive positions on some economic issues, as well as some conservative ones.

[Recursion]

21. That's a good point, and I shouldn't just gloss that over

They have their own problems, but they are just as unresponsive to the "base" they have attracted.


Fair enough. You seem to be accurately describing a failing of our modern political system.

But to take a different example: Kucinich, running on essentially Sanders's platform, got about 2% of the primary vote in 2008. I think even the most die-hard Clinton fan agrees that Sanders will take a much higher percentage than that.

What's different?

[Armstead]

22. Kucinich was too kooky and Obama was a more appealing alternative

I think Kucinich was dead-on right about many issues. I read his proposal for universal healthcare and it was brilliant in pointing out how realistic it is in pragmatic terms.

But he was also personally weird and spooky. Sanders has his raw edges, but they are more appealing and straightforward.

Obama and Edwards also factored in. Edwards initially bamboozled many people (including moi) with his phony populism until his character came out.

Obama also channeled much of the progressive fervor, because of the force of his personality, his intelligence and actual character. So, while not a Sanders type he did bring the promise of "hope and change."

[Tarc]

16. Sometimes you have to take what you can get

You have to admit that a Democratic candidate like Bernie Sanders or Barney Frank or such would have little chance to ever win a Senate or Representative seat in a Southern state, though. So if we can run a Jim Webb in a Virginia, a conservative but not a complete whackjob, it's better than an "R" in the seat.

[Chan790]

23. Yes, and to suggest otherwise is to belie a lack of understanding of situational politics.

Webb was always too conservative to be a viable candidate on a national ticket. He was the right candidate for that race and time.

If you'd asked me a year ago I'd have told you similar about Sanders...that he's a great candidate for the state he represents and may be regionally viable throughout New England. I wouldn't have believed he'd resonate nationally the way he has.

Neither changes the reality that the party, and with it the window of what is considered centrist, has drifted consistently rightward since at-least 1992. Hillary would be substantially too conservative for the feminist icons of the 1960s and 1970s that she both respects and cites. She's a great deal to the right on many issues of even Eisenhower-era Republicans. The fact that Hillary is considered center-left (though I think she's a bit slightly right of that) is in-itself proof that the party has moved in a more conservative direction.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

24. Jim Webb was the right guy for the right race at the time, Virginia

I'll always thank him for beating George Macaca Allen.

But now, Virginia just went with a guy like Terry McAuliffe for governor. No fan of Terry's political cronyism, but he's more of a liberal.

I don't think that type of candidate had a chance in VA ten years ago.

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. Under Obama, the party began a slow movement back to the left.

Republicans control of Congress for six out of eight years of the Obama administration slowed the move to glacial speed because no liberal legislation could pass.

The issues that everybody are discussing today shows the leftward movement.

I think there is a substantial number of people that see anything short of a full blown revolution as a lurch to the right.

What is odd to me, at a time when Republicans continue to lurch right the natural pattern is for Democrats should be to move right, because the parties tend to maintain a relative distance. What has happened, is that all the issues under discussion are to the left of what President Obama can get done. That is real movement.

Feel free to disagree.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Yes. See Hillary's candidacy as an indication of the move to the right.