Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(4,775 posts)
77. They're ideologically opposed to progressive politics
Tue Jan 5, 2016, 03:53 AM
Jan 2016

at least the way I define it. It isn't that they don't learn, or that they fail, it's that they are working for corporate goals instead of populist ones, and corporate goals are not furthered by supporting someone like Sanders.

For a long time I clung to the belief that they just thought they needed big business money to win elections, and would rather enact progressive policies and elect progressive leaders if it was practical.

This late in the game, however, it is completely obvious that they are literally not on our side, they oppose what we believe, they make their money from corporate sources and have fully bought into the worldview sold by DLC-PPI-Third Way/No Labels corporate institutions. It is actually very similar to the worldview promoted by the Kochs and the AEI-Heritage people, practically indistinguishable in the areas of economic policy and foreign policy.

They aren't fools, and they are no longer fooling as many of the electorate.

The biggest failure, in their eyes, IMHO, is not for Trump or another Bush to be elected, it is for Sanders to be elected. Pretty much every other candidate, for them, means businss as usual continues unabated, and we know from hard experience who benefits from that.

I'm just continuing this conversation, not directing this at you really, but at anyone reading the thread. I'm so sick of people like the Clintons and even Obama being presented to us as agents of progressive change, it's wrong and needs to be countered until it stops happening.

Obama was a decent centrist corporatist whose steady hand in troubled waters was probably better than a hair-on-fire RW'er, but didn't approach, nor even articulate, the reforms we thought we elected him to implement as the change agent he campaigned to be.

Now they want more of the same, in fact they want the person we rejected for Obama's change platform, and they want us to think we're supporting a progressive by supporting Clinton. We actually have an excellent progressive candidate who can win the general election, and we need to support him with everything we can muster.

Pretty much sums it up. Thanks, Segami. HerbChestnut Jan 2016 #1
Yup! Segami Jan 2016 #2
No bodies; that don't know progresives: Hillary is leader of the Dem's lewebley3 Jan 2016 #35
What a stinging rebuke! Aside from the spelling and grammatical errors, it's almost cogent! n/t xocet Jan 2016 #40
You understood lewebley3 Jan 2016 #41
What did I understand? n/t xocet Jan 2016 #43
That it was almost cogent. Art_from_Ark Jan 2016 #63
Almost being the operative word :-) madokie Jan 2016 #69
Lol! BeanMusical Jan 2016 #86
You sure did not....understood, that is. SammyWinstonJack Jan 2016 #85
It's not nice to make fun of someone for whom English is not their first language ... Scuba Jan 2016 #81
You understood lewebley3 Jan 2016 #104
And no response to the specifics? tazkcmo Jan 2016 #62
Ever hear of the saying, "Be careful what you wish for?" merrily Jan 2016 #78
Senator Harkin is working very hard for Hillary: he lewebley3 Jan 2016 #101
What specifics is not self evident: Hillary helped elect lewebley3 Jan 2016 #109
I know progressives and they all agree with those 'nobodies'. Hillary's policies sabrina 1 Jan 2016 #67
K and R... Hillary Might If She Fares Poorly want to Interview With... CorporatistNation Jan 2016 #71
Oh that'll happen JackInGreen Jan 2016 #93
Wrong most progressive are voting for Hillary:Polls show it lewebley3 Jan 2016 #100
Exactly. Duckfan Jan 2016 #103
What did you say? Jack Rabbit Jan 2016 #98
In a nutshell. SammyWinstonJack Jan 2016 #83
K.R 99Forever Jan 2016 #3
HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!! WillyT Jan 2016 #4
"If Hillary Clinton were a male, would you support "him" over Bernie Sanders or Martin O'Malley?" brooklynite Jan 2016 #5
Toughness shouldn't be the top qualification for a Democratic candidate. The candidate rhett o rick Jan 2016 #9
Home run !!!! pangaia Jan 2016 #31
You don't think a guy who won election in Vermont as a radical independent Kentonio Jan 2016 #13
in Vermont? The smallest State in the nation? No. brooklynite Jan 2016 #22
Amazing-Not just wrong again but wrong two ways!!! catnhatnh Jan 2016 #47
Smallest State? That's hard to believe. Just how are you measuring that? A Simple Game Jan 2016 #50
Yeah, it's much better to be from the biggest state Art_from_Ark Jan 2016 #61
Were there any other large State great minds? Oh yeah, how about Bush and Palin. n/t A Simple Game Jan 2016 #66
Ha! Highly doubt he's backing her because she's the tough candidate to win a nasty GE. SammyWinstonJack Jan 2016 #87
Don't make fun of him, you peasant! He owns a Ferrari! Divernan Jan 2016 #90
I even heard Vermont has no Ferrari dealerships! Quelle horreur! Divernan Jan 2016 #89
Facts are not your strong point Perogie Jan 2016 #92
Clinton is despised by republicans, and real Democrats ... TheProgressive Jan 2016 #17
Those that don't understand this are jeopardizing our chances in the General. They didn't rhett o rick Jan 2016 #28
Never fear. They will still blame it on the liberals as usual. A Simple Game Jan 2016 #51
It's not the liberal's fault if the Democratic Party Elite don't promote a candidate that rhett o rick Jan 2016 #54
I agree with every word you said, but they will never accept responsibility for failure. n/t A Simple Game Jan 2016 #56
They're ideologically opposed to progressive politics dreamnightwind Jan 2016 #77
You got it. The last thing they want is someone who threatens the gravy train. raouldukelives Jan 2016 #79
I agree. Enthusiast Jan 2016 #80
^^^^^^^^^^^ Read This Reply !! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Scuba Jan 2016 #82
Excellent response Thespian2 Jan 2016 #94
Absolutely. Duckfan Jan 2016 #106
Senator Sanders has not drawn one vote from anywhere outside Vermont in his life jmowreader Jan 2016 #45
Neither has Hillary Clinton catnhatnh Jan 2016 #49
He has drawn votes from Representatives and Senators from all over the US PotatoChip Jan 2016 #84
Why don't you ask the several thousand people who have attended his rallys Duckfan Jan 2016 #108
Why don't you ask the other 290 million people in America that question? jmowreader Jan 2016 #117
Toughness ?? pangaia Jan 2016 #34
toughness and decency are his hopemountain Jan 2016 #64
I hope it is going to be the 2004 ALCS all over again. pangaia Jan 2016 #70
Bernie is getting some really good press. This is great. nt thereismore Jan 2016 #6
Outsiders can see this but floriduck Jan 2016 #7
IMO some of her supporters don't want a progressive. Too scarey. Some think she is progressive but rhett o rick Jan 2016 #10
Some benefit from the status quo. antigop Jan 2016 #16
I'm fine with a woman president as long floriduck Jan 2016 #29
Like I said... PyaarRevolution Jan 2016 #42
rhett o rick scores!!!!! Duckfan Jan 2016 #110
Thanks, but just one thing rhett o rick Jan 2016 #116
Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2016 #8
It's an opinion piece. nm rhett o rick Jan 2016 #11
A native Iowan wrote this to the newspaper. nt thereismore Jan 2016 #12
It's all so obvious. in_cog_ni_to Jan 2016 #14
If you're not with us, you're against us! Blue_Adept Jan 2016 #32
It's more like the old saying: "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." [n/t] Maedhros Jan 2016 #105
K&R CharlotteVale Jan 2016 #15
Kick azmom Jan 2016 #18
As one of the many local papers Gannet bought up back in the 90s rurallib Jan 2016 #19
I thought it clear from the beginning stupidicus Jan 2016 #20
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Jan 2016 #21
Thanks, Segami. K&R Duval Jan 2016 #23
I always support the best candidate firebrand80 Jan 2016 #24
I too! NurseJackie Jan 2016 #26
A writer's group says Hillary is no progressive? Gamecock Lefty Jan 2016 #25
K & R AzDar Jan 2016 #27
Of COURSE she isn't - She's a CORPORATIST! vkkv Jan 2016 #30
But some have re-defined "progressive" as one that says something nice about women's rights. rhett o rick Jan 2016 #36
Yep, the third wayers confuse them with organizations like the "Progressive Policy Institute" and... cascadiance Jan 2016 #75
Hillary is not a corporatist ; That is Sander Propaganda: It won't sell lewebley3 Jan 2016 #37
Lay out your case. PyaarRevolution Jan 2016 #44
'crickets' ___________________ n/t vkkv Jan 2016 #58
Hillary is in public service: The TTP is Obama's thing : lewebley3 Jan 2016 #107
All of the big Corporate Donations indicate otherwise. It doesn't have to "sell" - you are vkkv Jan 2016 #57
Hillary history in politics is that she cannot be brought lewebley3 Jan 2016 #102
Can't be bought??????? Duckfan Jan 2016 #111
Koch brother would not hate the Clintons so much if they could lewebley3 Jan 2016 #114
Hillary APPROVED Arm Sales to nations that donated to the Clinton Foundation - Mother Jones vkkv Jan 2016 #113
Hillary didn't have a foreign policy: Obama did: She was a lewebley3 Jan 2016 #115
Like talking to a wall... n/t vkkv Jan 2016 #121
No its just a fact:We have one President at time lewebley3 Jan 2016 #122
The Arms Sale Process - Read up on it sometime vkkv Jan 2016 #128
So how is supporting EXPANSION of H-1b indentured servant program "progressive" and not corporatist? cascadiance Jan 2016 #76
Hillary has not owned a corporation or been in control of one: lewebley3 Jan 2016 #112
Again, your sentences make no sense... cascadiance Jan 2016 #118
Yes, I do and Hillary is has been public serve working for all Americans lewebley3 Jan 2016 #123
What is "public serve". That is NOT the English language as most of us understand... cascadiance Jan 2016 #124
You willfully want to mislead and misunderstand Hillary's lewebley3 Jan 2016 #125
She's tough, experienced and electable, dontcha know. pangaia Jan 2016 #33
That's an OP Ed, not the opinion of the newspaper. That should be pointed out clearly. George II Jan 2016 #38
The header is crystal clear.... Segami Jan 2016 #73
No it isn't. George II Jan 2016 #91
Yes it is. Segami Jan 2016 #95
Nothing over the top or untrue. These are my concerns exactly. marble falls Jan 2016 #39
I Would Not Vote For Bernie gordyfl Jan 2016 #46
Agree. We supported Obama because we wanted change. We were fooled. I don't think Sen Sanders rhett o rick Jan 2016 #55
"Because there's not a dime's worth of difference between Al Gore and George Bush" greenman3610 Jan 2016 #48
OH NOES!!!! It's 2000 redux..... Indepatriot Jan 2016 #65
Great argument! dpatbrown Jan 2016 #52
same oligarch bullshit dlwickham Jan 2016 #53
You forgot corporatist. MeNMyVolt Jan 2016 #59
Thank you dlwickham Jan 2016 #72
KAAAAAAAAABOOOOOOOM! Indepatriot Jan 2016 #60
I'm a yellow dog democrat so I'll vote for our nominee madokie Jan 2016 #68
If Bernie Sanders were a female, would you support "her" over Hillary Clinton or Martin O'Malley? postatomic Jan 2016 #74
That is actually a good exercise LiberalLovinLug Jan 2016 #119
Kick and R BeanMusical Jan 2016 #88
Issues, not ovaries. Betty Karlson Jan 2016 #96
Hate to get into genderism. It's her hawkishness, flip flops, and ties to big money that stop me. EndElectoral Jan 2016 #97
That pretty much sums up her record.................................. turbinetree Jan 2016 #99
What an editorial greiner3 Jan 2016 #120
Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2016 #127
yes, I would pick Hillary without hesitation. Lil Missy Jan 2016 #126
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Iowa City Press-Citizen W...»Reply #77