Wow! Glenn Greenwald is SCORCHING the Dems & White House on Lincoln

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/10/lincoln/index.html
Thursday, Jun 10, 2010 06:11 ET
The Democratic Party and Blanche Lincoln
By Glenn Greenwald

skip

What's going on here couldn't be clearer if the DNC produced neon signs explaining it. Blanche Lincoln and her corporatist/centrist Senate-friends aren't some unfortunate outliers in the Democratic Party. They are the Democratic Party. The outliers are the progressives. The reason the Obama White House did nothing when Lincoln sabotaged the public option isn't because they had no leverage to punish her if she was doing things they disliked. It was because she was doing exactly what the White House and the Party wanted. The same is true when she voted for Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies, serves every corporate interest around, and impedes progressive legislation. Lincoln doesn't prevent the Democratic Party from doing and being what it wishes it could do and be. She enables the Party to do and be exactly what it is, what it wants to be, what serves its interests most. That's why they support her so vigorously and ensured her victory: the Blanche Lincolns of the world are the heart, soul and face of the national Democratic Party.

In case that wasn't clear enough, the White House -- yet again -- expressed its contempt for progressives when a cowardly "senior White House official" hid behind Politico's blanket of anonymity to mock unions for having "just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toilet on a pointless exercise." That comment was far more serious than mere derision. It was an attempt to exacerbate the tensions which unions have with their members over union spending on political races -- a rather ironic sore for the White House to try to pick at given that without massive union spending for Obama, he would not be President. What the White House is really angry about is that the unions did not spend that money in order to help vulnerable Blue Dogs and other conservative Democrats, whose agenda could not be more adverse to union members. In other words, the White House wants unions and other progressive groups to be nothing more than Democratic Party apparatchiks, whereby they help Democrats get elected purely for the sake of preserving Democratic power, regardless of the policy outcomes that are achieved, and regardless of how hostile those outcomes are to progressives. The sooner that realization is pervasive, the better.

I agree with just about every word in the entire article. As should just about everyone on this board. He is clearly stating what we are often told - "progressives" "liberals" "Old Dems"(as opposed to New Dems)"purists", etc. are NO LONGER what the Democratic Party is about or who they serve. There is a deep fracture within the Party.

Greenwalds logic is hard to refute. If Blanche Lincoln were really impeding the Party and the White Houses goals, they would have supported her opponent who had a BETTER chance of defeating the Repub in the general. As it stands, we can pretty much wipe that seat off the count. We couldn't pass decent legislation with Blanche, and now it's the status quo whether she wins or loses.

Good for Glennn for revealing the hypocrisy and role playing.

[joeybee12]

1. Yup, they want to kick us, and when we're down, say, "Please sir, I'd like some more." n/t

[Dinger]

134. That's Pretty Much It (nt)

[CLANG]

186. Well its not gonna work any longer

[Octafish]

2. Explains what happened to my Party.

Money goes before We the People.

So, it looks like we'll get around to campaign finance reform never.

And don't bring up universal health care, jobs, education, peace or any of that Liberal stuff.

[emilyg]

37. It's not the party

I supported for all these years.

[SusanaMontana41]

151. Nor mine, emilyg

My heart hurts.

[Soylent Brice]

58. you fucking hippy.

:sarcasm:

[Jackpine Radical]

189. Ahem. That's DIRTY fucking hippie to you, Soylent.

[Soylent Brice]

251. LMAO

of course, it is.

:hippie:

[SomeGuyInEagan]

276. I smile everytime a freind calls me a "liberal hippy douche bag" ala Cartman from "South Park" ....

... sure wish I had a party to represent me.

[No Elephants]

291. the creators of South Park are Rethugs. Is your friend?

[ProSense]

3. "It was because she was doing exactly what the White House and the Party wanted."

More nonsense from Greenwald. Did he forget that he and others were claiming that they had the votes for a public option, that more than 50 Senators supported it? Even 45 Senators would represent a majority of the Democratic caucus.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

80. Wow ... no one can link to your posts but you? Glad I

caught it before it they disappeared it!

Amazing how untouchable some people are around here.

[donco6]

157. snicker

But I have no official comment on that.

[neverforget]

175. I'm glad I saw them too.........and you are right on the mark about

the untouchables.

[Ignis]

190. ...

[Moochy]

199. Big Donor Rule

read between the lines

[tekisui]

259. Yep.

That is it.

[sendero]

89. More absolute truth ..

... truth that most of us with two brains cells to rub together had already figured out.

[Grinchie]

95. More Nonsense from ProSense...

You on Damage control duty today?

[liberation]

96. Is the rest of the contingent on vacation?

[Grinchie]

97. Nobody cares anymore.. I just wanted to poke a stick at the machine

[Greyhound]

107. Isn't that redundant?

:rofl:
:hi:

[Moochy]

200. But he's so sensible and always answers a reply with a question

>> and an alert. <<

[theFrankFactor]

218. So I'm Not The Only One That Noticed This Mop Bucket.

[Enthusiast]

237. Completely lost on ProSense

is the fact that 70% of the American people wanted the public option.

[davidwparker]

268. +1

[sabrina 1]

147. He is absolutely right and many people other than Greenwald

have said that. As he said, it could not be more clear.

[Greyhound]

191. LOL! You are so busted!

:rofl:

[donco6]

196. Always been busted.

Just never been allowed to be common knowledge. Which is . . . odd.

[chill_wind]

231. Dang! What did the rest of us miss?

I hate these threads that are half-missing all the time anymore.

:shrug:

[girl gone mad]

315. Just links to old ProSense posts..

back when she actually made sense. She wanted the troops out of Iraq and thought Bush should be prosecuted for torture, etc.

[chill_wind]

317. Thanks girl gone mad.

I remember old days when we all wanted those things.

(Man. More and more of these threads are like trying to read War and Peace with three-fourths of the pages ripped out.)

[Greyhound]

320. It is a common strategy (that obviously failed in this case).

A popular post that contradicts your message is posted, so you spam the crap out of it with irrelevancies and rules violations until it is locked or deleted.

[librechik]

4. Glennzilla is teh awesome

but he makes me furious about the dems. And others, who definitely deserve it.

[burnsei sensei]

5. And I note again:

Quote:
In other words, the White House wants unions and other progressive groups to be nothing more than Democratic Party apparatchiks, whereby they help Democrats get elected purely for the sake of preserving Democratic power,
end quote.

Third Way ideology in a nutshell.

[genna]

324. +1

On Tuesday, when I saw the progressive ARK candidate lose by 2% I prayed that progressives don't give up.

It is the South. AND progressive were able to get 49% of the us, the Southern unwashed masses, to not believe in our worst instincts and vote for the non-corporatist candidate?

That is groundbreaking.

Don't let these centrists doubt the change is going in the right (leftward) direction.

Let them go with the b.s. all they want. They haven't forced any of us to believe what they put out as news yet.

[Mojambo]

6. What do they think is going to happen when they come calling for union money in 2012?

The unions are going to say, "sorry we don't want to flush any more of our money down the toilet."

If I'm the unions I tell the national democratic party to fuck the fuck off.

[Better Believe It]

11. They expect to get it and they will get it in order to stop "the crazies" from getting elected.

Just going on past practice.

Here's what Robert Reich recently wrote regarding the failure of Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act(EFCA):

Question: Did the EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act), which would have made joining a union much easier, ever have a realistic chance of passing? What was the main reason it failed, and do you see it passing in the future, even in a modified form?

Reich: "It might have passed had it been high on the president’s agenda, and put in play within the first months of his administration. But it wasn’t high on his agenda. Once again, the leaders of organized labor got hoodwinked. It happened in the Clinton administration. It happened under Carter. Labor leaders support a Democratic candidate for president, and then are disappointed and surprised when he doesn’t come through."

[WatchWhatISay]

114. So our choices are crazy and fraudulent?

We need to quit wasting time and get a new party started. Now is the time. The other side is doing just that. They dont have enough for a majority and neither does the establlishment Republican party. We won't either but neither will the Democratic Party.s

Nobody will, so there is no better time to get this going. It is the only way. I have no faith in the Democratic Party anymore.

[defendandprotect]

141. Interesting reasoning . . . never thought of it that way -- you ,au be right!

:)

[nannah]

144. an interesting challenge would be articulating

shared concerns among progressives and other disenchanted voters of both parties in a way that crafts an alliance. much is done to emphasize the differences between progressives and many other voters who are not well represented by major political parties, but nothing noting the shared concerns and experiences that separates both groups from the corporate politicians in both parties. Reframing our objectives in ways that address our shared concerns could provide an alliance strong enough to win a voice. it could be a fun brain storm.

[William Z. Foster]

318. should be fairly easy

Who is not being represented is the bottom 90%, the poor people and working people. Who is being represented by both parties is the upper 1%, and to some degree the upper 10% who in exchange for a few perks and some status and trinkets will speak for and work for the upper 1%.

The political fault lines are between the haves and the have nots, and it has nothing to do with beliefs or party allegiance nor with "positions on issues."

So, if the goal is to build a large powerful political movement, representing the have nots is the way to do that.

At the same time, if the goal is to improve the country and advance the various causes, this is the way to go as well since the social issues can all be more easily advanced in a context of working class representation and power.

We need to start at the bottom and build from there. A poor person's vote, and mind and body, is equal in worth to that of any "winner" in politics. As it is now, the Democrats are starting at the top and working down - may=be working down, they never seem to get around to getting any relief to those who need it the most. They make no secret of this. BP is innocent until pre0povn guilty. A poor homeless person is guilty until proven innocent. That plays out here everyday, as the dominant voices here follow the lead of the party leadership. "Until and unless you can prove that BP is doing something wrong, I am going with their word over yours." The President even said that he took the oil industry's word on all of this. But the working people, the poor people, cannot say anything without taunting and derisive demands that they "prove" what they are saying. The Democrats don't take our word on anything, don't give us the benefit of the doubt. Quite the opposite. We are told in effect to prove that we deserve a job, an income, a roof over our heads, access to health care, education. We are all guilty until proven innocent at every turn, as they crank out more and more laws making us prove that we deserve anything or are worthy of anything, and threatening to punish us if we cannot.

For the wealthy, they are paving the way and helping them out, while removing any threat of punishment. For us threats of punishment are everywhere, while every path to get what we need is blocked.

[sabrina 1]

149. It's happened before. And you may be right, this may be the

right time. When you find yourself as angry at the party you've supported for so long as you were when the Republicans were in office, something is very, very wrong.

[genna]

325. When was the last time the Progressive voice was ascending in the Democratic Party?

Howard Dean did a lot of good. He was fighting against the Clinton prevailing wisdom.

Is it possible to model his progress into something that is actually quantifiable? Or is the whole thing a lost because this White House packaged itself one way and is giving us the same old same old?

Making change possible was a reason to vote in the last election. Making sure the candidate actually believes what he says was the Clinton problem. I don't know about Carter other than his goodwill didn't translate into policy.

[IndianaGreen]

119. Union money should go to deserving candidates at the local and federal level

Our money, like union money, should go likewise. No more money for the House and the Senate election committees because most of those funds go to Blue Dogs and other scum that prefer the corporations to the people.

[Sherman A1]

135. My money will go to

ME. I am not wasting one dime on the Democratic Party.

I may vote, but haven't decided that at this point.

[dgibby]

153. Why bother?

The SCOTUS has seen to it that your vote doesn't count unless you have enough money to buy your own candidate. Elections are just window dressing, an exercise that dupes the citizens into believing they are in control.

[flyarm]

177. + 40,000 barrels of oil!

[Sherman A1]

230. Valid points and

worth considering!

[defendandprotect]

146. Absolutely -- and hope everyone here is thinking that way --

and for TARGETING right wing Dems --

And even at that -- I think I want an absolute PLEDGE in writing from a candidate

on various issues!

Obviously the Dem Party has too much money on hand for game-playing like supporting

Lieberman, Specter and Lincoln!!


Obama/Rahma and Bill -- specializing in moving Dem Party to the right -- DLC-like --

:)

[burnsei sensei]

126. +1

nt

[defendandprotect]

143. Think they need to get a PLEDGE signed before they had over any $$$ . ....

Obviously, a politician's word is worthless --

[flyarm]

18. They won't need the Union money then..they will have all the corporate money they need!

and they will flood the airways with that corporate money and you will be expected to go to the polls and do their bidding..its the greatest con job money can pay for!

The corps and the party are already preparing us for the con job... on dem web sites with propaganda and propagandists! We all see it daily!!

Good on Glenn for exposing what many of us have posted and warned about..but If people truely understand what is going on and if we all expose the bastards....we can take our country back by edcuating others, family , union co-workers, friends, associates, to what is going on!

Ask yourself this..what has this dem congress done to undo the corporate person hood the Supreme Court has ruled on?? Have you seen any legislation to undo that??????????? Or even mentioned????????? or the Pres leading to put a stop to that??????????

Oh and what can we do...

Ipgnore the propagandists...just toally ignore them..don't give them the time of day..

[dana_b]

27. that's right!

Unions are so passe. :sarcasm:

They don't care about the workers or their $$ because they don't need it. "we can take our country back by edcuating others, family , union co-workers, friends, associates, to what is going on!" - that is the one thing they can't take. We need to speak up, talk with out friends, families, etc. and get people to care. That is the only way to change this shitty mess.

[girl gone mad]

67. Good advice.

"Ignore the propagandists...just toally ignore them..don't give them the time of day.."

I've put most of them on ignore. It's made their mo somewhat clearer. They usually turn up with the first reply, essentially attempting to change the subject or create a flame war to distract people from the topic.

[Moochy]

204. divert, distract, flame

alert,lock, (repeat)

[William Z. Foster]

81. that is it, yes

We are in a transitional phase right now. The party leadership is straddled across a chasm between two oppositional interest groups and sources of support and funding. The left must be paralyzed and held immobile, held in place for a little while longer, as the alliance between corporations and the party is finalized.

[flyarm]

86. yep ..you have got it!! and we have been conned and soldout to the highest bidders! eom

[Grinchie]

100. Well said. I think you have a pretty clear view of things

There is one problem for them however.. The Financial System is teetering on the edge of collapse, and the free money being printed on behalf of the Corporations is about to become more difficult to obtain without major cataclysmic changes or manipulations.

While the PTB would like to think that they can print all the money they want, the citizens of America are beyond the stage of foolishly selling their souls for money that is worth less as every day progresses.

The carrot that the corporations wave in front of the masses is moldy and rotten, and no longer entices the horse to pull the cart. The horse is so tired that the crack of the whip no long stimulates any action, and the load of gold that the horse was pulling along is now sitting in the middle of the road with the corporate master wondering how to move it to a safe place.

Just an analogy, but I think it's pretty close to what we are going to see soon.

[howmad1]

160. But, but, if the unions tell the democratic party to fuck off.......

....the rethuglicans will win in 2012. Wait a second. What the fuck difference would that make in the overall scheme of things?

[flyarm]

179. not a damn bit of difference! ..You get it!! eom

[davidwparker]

270. +1

[AndyA]

7. Of course, having all of the polling places closed except for 2 in one county

that showed strong support for Lincoln's opponent had nothing to do with Lincoln's win, right?

I'm sure there was nothing funny going on there, and everyone who wanted to vote for Halter did so without any problem. :eyes:

This makes the White House and the Obama Administration look corrupt.

[flyarm]

20. Look????????? ..eom

[dflprincess]

28. That's why this seat shouldn't be written off yet

If Blanche and her pals pull the same sort of tricks in November she'll win. Not that it matters for the rest of us. No matter who takes the seat, we lose.

[defendandprotect]

150. Agree . . . and Ed Schultz has pretty much also pointed to that corruption . . ..

This makes the White House and the Obama Administration look corrupt.


Didn't hear the first peep from White House about the rigging -- !!

[Jennicut]

8. Greenwald tries to make it too simple. The Dem party is a party of coalitions:

the progressives, moderates and conservadems, women, minorities, Unions.

Frankly, Obama and Clinton and the Unions wasted time in Arkansas. Neither Halter nor Lincoln would have a good shot against Boozman. Arkansas is increasingly conservative.

[joeybee12]

10. And when you keep insulting one part of the coalition, you lose that part,

and the whole is weaker.

[Jennicut]

13. I agree with that. But when you rely on only one part, you have a hard

time making inroads in certain states. Arkansas is not majorly influenced by Unions. Not a lot of representation there. But I am not sure what else Halter could do...some Dems in that state are just the conservative kind.

[MissMarple]

330. I agree. All Dems are not alike. What is Democratic in New York may not fly in Arkansas.

And western Dems are different still. The Democratic Party is not a homogenized brand. And sometimes the unions can be a bit stiff necked. Not that I blame them since they have been so demonized by the GOP. For example, NEA is dragging its feet in support of teacher evaluations and have done so for YEARS. But AFT has become more supportive. And yea! for them. The teachers' unions are one of the best places to start meaningful change in education. They haven't seen that as their roll, but they have the capacity and the cumulative knowledge to have a huge impact.

Things get complicated when it comes to leading Democrats, it's like herding cats and little chickies at once.

[treestar]

31. When that part insists on deference

And has no respect for the other parts, it's hard to see the loss.

Anyway the unions are not with you. They are used to politics and aren't going to march off in purity. In Arkansas, they'll consider this the best they could have done.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

35. unions "aren't going to march off"? You might want to read this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/18/AR2010041803713.html

North Carolina Democrats' votes against health care push labor to form party

By Philip Rucker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 19, 2010

RALEIGH, N.C. -- A political rebellion is brewing inside an old funeral home near the state Capitol here. Frustrated liberals and labor organizers are taking aim at the Democratic Party, rushing to gather enough signatures to start a third party that they believe could help oust three Democratic congressmen.

skip

"Our whole agenda is to turn that apple cart around and say, 'No more are we going to blindly support you because you're a Democrat,' " said Dana S. Cope, executive director of the 55,000-member State Employees Association of North Carolina (SEANC), which is leading the effort. "We're going to support you because you're right on the issues and if you're not right on the issues, we're going to remove you from office."

Chuck Stone, a longtime SEANC leader who is chairman of North Carolina First, asked: "Does it really matter if you put a Democratic label or a Republican label on them when they go up there and support big companies and big insurance?"

The horse is out of the barn.

[defendandprotect]

152. And how about the women's groups ... ERA gone . . .

Democrats vs Roe vs Wade in Dem Party --

and all this time they've been hanging on . . . for what?

More fascism?

[mmonk]

180. Yes, the horse is out of the barn here.

NC has one of the most stringent signature requirements for third parties (to protect the status quo) but they will have candidates by 2012 because the determination and frustration is there and bare. And with all the budget cuts and subsequent lay offs, they are fired up and fighting for their lives. The end of abuse is coming.

[genna]

326. What happened to Dems being mad at Nader for throwing the 2000 election?

THis isn't specific to you, mmonk, but there was a whole movement in the Democratic party about supporting Dems even if they don't support your beliefs and principles because we can't have another Bush.

What about all these third way Democrats?

How do you defeat that Nader argument?

[joeybee12]

38. And whan that part is treated with contempt, as well as the GLBT community,

women (choice went under the bus a long time ago), your coalition is getting pretty freaking small.

[defendandprotect]

154. Was just thinking along those same lines .. . and what of NAACP . . .

still threats to Affirmative Action --

How many African Americans in prison --

35% AA males without jobs? Think that was the last figure I heard--!!!

Looks to me like labor/women/NAACP/Minority groups would make one hell of a

new party if they got together on it --

[glitch]

52. "When that part insists on deference and has no respect for other parts it's hard to see the loss"

Finally we agree on something, it had to happen eventually.

No doubt the fleeting agreement breaks down when "that part" applies to the DLC and "other parts" applies to progressives, environmentalists and unions or anybody else who isn't deferring to the militantly pro-corporate.

[bvar22]

68. I guess you're right.

Forget about LABOR.
What are the Working Class Democrats going to do?
Vote for a Republican?
Hahahahahahahahahaha!

[saracat]

73. Really? The Unions don't respect the other parts? I think you have confused them with the new

Democratic Party!

[William Z. Foster]

84. the Union

The Union represents all of the people who are not independently wealthy or who are not shills for the independently wealthy.

Misrepresenting the very concept of organized Labor this way is one of the most effective ways to oppose organized Labor. It is not a "they" and it is not a "special interest group" - that is what the right wingers have been claiming for a few decades now, and it is a lie. Sad to see Democrats repeat that anti-working class propaganda.

[laughingliberal]

217. +1000 nt

[Enthusiast]

238. Thank you, thank you!

Misrepresenting is what the other side does. And fuck the other side, even if they are hiding on our side. An asshole is an asshole.

[liberation]

284. Funny how some of the "new" progressive democrats....

... use the same talking points as the "old" regressive republicans. Eh?

[defendandprotect]

156. And are women looking for "deference" ... are AA and Latinos looking for "deference" ....

Gays and Lesbians?

The cry is for equality and justice -- and anyone can see we are far, far from anything

like it!

And there's that "purity/pony" again --

IMO, a battle like this seems to point to a different reality from a red state Arkansas.

This is a working class state which was highly interested in what Halter had to say --

[William Z. Foster]

300. well said

Fighting for equality and justice is not "purity."

[Better Believe It]

14. So we're in a coalition with conservatives to represent Wall Street and corporate America? Why?

I understand the "big tent" concept. However, it seems that Wall Street is running the circus, controls the tent and has confined progressives to back row seats where they shall not be seen nor heard!

[Jennicut]

19. There is not really a huge # of progressives in the party.

Halter, Romanoff and Sestak are progressives? No. They are moderates. Hence, coalition. I have no real answer of making the party more liberal. Only thing I can think of is simply to stop voting for Dems and form a Progressive Party. But what power would that have? I just don't know.

[Better Believe It]

29. But the progressives provide the troops and money that win election campaigns.

And for that organized labor and others are rewarded with tent seats in the back rows!

[Jennicut]

34. In certain states, yes, they provide the support.

Unions could not make a difference in Arkansas. How do you get more liberal-type voters? That is a question that does not have a simple answer.

[flyarm]

42. when the non union people are earning scraps..and can't get jobs..

and keep losing their homes and cars .there will be a revolt..maybe then they will turn to unions and liberals and progressives..and maybe then they will give a damn! When they wake the fuck up and realize they have been sold lock stock and barrel to the corpoarate MTF'ers!..Maybe , just maybe they will wake their asses up! No matter where they live! Because that is the alternative to not supporting unions and liberals and progressives!

[Jennicut]

43. People in America wake up? I am still waiting....

[William Z. Foster]

139. they are awake

They lack leadership, they are not hearing any left wing program.

[defendandprotect]

159. Agree . . . and notice that before liberal leadership even rises ....

they are now killed one way or another -- assassination -- swiftboating -- whatever --

Europeans have long said that: "In America, liberals and progressives have an odd way

of being assassinated or otherwise eliminated."

TPB don't wait any longer for a leader to begin to succeed --

But leadership is important -- for information alone it is essential --

that's why Kucinich, Sanders -- and others in Congress who continue to tell the truth

are so necessary.

Rather, the right wing works to demoralize the left -- making everything look hopeless.

[JDPriestly]

223. Edwards, for example, was outed for his womanizing.

Clinton was also a womanizer but somehow the Democratic Party leadership protected his secrets until they became just too outrageous to control. Everyone has forgiven Clinton -- and Ensign -- and all the rest. I'm not ready to forgive and forget about Edwards' affair, but let's remember in the future just how devastating it is to people like Edwards and Spitzer when they get caught in embarrassing situations and how quickly people like Ensign and Sanford of South Carolina.

The MSM targets good progressives and forgives horrible conservatives.

[genna]

329. The rightwing is extraordinarily successful at demoralizing us

I can't believe someone said they wouldn't vote AT ALL. I don't blame the Nader for Gore's loss.

We have to participate. The corporations don't stop. Why should we.

[JDPriestly]

221. And the contests between Halter and Lincoln and between Harman and Winograd

show us why. The Democratic Party supports its conservative wing. Progressives are on their own.

So, do we form a new party or take over the Democratic Party? Those are our choices. To take over the Democratic Party, we would need to support the Progressive Caucus more strongly and join our local Democratic Clubs. We need to get smarter about forming alliances long before campaigns start, before elections are looming over us.

And we need to create ways to communicate among ourselves on the local level. The Dean movement is one route.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

44. We may be closer than you think to that point.

I think we'll be back to "it's the economy stupid" in short order.

I can't believe the number of people I personallly know who have been through a foreclosure. Also, every single day as I drive my usual route I see another closed business with a "For Lease or Sale Sign" up. That means one more family and group of people without jobs, income, healthcare (if they had it, many small businesses don't)and the pickings are pretty slim in the job market. They are living down their savings as we speak.

Growth stocks - cat food and tumbrils.

[defendandprotect]

162. In fact, obama about three or four weeks ago addressed the situation as "Depression" ....

but almost as soon as it went up with that headline on Yahoo it was scrubbed

before I could grab it -- and word changed.

A number of Senators are now referring to this "tongue in cheek" as ..

"The Great Recession!" --

[Better Believe It]

66. Without labor the Democrats would be lucky to have 20 Senate and 100 House seats.

And would have no chance to win control of the White House.

And those elected Democrats would mainly be conservative and moderate "Republican lite" office holders.

Labor has been the backbone of the Democratic Party.

If organized labor withdrew from the Democratic Party all other progressive organizations would rapidly head for the exits.

The Democratic Party would quickly become a small, marginal party.

[flyarm]

69. It may just get that way in short order! I just wonder if that has been the plan?? eom

[defendandprotect]

164. True --

but, IMO, that's exactly what the DLC-corporate wing is trying to do --

totally disable the Democratic Party.

[Enthusiast]

240. It sure looks that way.

What kind of country do these people want to live in? Why would they want corporate rule. Once there is corporate rule their gravy train will cease.

[WatchWhatISay]

122. That is sooo 2008! That is history now.

They dont need our money anymore. Guess why?

[William Z. Foster]

82. irrelevant, I think

There is not a huge number of conservatives in the party, either. Politics is always driven by small factions competing for the attention of the public.

Social and political change must come from efforts outside of partisan electoral politics. That has always been true - the Abolitionists, Labor, Suffragettes, Civil Rights.

[defendandprotect]

158. America is a liberal nation -- that's why the right wing has to use violence

and deception to rise anywhere --

That's why they have to control all of media --

That's why they have to destroy education --

And eventually why they'll be trying to shut down the internet --


And that's why we have a DLC-corporate wing of the Dem Party to co-opt it and move

it to the right --

That's why GOP/NRA and corporations have been targeting liberal/progressive Dems for

decades!

Do you really that that W had to steal the 2000 election because we're a nation of

right wingers?

Or that 2004 happened because this is a nation of morans voting for them?

What do you think the past 50 years of overt right wing political violence has been

about? They removed JFK and knocked out the "people's" government because it was

right wing?


What we don't know . . . we're going to have on working to find out about ...!

[Enthusiast]

239. You just don't know?

Well you are about to find out.

[PassingFair]

260. Progressives have the largest caucus in the dem Congress.

The "new dems" join forces with, and hide behind,
the "blue dogs" to thwart us.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Are you a Union member?

What do you think a Union sees as the goal in a place like Arkansas?

[Jennicut]

46. My husband is, I don't have a job.

Actually, I am going back to school while I take care of my young children at home.
My husband is in the IBEW.

But, Arkansas is becoming a more conservative state. I suppose it was worth a try but would Halter have beaten Boozman? I know there is wanting some change. I am torn really.

[Bryn]

50. Same old tired thing ...

"Arkansas is Red" "Arkansas is increasingly conservative" "Unions wasted money/time on Arkansas" etc. like a broken record

too easy for you to say since you don't live here. There are many progressives, liberals, Greens, Blue Arkansas organization... coming out here. We want to have a chance to change Arkansas for better. We don't like Nayers so stick with your own backyard, thank you very much.

[Jennicut]

85. I am not trying to put down people trying to change the system.

I just don't know if this was a race that was ever changeable. Arkansas does not even seem to like Obama, a moderate President. Maybe there is something I am not seeing.

I dislike Lincoln, I am not happy you guys are stuck with her. Hey, I am stuck with Lieberman. Halter was obviously the better alternative. But everyone is putting money in this race and the Rethug seems to have a major upper hand.

[William Z. Foster]

83. was

The Democratic party was a coalition. That is no longer true.

Politics is not about beliefs, it is about power and economics. The party cannot represent the have-nots, the many, and also represent the haves, the few. That is not a coalition, that is the fox in the hen house.

I don't agree that the country is increasingly conservative. That is an excuse the party leadership is using for driving the party, and the public to the right.

[JDPriestly]

225. William Z. Foster, well said!

"The party cannot represent the have-nots, the many, and also represent the haves, the few. That is not a coalition, that is the fox in the hen house"

[Greyhound]

321. And a false impression that they work very hard to create and maintain.

It's been demonstrated numerous times for at least 40 years. When allowed to self-identify, between 60% - 70% of Americans call themselves conservative, but when giving their opinions on potential solutions to current issues, they advocate the (unidentified) liberal choices.

So it appears that we are a progressive/liberal nation that believes it is conservative.

Similarly, about 90% (91% in the last poll I saw) of Americans identify themselves as "middle" class, so maybe we're just too fucking dumb to matter.

[William Z. Foster]

327. conservative

People identify as "conservative" because they oppose modernism. It takes bizarre forms - "old time religion" and such.

People identify as "liberal" because they support modernism. That takes bizarre forms - the politics of personal choice and personal belief.

[Hestia]

155. No we are not, and it would be great for outsiders to quit speaking for us. If nothing else, unions

and DFA, Move On, etc., gave the people here something to think about for awhile.

[liberation]

282. I wish this was just a coalition. From my vantage point it looks more like a "take over"

Two very different things IMHO.

[Laelth]

9. k&r for exposure. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[disillusioned73]

16. I'm right there with ya, walldude..

2008 feels like such a long time ago..

[flyarm]

21. ++++++++ 1 million!! and it is not just progressives..it is life long liberals as well! eom

[jefferson_dem]

26. "...no real Democrats anywhere in the party..."

Is that a joke? By definition, those within the party are Democrats. Those outside the party are not Democrats. Thankfully, despite the little pitchfork-wielding mob gathering here, we are still a big tent and don't yet have tea-bagger like purity tests for party membership.

[walldude]

30. Don't have a purity test? LOL you obviously haven't been in opposition

of the current administration much.

And I may have been a bit vague in my statements. Anyone who considered themselves left wing say 25-30 years ago are now considered far left loonies, and they did it without ever having to change their ideals one iota. The country has been moving to the right, and people who have held firmly to the left have watched as the line was moved away from them.
And yes there are a few decent Dems left in office but they are the exception not the rule. Can you think of a time in the past when a Democratic leader, a person in a high position in the White House publicly called the people on the left "fucking retards", and got away with it?

[jefferson_dem]

33. Obama never promised to be a "left wing" progressive president.

Nonetheless, we've seen more "progressive" reforms enacted in the past year and a half...than in any since 1964-5, I would argue. Granted, that progress will not satisfy many on the "left wing" who were either never prepared to be satisfied or were not paying attention during the campaign.

Rahm choice of words was not helpful. But you really should put them in context. He was referring to the mindset of those on the "left" who opposed healthcare reform because they claimed it was not bold enough. "Fucking retards" - Nah. "Fucking stupid" - Yeah.

[walldude]

40. Well we obviously see differently...

If you think people who were trying to stand up for single payer or a public option or a better health care bill are "stupid" then we have nothing left to talk about. I paid plenty of attention during the election, I guess my problem is I paid attention to the aftermath as well.

[jefferson_dem]

47. Nice straw man.

And that's not what I said. Fight for single payer and the public option. Fight hard. But, at the end of the day, somewhat bold reform is heaps better than no reform, which is what many "purity progressives" were promoting. Anyway, no need re-arguing that old debate. Take it easy.

[William Z. Foster]

138. not necessarily

Often "somewhat bold reform" is much worse than no reform, since all political capital and public interest can be squandered and it becomes much more difficult to rebuild momentum and support. The insurance industry certainly thinks they have won, and knows that it will be difficult now to get health care back on the agenda. I think they are right.

Are you calling supporters of single payer "purity progressives?" Are you saying that we should not stand fast on an issue like single payer? If we don't who will? I no one does, what sort of leverage or bargaining position do we or the party have?

You are advocating a very weak political strategy, that is certain to lose again and again. That strategy has in fact been losing again and again. Rather than comparing the results we are getting with the worse case scenario - "it is better than we would ever get from the Republicans" for example - shouldn't we use the ideal as the benchmark, advocate for our actual goals rather than advocating for settling and compromising while attacking those who stand fast? Our opponents do. why should we be asked to fight them with one hand tied behind our back?

[JDPriestly]

226. You are correct again William Z. Foster.

The Obama administration is just reaffirming the old belief that there is no meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans. In so many ways, he has proved that to be true. Very disappointing.

[Enthusiast]

243. I'm with you, William. nt

[Admiral Loinpresser]

262. I can't agree with the phrase "somewhat bold reform."

A few of the more egregious aspects of American health care, like pre-existing conditions, were dealt with. But cost containment was generally ignored. And no restraints were imposed on the rapacious "health insurance" industry. There will still be no competition. Worst of all for me and many others, we are now compelled to pay ever more expensive premiums for health care services we can't afford.

I would be much better off if the bill had not been passed. It is very regressive. How can it be bold reform, when health insurance industry stocks went up when it passed? The bill was obscene in my view.

[William Z. Foster]

88. you contradict yourself

Fist you say that anyone in the party is by definition a Democrat. That is true as far as it goes, and that means that the word Democrat could mean just about anything and that whoever captures control over the party can and will decide what being a Democrat means.

Then you try to list progressive reforms - can;t help but notice that you put that word in quotations marks - which suggests that the party does or should stand for something aside from merely whoever is in it and whatever they might be saying.

Both cannot be true.

You cannot both say that the party is not purging the left, and then turn around and say that it should.

What is hidden in your arguments here is where you stand.

[Greyhound]

118. Hidden in plain sight.

Nevermind.

[Enthusiast]

244. +1, nt

[WatchWhatISay]

117. You are right and I knew that then, but he did portray himself as a populist against corporate rule,

and that part was the big lie.

[defendandprotect]

165. Though it was a pretty good act ... and let's be clear, he avoided DLC label....

but it obviously applied --

Would NOT have voted for him had that been clear -- believe me!

That's why I wouldn't support Hillary -- who is part of DLC leadership --

They know the stink of the DLC -- and the hatred for corporations --

they well know it!

[laughingliberal]

220. Frustrating, I know. I did not support Hillary as I believed her to be too corporate friendly.

Guess the joke was on me.

[laughingliberal]

219. Wrong on who Rahm was referring to as "fucking retarded."

The comment was made in August about progressives who were raising money to run ads in the states of the Blue Dogs opposing a public option. The purpose of the ads was to build some public pressure on the traitorious Senators to support public option. Those groups were not opposing HCR. Remember, in August, we still thought the President wanted the public option.

[Enthusiast]

242. Health care reform was plenty bold.

Bold enough to have a mandate without a public option. And just how popular is this HCR with a public that favored a public option at over 70%?

"Obama never promised to be a "left wing" progressive president." But we did expect him to at least be a centrist Democrat and not some pro-pharma, pro-drilling, anti-labor and pro war Republican acting Democrat in name only.

[defendandprotect]

319. Agree -- and IMO Obama is far, far to the right of his campaign...and Pelosi has pointed that out ..

If you recall Pelosi saying sometime 6 months of so back . . .

"Obama was for a lot of things when he was campaigning" --

as she was commenting on what he is now no longer "for."

[Bluebear]

129. I see you were deleted

:eyes:

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

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

[Moochy]

277. Holding the Line against Unpleasant Facts

Party like it's 1984!

[Bluebear]

297. .

:headbang:

[SidDithers]

39. Only real Democrats like sugar on their porridge...nt

Sid

[Catherina]

198. You, of course, would think this is a joke

Come election day it may not seem as funny to you. Then again, maybe it will.

[SidDithers]

279. That wooshing sound was my point going over your head...

It wasn't a joke, but a reference to the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Sid

[Catherina]

281. SId

You didn't have a point. You rarely ever do. That constant wooshing sound you hear is your own nonesense.

[Jakes Progress]

62. For many of us, the Democratic party meant something

other than a club. The Democratic party that we have supported for forty years was supposed to be better, do better, act better than the republicans.

My idea of a Democrat was Paul Wellstone. He said: "If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."

Too many here think of this thing as a game, a matter of whose team you are on. They act like the only thing that matters is your side winning, regardless of what that means.

[jefferson_dem]

65. Good post.

I totally agree ... in principle at least. Reality often dictates that we choose the best option when the perfect one is not achievable. Progress, even incremental, is still something to be proud of. Screw those who conflate the Democratic Party (even the Democratic Party of today) with the other side of scumbaggy scoundrels. Perspective matters.

[laughingliberal]

227. Well said! +1000 eom

[RedRoses323]

261. Indeed...

:toast: :kick: :kick:

[Lerkfish]

75. wow, good job, you managed to get all the talking points in such a short post.

unreal.

[liberation]

99. Practice, practice, practice... makes perfect

;-)

[Greyhound]

110. Oh please, he missed 'better than McSame (now it's Palin as if she were the top),

didn't misuse the word 'pragmatic', and the entire reply was pony free.

Standards people, standards!
:rofl:

[flyarm]

182. + 40,000 barrels of oil!! eom

[liberation]

98. There is nothing leftist about that so called "new left" ;-)

They are simply run of the mill neoliberals looking for a better marketing venue. That's all...

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

15. Plus, there is more kabuki going on with the Finance Reform Bill

Blanche Lincoln strangely enough added the one amendment that would make a REAL difference - the opposite of what happened in healthcare when she killed off the public option. Her finance amendement would actually structurally change and protect consumers and banks from being collateral damage of derivatives by requiring them to spun off into separate entities. The White House OPPOSES this amendment and has lobbied heavily against it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-the-finance-bill-wont_b_587427.html

Robert ReichFormer Secretary of Labor, Professor at Berkeley
Posted: May 24, 2010 01:35

Why the Finance Bill Won't Save Us
skip
The only way to have a lasting effect on industries as large and intransigent as banking and health care is to alter their structure. That was the approach taken to finance by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, and by Lyndon Johnson to health care (Medicare) in the 1960s.

So why has Obama consistently chosen regulation over restructuring? Because restructuring Wall Street or health care would surely elicit firestorms from these industries. Both are politically powerful, and Obama did not want to take them on directly.

A regulatory approach allows for more bargaining, not only in the legislative process but also, over time, in the rule-making process as legislation is put into effect. It's always possible to placate an industry with a carefully-chosen loophole or vague legislative language that will allow the industry to continue to go on much as before.

And that's precisely the problem.

The White House and the President are lobbying to kill this amendment at the behest of their corporate finance cronies - just like they lobbied to kill Dorgan's drug re-importation amendment which would have saved Americans BILLIONS because Pharma didn't want it.

I'm getting the message loud and clear about whose interests are being protected. Certainly not mine.

[glitch]

53. Just wait until the Social Security "fix" is in. nt

[Enthusiast]

247. That's what I'm worried about.

And not a word on reining in ridiculous unnecessary military spending.

[defendandprotect]

167. Interesting reversal . . .

[laughingliberal]

228. +1000 nt

[Enthusiast]

246. "I'm getting the message loud and clear

about whose interests are being protected. Certainly not mine."

Nor mine. And there is NOTHING Democrat about that.

[freebrew]

293. You bring up FDR ....

interesting in the fact that when he took on the banks, an assassination attempt was made on him. Several, in fact.
Not garnering much publicity at the time, and even now goes largely unspoken. The BFEE was involved, naturally.

Onward to your mentioning LBJ. Remember he took office as a result of an assassination.

I wonder if Obama has been threatened, as he doesn't talk the talk he did prior to the election?

It may have been a ruse, did he always have Rahm in mind as COS?

Whatever the answers, the left needs to find a way to get some control of the situation.

[donco6]

17. We've been saying this for months and months.

It really came to a head with Lincoln, tho. They've turned over their cards for everyone to see, now. And they're holding exactly what we thought.

[defendandprotect]

170. TARGETING right wing Dems should march on . . . we got Spetcter . . .

we missed Lincoln, but forced her into a run-off election --

And, this is certainly the way that the GOP/elites proceeded for decades --

knocking off liberal/moderates in their own party -- and in Democratic Party.


The White House -- obama/Rahma and Bill -- also quite well recognize that this

TARGETING message gets thru to other incumbents --

Can only work for the right wing? Let's find out!!

[Enthusiast]

248. "we missed Lincoln, but forced her into a run-off election"

But our opponents quite possibly engaged in subterfuge to guarantee the desired result.

[Bullet1987]

23. We need more honest articles like this from Greenwald

I'm f*cking tired of being told to support the Party when the Party doesn't support me. That's it. If we can't get good, REAL Progressives to run...I say f*ck the Democratic Party and the high horse it rode in on. I'm only supporting Liberals from here on out. The corporatists can go jump off a cliff.

[jefferson_dem]

24. Typical Greenwald...

Shallow baseless presumptions propelled with blustery bravado. His "i'm the untainted progressive Conscience" shtick got boring months ago.

That being said, the schism (insofar as there is one) between the White House and labor is not helpful. I'm glad to see they are mending things.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. All of your posts are free of your opinion about the facts

And filled with your opinion of the author of the piece. So many adjectives! It is stunning. You make what are basically unsupported slanders, not against any point he made, but against the man himself. The thick irony of this particular post required comment. The alliteration describing bluster is just hilarious.

[jefferson_dem]

51. Greenwald says that Obama doesn't care about policy outcomes.

Does that shit even need to be rebutted? It's absurd on its face.

Yes, I have a problem with Greenwald - his political positions, his typical self-serving sanctimony. Other than that, I'm sure "the man himself" is not so bad.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

56. Robert Reich says essentially the same thing

in the article I linked to in post #15.

I think he cares about policy outcomes in that they have to be incremental and timid and acceptable to the people with the deep pockets. As Reich points out, he won't go for any sweeping structural legislation, he favors regulation that can often be tailored to not offend the regulated.

Personally, no politician could possibly ever explain to my satisfaction how they could be for a policy outcomes like non negotiation of drug Prices for Medicare. That is simply unsupportable. It would save consumers dollars, it would save taxpayers dollars, it would save the nation dollars and would help cut the deficit that everyone supposedly cares so much about.

How could he care about policy outcomes if he thinks that a health "reform" bill that retains rescission, doesn't have any costs control mechanism, no public option and entrenches the same aholes who are already bankrupting and killing us is a good result? It was a "cost plus" federal contract basically to players who have already proven themselves unworthy of public trust.

Financial reform looks like its going exactly the same way. A little non-consequential "reform" so something else can be checked off on the list.

I can't wait (actually, I can wait. A long time. Forever if necessary) for the Budget Deficit Commission (that was NEVER discussed in the either the primary or general election that is filled with right-wing nuts) makes their recommendations. Then, I'm afraid he will suddenly be willing to make sweeping and expansive changes TO OUR DETRIMENT. He could cut the deficit in five minutes by making some defense cuts.

[jefferson_dem]

60. I agree that Obama see progress in terms of incremental advances rather than wholesale reform.

Actually, the fact is ... if Greenwald and a handful of other progressive "purists" had their way we would have NO policy outcome from the health care debate, for the foreseeable future. That is the position that is not supportable.

Thanks for the link to Reich.

[William Z. Foster]

76. nonsense

Single payer health care had massive public support, despite the fact that it got so little support from the party leadership.

This is a dishonest debate trick - responding to people who point out corruption as being "purists." There is a lot of ground between being a "purist" and the almost complete sell out to corporate interests that we are seeing from the party leaders. Most of the American public stand on that ground now, and the numbers increase every day. That makes the "fringe" charge false, as well.

[defendandprotect]

171. +1000%

[flyarm]

183. I raise you ..+ 1001%

[laughingliberal]

229. Spot on! nt

[chill_wind]

232. Yes. You've nailed it. n/t

[Enthusiast]

255. +1 The "fringe" charge

as well as the "purist" charge is false, part of a dishonest debate trick, a smoke screen.

[Gin Blossom]

295. Go, William Z!

The constructive thing in this reply, like Greenwald's post, is the increasing recognition and dismantling of these "friendly fire" myths. "Purist" is a version of "pony" is a version of "After 8 years of Bush, some think Obama can just wave a magic wand". It really is the sinking realization we are looking at corruption. Corruption may indeed be a strategy, but it's hardly three dimensional chess that we should all "chill the f out" about, because "he's got this". And it's not liberal/conservative issue either, like arguing Arkansas is an increasingly pro-corruption state.

[tomp]

215. that's a fact because...

...you can predict the future? let's try it once, just once in my lifetime, and give progressive what they want and see what happen. you're not seriously be arguing that things could be any worse, are you?

[Enthusiast]

254. So what is incremental

about agreeing to non-negotiable medicare drug prices? It is insupportable, as the other poster said. Acts like this proves to me that Obama doesn't see progress as incremental advances but rather seeks a way to preserve the corporate position. Call it purist all you want, it was just plain wrong and a complete capitulation to the pharmaceutical industry.

[disndat]

273. People should listen to Robert Reich

He is speaking the truth, the truth about the REAL world. Obama inherited years of stolen Republican presidencies. Obama cannot turn a gigantic ocean liner around in a narrow stream in a few months. On the other hand, Greenwald is holding Obama's feet to the fire to rally the Progressives to make sure the ocean liner keeps turning, if you will allow me the metaphors.

[Jakes Progress]

64. Not that he doesn't care about policy outcomes

but that he seems much more concerned with political outcomes.

Tell me why you think throwing the weight of the white house and the entire bulk of the New Democrat machine into an Arkansas primary in order to support a candidate who offered less support for the president than her opponent would is a good idea. Tell me what the white house gang got from this. If they weren't supporting one of their own, someone who helped them advance the policy outcomes that Obama wants, then why did they do this?

[defendandprotect]

173. K&R your post --

[flyarm]

184. I second that!!..wow we are agreeing on everything!! eom

[ProudDad]

207. Well, I have a problem with Obama's "policies"

we ain't got SHIT out'a that guy yet...except smooth talk and corporate crap...

[Bluebear]

123. oops . . .

I was much too late with this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8529658&mesg_id=8532307

[inna]

203. +1

"Typical Greenwald...
Shallow baseless presumptions propelled with blustery bravado."

:rofl:

thick irony, indeed. :D

[Raineyb]

48. Mending things? On what do you base this fantastical statement? n/t

[jefferson_dem]

49. Here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x333237

[Raineyb]

71. Actually doing something would mean a hell of a lot more than mere empty words.

Talk is cheap.

[jefferson_dem]

74. Ha. Obviously...

We're only dealing with words...including the ones you just typed above, and the ones that politico reported from the "anonymous White House source" that got everyone all bothered in the first place. At least find something real to argue about.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

87. that is an interesting glitch at the lack of a better words with some people

we debate with on here.

Obama says something and its 'only words'

An anonymous white house says something and its valid enough to basically go to war against the administrations considering how some people on here have posted.

I will admit its one of the few things i sometimes enjoy with DU, seeing how people act in one situation and then basically make a total flip in a similar situation but one where they are on the other side

[liberation]

102. Careful with them strawmen, it is summer season... high fire risk.

Carry on...

[Raineyb]

124. If Obama's words vis a vis labor matched his rhetoric

you might have had a point. But when he says he's for something and doesn't do a damn thing to try to get it passed and actively works to help a candidate who is opposed to it. Then yes the phrase "just words" is bloody apt and considering the MO of politicians to leak shit anonymously your snark is a whole lot of ignorant noise signifying nothing.

[frylock]

287. the white house has denied the toilet remark?

that's right, they haven't denied it.

[Raineyb]

106. Unlike me, they actually have some power to say pass the Employee Free Choice Act

and the best they can do is what? Have a couple of leaders over to play nice in order to entice them to continue to work for candidates who don't give a shit about them.

The disrespect that the Democratic party has for working people, progressives, and other members of their base is pretty fucking clear. The DSCC is talking shit about unions so the disrespect for unions in particular and working people in general is a hell o9f a lot more real than this dog and pony show pretending to be reconciliation.

But then what do you know about what's real? You fell for that dog and pony show. A meeting at the white house while the DSCC also bashes unions? Only those who want to be fooled are taken in by the kabuki theater.

[jefferson_dem]

111. For some weird reason 90%+ of Dems and 90% of liberals approve of the job Obama is doing.

What's up with that?

Here's a bit of reality: it's all a "dog and pony" show. If you buy into the bullshit politico is selling, you should know that.

[liberation]

120. Close enough, I heard 91.234287932% of liberals approve of Obama

The number had a percentage symbol and a lot of decimal points, so it is not only true but incredibly accurate.

[William Z. Foster]

140. that is obvious

They are bombarded 24 hours a day with your message - that Palin is the only alternative. Compared to that, of course most Dems would pick a Democratic administration - any Democratic administration. So would everyone here on this thread with whom you are arguing. So what?

[ProudDad]

209. That's the problem with "libs" and "Dems"

They eat shit and cry "Yum, give me more!"

[Name removed]

208. Deleted message

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

[Enthusiast]

256. Like Raineyb said, talk is cheap. nt

[liberation]

101. LOL, glad to see Baghdad Bob got a new gig.

An Union telling this admin to go pound sand is now "mending things." Where do you guys come with the stuff... Classic! ;-)

[KoKo]

130. Do you have credentials that match up with Greenwald's?

If you do then why not make an argument against what he is saying rather than just being a "naysayer" without anything to back you up. :shrug:

[Enthusiast]

250. You are engaging in

shallow baseless presumptions propelled with blustery bravado in your attack of Greewald. Why is it so many of us agree with his assessment? Greewald and all of us are wrong but you are right?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

25. It's a vicious cycle. I can't wait for the same people who supported propping up this useless hack

to start complaining about how awful she is and how she's fucking things up for the White House. If only we could get rid of these shitty senators..... oh but wait....

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jane Austin]

45. So, Obama wanted Lincoln to gum up the works so his political capital

could be depleted for a year and his leadership called into question by the media for nearly a year?

Makes perfect sense to me.

:sarcasm:

[janx]

172. I know...

So strange, eh?

[freddie mertz]

54. K & R. Greenwald is right. That message was pretty clear. We have no place...

In this White House's view of the Dem party.

This represents a crossroads, I think, in our political history.

I certainly have never felt this alienated by a party I have supported with my vote since 1972.

Is the fright-mask visage of Sarah Palin enough to keep me in the coalition going forward from here?

I am not sure anymore.

[Enthusiast]

257. +1

[Catherina]

55. Greenwald nails it again n/t

[suffragette]

57. Along with the apparatchik expectation, they look to me to

be preparing a meme to blame the unions and progressives for the possible losses they may suffer in fall, even though their shift to the right and frustration with that is more likely to be the cause.

[Jakes Progress]

59. "The outliers are the progressives"

My favorite line from the story. While we make fun of the republicans for letting the neocons steal their party, ours is being pulled out from under us too.

[glitch]

115. Yep. nt

[Lerkfish]

61. I really can't rebut anything he says there.

I"m sure some will try, but if they are honest, I don't see how well they could.

[BzaDem]

63. I can't wait until he leaves the Democratic party. It will then be clear how irrelevant he is.

Unions and the Democratic party (and Greenwald-style "progressives") will be fully united once Republicans take power, always and without exception. It is just a shame that we have to wait until then to be united.

[Jakes Progress]

77. Interesting that you put the party

as separate from unions and progressives. This is the party of progressives and unions. New Democrats like New Coke will soon be spewed out.

[liberation]

103. If he is irrelevant, then what difference makes his party affiliation?

?

And if the GOP are such bad guys, why is Obama looking for compromises with them?

Just trying to follow the logical dissonance here...

Cheers.

[Greyhound]

121. You're gonna get really dizzy.

If you think you going to blow, please direct it at the source.
:rofl:

[liberation]

133. No worries, I gots plenty of Dramamine just for that ;-)

[Kolesar]

70. The issue is "the public option" and Glenn is barking it up WAY too much for this perceived harm

Has GG noticed that this has been a particularly hostile and trying time in America?

The media is playing for the gops to gain in November, there is a KKK-lite organization called the Tea Party organized by the RW media, we almost had another depression with 50% unemployment*

*speaking as a veteran of Youngstown 1981, you would not have liked it.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

72. THIS is what the White House and Bill Clinton supported

OVER another Democrat who had a better chance at defeating the Republican.

**********************************************************************************************************************************
http://firedoglake.com/2010/03/04/blanche-lincolns-genius-pitch-to-arkansas-democrats-i-opposed-the-public-option-also-democrats-suck/

Blanche Lincoln’s Genius Pitch to Arkansas Democrats: I Opposed the Public Option; Also, Democrats Suck
By: Blue Texan Thursday March 4, 2010 10:30 am

Take a look at this brand new Lincoln campaign spot. I’m trying to decide what the most tone-deaf aspect of it is.

Is it that:

She brags about her opposition to the public option when 83% of Arkansas Democrats and 56% of Arkansans overall are in favor of it.
She compares the public option, which would help middle and working class people have access to affordable health care, to TARP.
She accuses the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress of literally throwing away the American people’s money.
She claims to be accountable to “Arkansas” and not “her party” — which implies the Democratic Party doesn’t give a shit about Arkansas.
One Tough Lady? Let’s make Blanche One Former Senator

See video of campaign spot at link
************************************************************************************************************************************

It makes no logical sense for them to REWARD the person who allied herself with Lieberman to kill off what was supposed to be the centerpiece of HCR - the public option. As Greenwald points out, if the White House had REALLY wanted or cared about the public option it had a big stick they could have used to get her support. I think that it does essentially prove that President Obama didn't really care about the public option, or fight to preserve it, it was just useful in the campaign. Just like Medicare drug negotiation. Just like drug re-importation. Just like a lot of things.

[Jakes Progress]

79. There you go again. All those facts and quotes

just drive the ND's crazy. It's easier than actually looking up records and remembering. All you need to do is remember this very close copy of the famous Nixon line: If the president does it, it is not bad.

[defendandprotect]

174. k&r your post

[Enthusiast]

266. Excellent post, Phoebe Loosinhouse.

"83% of Arkansas Democrats and 56% of Arkansans overall"

Yeah, she's for Arkansas alright. And the Unions catch hell for not supporting her? On what planet?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

275. To be clear - please read

Everything within the starred lines is the commentary of the Firedoglake poster, Blue Texan, not me. I think I am getting personal compliments that I don't deserve. His/Her figures about 83% of Arkansan Democrats supporting the public option are truly devastating.

I am glad that I found and shared the post. It completely supports the premise of the Greenwald piece that started this whole thread.

[Enthusiast]

299. Thanks for the clarification. nt

[indepat]

78. Wondering what is a more despicable snake-in-the-grass hypocrite than the typical

two-faced DINO. :shrug:

[amborin]

90. K&R killing the PO was EXACTLY what the WH wanted! no question

[WatchWhatISay]

125. I absolutely believe that. It became obvious to me in mid summer of last year.

They tried to get the Republicans on board to do their dirty work for them, but the Republicans saw what they were up to and wouldn't play along. So they had to turn to some of the already known corporate stooge Democrats to save thier asses from the likes of us.

[Enthusiast]

269. I guess that was some of that transparency.

That it became obvious, I mean. I felt a real sense of betrayal. It was also clear that the town hall meetings were staged events to give the media a focus on the unpopularity of real reform, even though it was a ruse.

[defendandprotect]

176. Agree --

[quaker bill]

91. And I guess the news in this

is that he has found a new subject to scorch the WH on.

[Bluebear]

92. Glenn jumped the shark a long time ago & is a real kaka poopy head, too

Just thought I would get that in to save some people the keystrokes.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[Bluebear]

108. Show me one person who ever associated Obama's name with "kkk". Shame on you.

[jefferson_dem]

109. Oh my...

:eyes:

[Bluebear]

113. "Whitehouse.gov" . . .so are you official here or unofficial?

;)

[jefferson_dem]

116. I'm officially here...

:)

And what ever became of your dancing bear? Sadly, I never got a chance to see the Dead with Jerry. Only the reformed Dead with all the others. Great show but not really ... the Dead.

[Ignis]

188. He's an unreliable source, a hater, a pony-wanter...

Are we missing anything?

[Grinchie]

93. The Deep Fracture was painfully acute by March of 2009

I'm happy to see people finally waking up from their stupor and resign from the Fan Club.

The DLC can go to Hell. They have turned the Democratic party into just another useless pile of Captitalist Pigs, Warmongers, and members of the MIC.

It's even more amusing seeing the twisted logic the Fanboys/Fangirls have to conjure up in order to defend the indefensible.

[KoKo]

131. I just told a DNC Phone Bank caller that tonight. He was looking for Donation claiming Dems are

Winning Elections and it's due to the DNC's new policies. I said to him...I will never give another penny to the DNC since Howard Dean left and you are promoting running Republican Lights and cheering them on! I then hung up...because I could tell he wanted to keep at me ...and I don't have time for him...after working for NOTHING for them for years.

[Individualist]

142. +1

[ProudDad]

212. The deep fracture was painfully acute by March of 1964 to me...

The month and year I resigned from the Navy upon achieving awareness that the Dems were warmongering pricks and I was against war...

[wildbilln864]

94. k&r! nt

[DebbieCDC]

105. Glenn is always right on with this stuff

[IndianaGreen]

112. K&R n/t

:kick:

[Jefferson23]

127. Greenwald, he rarely misses a trick, good for him, 5 stars!

[KoKo]

136. Agree...He put's a perspective out there that's laking in the MSM..

:kick:

[depakid]

128. There's really no arguing with this bit:

There's clearly a growing recognition among many progressives generally that devotion to the Democratic Party not only fails to promote, but actively undermines, their agenda (ACLU Executive Directory Anthony Romero yesterday began his speech to a progressive conference with this proclamation: "I'm going to start provocatively . . . I'm disgusted with this president"). Anything that helps foster that realization -- and I believe this Lincoln/Halter primary did so -- is beneficial.

That is really the key point: it should be apparent to any rational observer that confining oneself to the two-party system -- meaning devoting oneself loyally to one of the two parties' establishments without regard to what it does -- is a ticket to inevitable irrelevance. The same factions rule Washington no matter which of the two parties control the various branches of government (see this excellent new article from Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson on the Obama administration's role in the BP oil spill, and specifically how virtually nothing changed in the oil-industry-controlled Interior Department once Ken Salazar took over ; Interior employees even refer to it as "the third Bush term").

There is clearly a need for new strategies and approaches that involve things other than unconditional fealty to the Democratic Party, which weigh not only the short-term political fears that are exploited to keep Democrats blindly loyal (hey, look over there! It's Sarah Palin!) but also longer-term considerations (the need to truly change the political process and the stranglehold the two parties exert).

[lordsummerisle]

206. Wait...

<snip> That is really the key point: it should be apparent to any rational observer that confining oneself to the two-party system -- meaning devoting oneself loyally to one of the two parties' establishments without regard to what it does -- is a ticket to inevitable irrelevance. </snip>

So Ralph Nader was right...?

[ProudDad]

213. ABSOLUTELY!!! And he STILL IS! (n/t)

[placton]

132. But this is Democratic Underground!

We must support those who call themselves Dems, tho they know not what it means!

[KoKo]

137. It hasn't ever really been an "Underground" ....but it at least is a Forum

where some digression is still allowed...around the edges...here and there..on the byways and pathways.

[Moochy]

205. At least until the professionals arrive and turn a thread into "divisive flamebait"

A wink is as good as a nod to a blind bat.

[mitchtv]

313. less and less digression allowed

daily. more enforcement

[w4rma]

145. 100% agreed. The DLC is the establishment. Don't give DLCers any help. Make them choose corporate $$

or grassroots manpower. They don't get both.

[PassingFair]

274. The DLC is scapegoating the "unions" in this.

The "netroots" probably sent in as much money
as the unions in that Arkansas election.

I know I personally donated in the Sestak race
the Halter race, DFA and MoveOn in this skirmish.

I'll bet I'm NOT ALONE.

They can't come right out and call us "Progressives",
that would be giving us too much power.

Sad that they think the unions can or will be scapegoated.

I think the unions will surprise them on this.

[Bette Noir]

148. If you read the whole article, it links to an interview Daniel Ellsberg

gave Der Speigel, which is even more blistering.

My crystal ball reveals that the Republican Party will fall apart within the next 15 years. The Democratic Party will take over the conservative position, and a new party will come up on the Left.

[defendandprotect]

178. Sounds logical . . . and thanks for the Ellsberg clue ... I'll look for it!!

[Robeson]

161. Obama's core position is compromise. It has been his whole life...

...any reading of his history, or those who have known him, bares this out. He's a master at hearing "both" sides, and takes pride in that.

Some people have core beliefs. When opening up negotiations, they "compromise", while keeping those core beliefs as a bench mark.

Obama's core belief IS compromise. That's his starting point.

[Enthusiast]

271. It goes beyond compromise. nt

[femrap]

163. Obama was bought and

paid for....when can we just say it aloud and be done with it??? Plus he's another of a long line of Spineless Creatures....

Why? Do you realize he hasn't spoke or met w/ the CEO of BP since this voilcano? I guess they will finally meet this coming Wednesday.

If I had been Prez, Tony would have been my first appt. on Day One of the 'Spill.'

:wtf: is wrong with this administration? Scared of the Oil Boyz???

I'm sick of it. SICK OF IT.

WASF.

[janx]

169. The United States--and its president--owe BP nothing.

In fact, it's the other way around. President Obama is keeping it that way and has ordered a meeting within the next couple of days to emphasize BP's accountability.

[flyarm]

192. dupe

[flyarm]

193. what on day 52 of the worst ecological disaster this nation has ever faced,glad he got around to it

after golf and meeting the Yankees and football stars and god knows what else..oh yes and after all the white house concerts!:wtf:

[emilyg]

210. Don't you know ........ priorities.

[flyarm]

263. ahhh yes..priorities..like Walrus's and sea lions in the gulf of Mexico

and like perhaps READING the BP spill plan, rubber stamped and signed off on by our government..by a guy who died 5 years before the plan was submitted??

You wonder don't you what leaders do with their time..I think for sure I wouldhave read that plan right away..hell i went and read stuff in my state of Fla legislative reports on spills..and spill plans..and sheeeet..I am a reitred flight attendant! Not leader of the free world with staff up the kazoo..

But then again..I don't have private concerts and the big time actors and sports stars coming to my home..and I don't play golf ...but then again........

I may lose my water....and have tar balls on my back yard..the GULF..



Spill may stop 16 to 19 million gallons of drinking water daily for Tampa Bay residents

...Emergency planning sources in Florida have informed that the state faces severe fresh water shortages and power blackouts if the thick crude oil from the Deepwater Horizon disaster clogs sea water intakes at the largest seawater desalinization plant in the United States - the Tampa Bay Seawater Desalinization Plant at Apollo Beach.

The plant, which uses seawater reverse osmosis to turn seawater into 16 to 19 million gallons of drinking water daily for residents of the Tampa Bay area, faces the threat of filtration membranes becoming clogged if oil from the Gulf of Mexico enters its intake pipes. Such an event would render the plant unable to process seawater, resulting in a major fresh water shortage for Tampa Bay.

Similarly, oil clogging the water cooling intakes at the Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant on the Gulf of Mexico coast, some 80 miles north of Tampa, could force the shutdown of the Unit 3 pressurized water nuclear reactor. Such an event would result in power shutdowns in the Florida areas served by the power plant.*

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1...

[femrap]

286. And the problem

just continues to get larger and larger....more death and destruction.

The president of the U.S. owes the citizens of this country the Truth. And to keep that Thad Allen on board...this is the guy who headed up the Katrina response...well, it's insanity.

Go back to watching 'American Idol'....move along. Those people living in the Gulf States aren't important and who gives a shit about the marine life.:sarcasm: Thought I better put that sign up so the mentally and emotionally-challenged would understand.

[janx]

316. I agree about Thad Allen, but I'm disappointed by your assumptions.

n/t

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

322. The Coast Guard Katrina response was about the ONLY thing that worked

and if Thad Allen was in charge then, he got and deserved accolades. They didn't sit around waiting for any authorization from anyone while The Bush administration was trying to sandbang and fight a turf ward with Governor Blanco. The Coast Guard went out in helicoptors and boats and whatever else they had to rescue people off roofs, etc. The Commander at the time said "We KNOW our mission" and that was the end of it. Meanwhile other troops sat by uselessly in deployment areas and ships lurked offshore DOING NOTHING while Bush and Rove thought embarrassing Blanco was more important than saving lives. Later, Bush tried to take credit for the actions of the Coast Guard which he had NOTHING to do with.

Now, in this situation, I do not think the mission of the Coast Guard is as clear-cut. I really don't know what they're doing, they seem to be acting like the Palace Guard for BP and mainly trying to keep reporters off the beaches. In this case, I think that Allen is getting his orders from people higher than he is and I guess that would be Napolitano since she is Secretary of Homeland Security and of course, President Obama.

[femrap]

331. Thank you for

this information...

[DeSwiss]

166. Well after all this time it seems.....

...that I'm no longer among the "few" who now smell the coffee.

Which is why I said before and I'll say again to the WH:

K&R

[BrklynLiberal]

168. Thanks for this post...

[volvoblue]

185. so, what else is new? Greenwald does this everyday

I would be surprised if he wrote about something other then his and Hamsher's insane hate for the WH.

[flyarm]

194. ok so now we know you think truth is hate..glad you cleared that up for us! eom

[depakid]

202. There are always those who support politicians over principles and party over policy

[defendandprotect]

187. In looking over the article again . . . and your comments . . . .

Greenwalds logic is hard to refute. If Blanche Lincoln were really impeding the Party and the White Houses goals, they would have supported her opponent who had a BETTER chance of defeating the Repub in the general. As it stands, we can pretty much wipe that seat off the count. We couldn't pass decent legislation with Blanche, and now it's the status quo whether she wins or loses.


I would just use your comments echoing Greenwald to parallel another situation we often questioned

which is why Democrats haven't appropriately responded with any urgency to vote rigging as we've

just seen in Arkansas -- the 2000 and 2004 elections -- and computer voting/hacking, in general.

I think the answer re Blanche and computers is the same one -- they haven't acted because

it's working for them!

Corporatists are looking to move the Democratic Party to the right -- and IMO ultimately to

knock it out as any competition for the GOP. It will exist -- that's important -- but it will

be 1000% ineffective as far as any liberal/progressive actions.


I also followed the link to the article to find comments by Ellsberg ...

In fact, during the campaign of 2008, three candidates were backed by Wall Street: Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If you look at the rhetoric, the most promising was John Edwards. Too bad he turned out to be a jerk.

As many before me have said, we are being given the candidates TPB want us to have --

And, I think they always have a hook of some kind into most of them -- if they misbehave

they are knocked down. In some regards, I think that was true of Edwards who was knocked

down and out even before the news of his affair.

And, would imagine the same is true of Obama -- should he misbehave.

Maybe his birth certificate will suddenly be found to be non-authentic?







:)

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

245. Incomprehensible silences. Dogs that don't bark.

You're right about election reforms and protections - an issue you simply never hear about anymore and that only reappears whenever we get another particularly egregious in-our-face example. Republicans will fight tooth and nail and try to impede seating Democrats, while Democrats are "gracious" losers. Look at the support Al Franken got during his recount. As in none. I was starting to wonder if the Dems even cared if he got seated. He probably doesn't fit their profile of "Good Dems". I personally NEVER got over Ohio in 2004. What came out of it? Was Blackwell ever even deposed by ANYONE? Oh well, we got hosed, move along.

The motto of the Dems could well be "Move Along" since they believe that NO action or lack of action is serious enough to warrant a look backwards. Stolen elections? Torture? War on false pretenses? Wiretapping most of America? Fageddaboutit. Move along. I can't remember who wrote or said this, but it has stayed with me (it might even be Greenwald yet again) - Bush committed the crimes, but Dems are the ones who granted him immunity for them. Even greater than that to me, is how they have offically enshrined IMPUNITY as a political plank. Not only is it dumb and immoral, but it is also suicidal since it offically supports IOCIYAD since the Republicans will NEVER grant a Democratic President either immunity or impunity. We could see that with the non-starter Sestak scandal. The Republicans have their cars in position with the motors revving. I am positive that we will have to endure some earth shattering Obama scandal/hearing ginned up by the Republicans before this term is out. We could have derailed all that if our team had had the guts to look back and kick some asses that legitimately needed kicking.

So, why and when did Democrats decide that they would never have the willpower to look back? Who told them they would all become Lot's wife? Why did they collectively accede when they could have basically dismantled the Republican Party and its candidates for decades? What theory or combination of theories works to explain this? Bill Hicks, Unclean hands, Money trails that lead into every wallet, private support of unspeakable practices and policies which they publicly condemn? Beats the heck out of me.

[Moochy]

280. "Any questions Mr president?"

"What's my agenda?"

Hicks was right.

[defendandprotect]

309. Yes --- completely agree --

Silence is also an answer --

Also agree the Repugs are obsessed, dedicated and presumably somewhere/somehow are getting

paid for their ferociousness in the name of predatory capitalism!?

But, too often, IMO, Dem silence is intentional. The DLC is dedicated to moving the party to

the right to destroy it as any opposition. RW have been working on this for three decades or

more. Not a matter of "no guts." Tough to say, but think that's it.

Also agree that after '08 election the GOP were finished. Obama's "bipartisianship" seemingly

made them important - allowed them to control Congress again.

Had Obama moved on Medicare For All, it certainly would have set Dems up for next 40 years!

And, just as an aside, I've heard rumors that 2008 was more of a landslide and that we perhaps

should have had as many as 24 more Reps in House. Senate?

There are people who have better answers to this stuff -- which is why I love Kucinich and

Sanders who will always "spill the beans" -- !!

Thanks for the post --




:)

[november3rd]

195. DU Truth

It's nice to see DU putting up with truth-telling, even if it does burn the ears of the White House and the Democratic leadership!

[Fading Captain]

197. This, friends, is what Ralph Nader ran for.

Keep this feeling tucked away.

[depakid]

224. It's what created Nader's constituency to begin with

Politics, like physics abhors a vacuum.

[robcon]

201. Greenwald's piece is based on a big lie.

Halter and Lincoln have the same policies and politics. No difference!

The push on halter was a sham - a grab for power by some unions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with supporting unions or health care or any other issues.

[donco6]

241. And this insight is based on . . . ? n/t

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

253. Greenwald's piece exposes a big lie.

The Democrat who allied herself with Lieberman and effectively killed off the public option (something she herself acknowleges, brags about and campaigns on) is REWARDED with White House campaign support and Bill Clinton union bashing on her behalf to derail a very strong challenger.

Imagine for a moment that some Republican Senator derailed the lynchpin of some piece of legislation that the Republican White House was actually passionately for, had made a key point of in the Presidential campaign, and had stated that they would veto legislation without it. Now imagine how Karl Rove, the White House, the Senate Republicans and the RNC would have collectively handled that person. That person would have been taken aside and told that not only would they not get a dollar in support, the White House and the RNC and everyone else would make SURE that they were buried in their primary and someone more supportive of collective Republican goals would be that seat in short order. Now contrast that with how Blanche Lincoln was treated. What conclusion can you draw?

The lie that is exposed is that the White House never gave a tinker's dam about the public option in the first place or they would have used the tools at their disposal to save it. Not that we already didn't know this. It just proves it.

[William Z. Foster]

301. "grab for power?"

Power is what politics is about. Corporations grab power. Why shouldn't the working people?

[defendandprotect]

312. So Jane Hamshire/Firedog Lake went out and found a clone of Lincoln to run against her ?

And the Union people didn't realize Halter was a clone, either?

If Unions are involved in a "grab for power" they're way behind corporations!

Unions spend only one tenth of one percent of what corporations throw into buying

and owning our candidates!

And -- needless to say, organizing labor and health care are minor issues, as well,

for corporations!




:eyes:

[johnaries]

211. Greenwald is an idiot. He should retire his tin-foil hat. nt

[flyarm]

264. would you care to debte what he wrote? Or do you just call people you disagree with names?

Please tell us all why YOU call Glen names? And please be specific to his article..and tell us all why you believe he is an IDIOT..

Personally I believe everything he wrote was FACT!

Now if it is Facts and truth you find so distasteful..then I would question who was the real idiot.

[SILVER__FOX52]

214. The cynicism is ...............

STUNNING ! Obama better get his progressive shit together. This isn't about the Democratic Party, it's about the American Worker. Fuck the conservedems and Fuck Obama, if he continues this Milk toast, bullshit leadership.

[theFrankFactor]

258. Obama's Lame. He's a Prop. The problem is systemic. We need to work a plan...

Restoring Democracy and Taking Control of Our Nation Away From Corporations

Thesis: Elected officials from the present two party system represent the interests of corporations over and above the Constitution and the electorate. America has been lead into a dangerous and unstable condition due to the exploitation of the People’s government by corporate influence. There must be an accountability system that punishes public servant behavior that subverts electorate representation for corporate favoritism. The separation of corporations, as well as church and state, must be initiated and enforced.


Objectives

1. Make elected representatives answer to the electorate.
2. Remove corporate influence from all levels of public governance


Suggested Goals to Accomplish These Objectives

1. Publicly fund elections
2. Eliminate corporate person-hood
3. Initiate instant runoff voting
4. Eliminate electoral college
5. Ban exiting public officials from accepting lobbyist positions
6. Oversight of the Federal Reserve
7. Tax reformation
8. Budget reformation


Citizen Actions to Accomplish These Objectives

1. Strengthen and expand alternate media
2. Infiltrate existing party systems to affect changes
3. Exploit current means to pressure representatives
4. Prepare, support, and run Liberal/Progressive candidates


Read more: http://thefrankfactorspace.ning.com/profiles/blogs/restoring-democracy-and-taking#ixzz0qY3Zn6q4
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

[Enthusiast]

272. I would love to see these reforms

enacted today.

[SILVER__FOX52]

289. AMEN !!!

[SILVER__FOX52]

288. Thankyou Frank....

Man, I miss you. I guess you have been dealing with a health problem. Best wishes for your battle and recovery X's 1000, man. Get back on your feet, you are sorely missed.

[colsohlibgal]

216. Green Party Beckoning

There are some fine true lefty democrats, but they aren't running the DNC or the WH. I will continue to donate to real progressives, but when I get fund raiser letters or emails from the DNC I pass and let them know exactly why I'm passing. I don't want a penny of my money going to corporate democrats like Baucus and way too many others.

Maybe eventually enough people will have had enough to make the Green Party or some other true progressive party a force. I almost think progressives are the current silent majority, I think there are in reality a lot more of us than people think.

[laughingliberal]

222. K & R nt

[chill_wind]

233. K & R. nt

[democrank]

234. "The outliers are the progressives."

Look back at all the nodding approval (and excuses) around here when President Obama willingly carried on Junior Bush`s policies.

[ejpoeta]

235. what really pisses me off is when you can see the strings being pulled behind the scenes

for the establishment candidate. why bother having primaries if we end up getting the establishment candidate anyway!! sestak beat specter, but it was quite obvious that the powers that be wanted to keep the DINO. what is the point of having the dem if they aren't a friggin dem!! we need progressives. and i am so tired of having to choose the candidates the parties give us. no wonder the reps don't feel accountable to their constituents.

[spooked911]

236. the true face of Obama and the dems is revealed

thanks for posting

[xchrom]

249. recommend

[tavalon]

252. Would that I could recommend this more than once.

So, what the hell do we do now?

[Javaman]

265. so given the WH's support of lincoln, does this mean come 2012...

I have the choice of voting for either a right wing corporatist republican or a center right corporatist democrat?

some choice.

[davidwparker]

267. Oh, sing it, man!

"It was because she was doing exactly what the White House and the Party wanted."

I agree with every word in the block text.

Obama, kiss your second term goodbye. I will write in Dean if there is no primary challenger for 2012.

(And you can take that to your local bank or credit union.)

[DMNinFL]

285. What we really need........

is a serious challenger to Mr. Obama in 2012.

One thing that we can ALL do is close our wallets. I already have. I get solicited my the Dems all the time. If it's by mail, I throw it away. If it's by phone I engage in conversation. Maybe the higher ups in the phone center catch what I say on those calls and relay that upstairs. But they do NOT get any money from me. And they gotta hate that. They've been getting my money for 40 years!!!

I hate being used. I had being "had".

[impik]

278. Obama told the blacks who to vote for, because obviously black people can't decide by themselves

F******g "Liberal" racism.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

283. Both campaigns made very specific appeals to African American voters in Arkansas

You might consider reading this.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Jun/07/ark__democrats_vie_for_black_voters_in_senate_race.html

[jefferson_dem]

298. Yes but supporters of only one side did more than suggest that African-American voters...

were duped -- apparently not fit enough to make sound electoral judgments (i.e. vote against Lincoln). I cannot believe anyone would defend this prejudiced arrogance.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

302. So be specific. Which supporters(plural) of which side "did more than suggest

that African-American voters were duped -- apparently not fit enough to make sound electoral judgements (i.e. vote against Lincoln)."

Those are your words


So far the only ones I've seen make that suggestion are you and the poster you are teaming with. I've supplied the exact quote that you and your debate partner are putting your own pretend racist spin on.

I'll say it again for your benefit:

Greenwald AND the Washington Post AND the AP all made the point that President Obama's opinion carried a lot of influence with black voters - which ones said in any way that the aforementioned voters were incapable of making their own decisions? Which commentary is racist? One, two, or all three?

My own opinion is that President Obama and Bill Clinton both were cynical and manipulative in the extreme to suggest to ANY Arkansas voters that Blanche Lincoln was the best choice in terms of looking out for their interests. She's definitely the best choice for derailing any future healthcare reform which people keep breathlessly reminding us is surely right around the corner. She's the best choice for blocking greenhouse gas regulation. She's already ripping off the horrible ill-fitting Democratic mask she had to wear for insufferable months while going through the primary and run-off and right now is trying to out-Republican the Republican.

But I digress. I'll wait for your response.

[jefferson_dem]

304. Greenwald says Obama and Bill "exploited" the trust they have in the African-American community.

What the hell does Greenwald know about the trust these two Democratic presidents have worked to nurture in African-American communities? And who is he to tell them how that trust should be used?

Who is he to tell African-American voters what their interests *actually* are and how, if they had only known better, they would have pulled the lever for Halter in larger numbers? The arrogance, at the very least is astounding. I would love to see Greenwald take that very message to the Arkansas minority community itself, which I'm sure he didn't even visit before making such a sweeping dismissal of their preferences. That would be a site to behold. "What are you guys...stupid?! Don't trust Bubba and Obama. Trust me!"

Making the case that Lincoln is out of touch and the wrong choice (as you've done)is one thing. Sweeping a broad brush across an entire minority community, and accusing them of being duped into voting against their best interests by Obama and Bill Clinton (as Greenwald did) is shameful.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

305. Answers to different and unasked questions and a diversion

But I will respond anyway.

*You take exception to Greenwald saying they (Obama and Clinton) "exploited" the trust previously built in order to convince people to vote against their own self -interest.

I don't disagree with him, I think that is exactly what they both did.

*You complain he doesn't know enough about the trust built and shouldn't tell them (Obama and Clinton I presume) how to use it.
Are you the one who determines when he knows enough? How will you convey that information to him and his publication?.


*Then you ask "Who is he to tell them how that trust is to be used?"

Answer, he is a widely read internet columnist who expresses political opinions

*Then you ask "Who is he to tell African-American voters what their interests *actually* are"?

He voiced an opinion that they are not the stances that Blanche Lincoln espouses. Again, I agree with him. BUT you added your own bit - "and how, if they had only known better, they would have pulled the lever for Halter in larger numbers". That's your add-on, the one you and the other poster keep trying to insert in Greenwald's writing falsely.

He can say or write anything he likes about his opinion about the political process whether it involves African Americans or any other races or any ethnicity or any nationality. We call this freedom of speech.

*************************************************************************************************************************
But enough of this. The question I asked you was to support your assertion in your post that "Yes but supporters of only one side did more than suggest that African-American voters were duped -- apparently not fit enough to make sound electoral judgments (i.e. vote against Lincoln).

You said "supporters" plural, you said one side - unidentified and you said they suggested that African American voters were not fit enough to make sound electoral judgements. You and the other poster are STILL the only ones making that statement.

You also didn't answer:

Greenwald AND the Washington Post AND the AP all made the point that President Obama's opinion carried a lot of influence with black voters - which ones said in any way that the aforementioned voters were incapable of making their own decisions? Which commentary is racist? One, two, or all three?

[jefferson_dem]

307. Here is the quote in question.

"In other words, Obama exploited the trust that African-American voters place in him to tell them something that is just absurd: that Blanche Lincoln, one of the most corporatist members of Congress, works for their interests. Bill Clinton did the same with the Arkansas voters who still trust him."

I stand by the charge. My problem is with Greenwald's use of the word "exploit" within the context of Obama, Bill, and the African-American community. He assumes that there was something illegitimate in their endorsement AND that that the African-American community was the target of the exploitation effort. Surely, we stipulate that Greenwald is only pointing this out because the "exploitation effort" was somewhat successful.

Of course, Obama and Bill carry lots of weight with black voters. Of course, they targeted certain messages and GOTV efforts to them, in particular. In their write-ups, did WaPo and the AP use the word "exploit" as Greenwald did? Did they also suggest that black voters could be duped as Greenwald did?

I guess I tend to give voters more credit and would never assume any community (especially a racial/ethnic community) isn't fit to make their own choices. Yes... even choices that I may not agree with.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. My takeaway: further confirmation that Greenwald's style and substance are not for me. I do appreciate the discussion, however.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

308. I don't have an issue with the word "exploit" but my reading of the sense is different than yours

I think you see it in the sense of "take advantage of" and I'm seeing it in the context of "Leveraging" which is what I think political endorsements are all about in the first place.

I do object when people deploy the racism nuke when they could just argue the points presented, but that is not to say that I am unaware of the subtleties and nuances of even unconscious prejudices.

But even while closing,you still have to insert this sentence -

"I guess I tend to give voters more credit and would never assume any community (especially a racial/ethnic community) isn't fit to make their own choices".

I'm just not willing to let you slide that in and attribute to Greenwald. Especially that really inflammatory and divisive word "fit" which is entirely of your own imagination.


I do agree to disagree and I also appreciate the discussion.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

292. To be even clearer

since you've made this accusation a couple of times now:

Here's the exact Greenwald quote you are referring to, but apparently unable to post from the article in the OP

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/...

In other words, Obama exploited the trust that African-American voters place in him to tell them something that is just absurd: that Blanche Lincoln, one of the most corporatist members of Congress, works for their interests. Bill Clinton did the same with the Arkansas voters who still trust him.
Text

To draw that conclusion he himself included a link to this article from the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
Lincoln's Ark. runoff win points to power of black voters

By Peter Slevin and Karen Tumulty
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 9, 2010; 7:34 PM

LITTLE ROCK -- For all the millions that both sides spent on the bruising Arkansas Senate Democratic primary race, Yvonne Thomas admits she went to the polls not having much of a sense about the candidates.

What she did know, and what turned out to be the only thing that mattered in her decision to cast her ballot for the embattled incumbent Blanche Lincoln, was this: "Obama wanted us to vote for her," said Thomas, who is African American.

Unlike in much of the South, in Arkansas it is a rare thing for the black vote to be the decisive factor in elections. African Americans here account for 16 percent of the population -- about half their percentage in Georgia to the east. Arkansas is the only state from the Confederacy that has never elected a black candidate to Congress, or to any statewide office, since Reconstruction.

But in this election, Lincoln and her Democratic primary challenger, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, battled hard to win black voters. The intensity of that courtship was evidenced by the large number of African Americans who stood onstage Tuesday night with Lincoln as she celebrated a victory that the smart money in Washington had declared to be all but out of reach.

Text

I already advised you to read this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/...

An excellent Ap article about how BOTH the Halter and Lincoln campaigns made very specific appeals to the African Americans voters in Arkansas who would probably clinch the outcome for either candidate.

Greenwald AND the Washington Post AND the AP all made the point that President Obama's opinion carried a lot of influence with black voters. Why is that a surprise? Is the Washington Post racist as well for pointing that out? Is the AP? Where Greenwald differed is in pointing out how cynical it was for Obama to say that Lincoln was the better candidate policy wise when she clearly was not.

So maybe you can try another tack to discredit an opinion you apparently don't agree with. Perhaps try discussing the issue he raises.

[jefferson_dem]

296. That's as nasty a comment i've heard from a self-professed "liberal" in a long time.

If Limpballs, Beck, or Hannity spewed such racist drivel, we would raise hell. Saint Greenwald does it...and it's ok. Cause...his protestations are so dreamy. Disgusting.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

303. I agree and I'm sorry that poster had to say that.

Cause no one else did.

[pundaint]

290. There really isn't anything here for progressives. This year we must set the price of our vote.

We've been giving it away for 25 years. Sometime a cure requires some great pain, but no cure, threatens survival of the democracy. We need the actual cure Obama pretended to be, and it must start with the '10 elections. Do not give your vote away because you are afraid. The reality of leaving these folks in charge any longer isn't worse than what we fear in firing them all. It might be nice to demonstrate that the People are in charge. Major parties: you may limit our choices, but you will no longer herd us into votes against our own interests out of fear.

[emilyg]

294. That's exactly what I plan to do. First time in

my life I will not automatically vote for a D.

[Robeson]

306. Kick for importance.

[New Dawn]

310. Kick for truth.

[old mark]

311. Too late to rec this, but thanks for this post. The Democratic Party I grew up with

since my birth in 1947 is GONE. The last "old liberal" president was Lyndon Johnson, IMO - Carter had some liberal flashes, but he is more liberal now than he seemes then.

Bill Clinton and Obama to me are republicans.

Do we need a leftist party or can we make efforts to take our party back?

mark

[William Z. Foster]

328. good question

"Do we need a leftist party or can we make efforts to take our party back?"

I would say "neither." Social and political change never comes from partisan electoral politics.

[ShamelessHussy]

314. The apparatchiks will attack the messenger, and deny all, but issues he mentions won't go away

so the only MSG we can take away from the spin doctors is that it is all in our heads, but how far can you go with such a MSG?

I suspect not very far, and I am all for that... hopefully their hubris and arrogance will be their downfall and in the end lead to real progressives getting into office.

however, my great fear is that it will only lead to folks who are even worse than the neoCONs.

[genna]

323. That off the record comment about the $10 million down the toilet

was definitely the kicker. It's as if they expect money, boots on the ground to put the word out for candidates, then have a no see no hear no speak policy until the next election. The off the record comment was all about spitting in the eye of labor unions. Its like they are working with Republicans to push labor unions out of public view.

At least the right wing of the Republican party understands that they have to take over the party and push the centrist to the new party line or they won't get monetary support. Here in the Democratic party side, the centrists give us this mealy mouthed verbal support, tell us they believe what we elect them to push, then they can never say why they never get our beliefs imbued into national policy.

My question is how do you take the crap New Dems are doing and push them out of governance? Howard Dean (the way Obama treated him was unacceptable) was a sign of things to come. What now? Bill Clinton was the last gasp of the third way. I have no idea who Obama is trying to pretend he is working with on the Republican side. This latest Supreme Court nominee is crap.

This is not change I can believe in---looks like more of the same.