Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
60 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
yeah whatever 
Spineless Harry. He'd screw up a free hand job.
away from you before you learn?
all the reverie over Obama's re-election and his fabulous speech.
Thanks for the good fight, though. At least the manipulations are being exposed for what they are. The reality of what's going on can be faced. Maybe that's some progress, at least.
..is a clear majority in either the House or the Senate.
What would they do without these excuses:
*We didn't think we would have the votes, so we didn't try
*Its nor OUR fault. We didn't have 60 votes.
*It was ALL Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln's fault.
*Damn that Joe Lieberman.
He was a Superman who single handedly RUINED it for everybody.
There was nothing we could dooooooooo.
It was horrible. 
"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln. Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure. Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests. The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.
Ordinarily, when Party leaders support horrible incumbents in primaries, they use the “electability” excuse: this is a conservative state, the incumbent has the best chance to win, and the progressive challenger is out-of-step with voters. That excuse is clearly unavailable here. As Public Policy Polling explained yesterday, Lincoln has virtually no chance of winning in November against GOP challenger John Boozman. And while it would have also been difficult for Halter to beat Boozman, polls consistently showed that he had a better chance than Lincoln did. That’s unsurprising, given how much better non-Washington candidates are doing in this incumbent-hating climate than long-term Washington insiders. And it’s rather difficult to claim that Halter is out-of-step with Arkansas given that they elected him their Lt. Governor. Whatever the reasons Washington Democrats had for supporting the deeply unpopular Lincoln, it had nothing whatsoever to do with electability.
What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face. Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, "
<more>
http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/
Ordinarily, when Party leaders support horrible incumbents in primaries, they use the “electability” excuse: this is a conservative state, the incumbent has the best chance to win, and the progressive challenger is out-of-step with voters. That excuse is clearly unavailable here. As Public Policy Polling explained yesterday, Lincoln has virtually no chance of winning in November against GOP challenger John Boozman. And while it would have also been difficult for Halter to beat Boozman, polls consistently showed that he had a better chance than Lincoln did. That’s unsurprising, given how much better non-Washington candidates are doing in this incumbent-hating climate than long-term Washington insiders. And it’s rather difficult to claim that Halter is out-of-step with Arkansas given that they elected him their Lt. Governor. Whatever the reasons Washington Democrats had for supporting the deeply unpopular Lincoln, it had nothing whatsoever to do with electability.
What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face. Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, "
<more>
http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/
But, HEY!
All we have to do is elect more Progressives to the House & Senate so that President Obama can enact his agenda!
Right?
I was in Arkansas for the Democratic Primary 2010.
The Grass Roots and Organized LABOR did everything right to give the White House "more Progressives" to work with.
Turns out, our biggest enemy wasn't the Republicans,
it WAS the Obama White House.
When the White House was asked about its support for the woman who campaigned as the one who derailed the Public Option,
the only response we received was from a "white House Spokesman" ridiculing our efforts for "wasting 10 $Million Dollars" by supporting a Pro-LABOR/Pro-HealthCare Democrat.
We still haven't received an appropriate explanation from the White House,
but it will be a LONG time before the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR forget Obama's Oval Office Endorsement of Blanche LIncoln in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
Silly people ...now do you understand what they bought? We are neither Charlie nor Lucy. We are the brainless football.
