The Democratic Party has proven what a gutless mess it has become

[Armstead]

Last edited Sun Jan 31, 2016, 01:44 AM - Edit history (1)

I believe Bernie has tapped into something that can be a rejuvenating energy for the Democratic Party, and for a restoration of the best side of America. I believe that is possible to achieve.

Competition between candidates is what politics is about. But, regardless of whether Democrats believe Bernie is the best candidate or not, the truly shriveled soul of the Democratic Party has been exposed.

This campaign has brought into stark focus something about the Democratic Party as an institution that has long been a problem. It has now broken out into the open -- unvarnished. And it is very discouraging to those of us who have hoped for an evolution back to a party of pro-active liberal ideals and goals and accomplishments.

While trying to hammer down Bernie, they have also hammered down the values they claim to represent.The message that the Democratic Party leadership has delivered in this primary is a final nail on the coffin of any illusion that it represents change, progress and liberalism.

Instead it has officially become a party that dismisses progress, insults it.....and actively seeks to stop efforts to press for liberal progressive change.

The message from Camp Clinton and its allies is unmistakable. "Don't expect us to work for for liberal progressive change. That will never happen. We don't do that. We only do little things. Tiny things that the GOP will allow us to do."

"We think single payer universal healthcare is a great idea. But we don't want to bother with that,,because it's too hard. And we don't want to work to try to convince the American people of its merits, or how it wold benefit them.... Instead, we'll just try to ask greedy insurance companies -- who make their money by denying care -- to act a little nicer."

"We believe training and education are important. But we don't really try to make college a right for everyone. That's too hard. Maybe we can lower the interest rates on student loan debt a little bit."

"Wall St. and Massive Corrupt Banks? Monopolistic Corporations? Hey we'll just ask them to be a little nicer too. Don't worry your pretty little heads about all those messy details. Let the adults make sure they behave themselves."

"Taxes are automatically are bad. We don't believe in taxes to support unicorns."

[daleanime]

1. Unfortunately.....

true.

[NYtoBush-Drop Dead]

118. The question remains....

Who do you want putting 3-4 judges on the Supreme Court? Hillary? Or one of the nazi clowns in the repug party?

[ablamj]

119. Bernie. nt

[daleanime]

121. I love how Hillary supporters insist on framing the issue....

because without that they've got nothing.

1-Bernie is more then 'electable' as Hillary. Period. All the match ups poll in his favor. He polls better with independents, even drawing some republican support. He has, what is it, a 1/2 a million volunteers. They've asked them to stop coming to Iowa, they're over staffed. How many Americans view her as honest? He received $20 million in donations last month.

2-Running her would cost us down ticket races, so if the political system keeps her from losing to Bernie and if she makes it from there to the White House, she will face an even redder congress for conformation hearings. How many good SC candidates do you think would make it through?

3-How much more damage will even more 'good' corporate judges on the the SC do to us. We need some non-corporate people on the bench. We can get that with Bernie. Never, ever with Hillary.

[hifiguy]

133. 100% agreed!! nt

[NYtoBush-Drop Dead]

166. fivethirtyeight.com

[kcjohn1]

2. All you need to know

About how broken Democratic party is the fact they all speak with one voice (Corporate) and how little there is movement from the establishment position. Here we are before the first vote is cast, and it seems like 90% of elected officials have endorsed one candidate. The whole party structure is behind one candidate, and has been for couple of years.

How healthy is that? I'm not even suggesting endorsing Bernie. But why is there no one else challenging Hillary? My theory? Democrats are no different from Republicans, and they are bought by same big interests. These big interests have chosen their candidate, and everyone else is toeing the line.

Sure Republican voters are crazy, but IMO they are much closer to sticking the middle finger to their bought establishment politicians.

[WestSeattle2]

23. Agreed

[ladjf]

55. In terms of quality, America doesn't have a two political party system,

it has a "no party" system. Very sad!

[mother earth]

112. Well said!

DINO, this is not what democrats are about this is what oligarchy is about.

[kristopher]

158. +1

[whereisjustice]

3. Thank you - those of us with perspective through the years see this laziness of intellect masking

an immoral and unethical Democratic Party. Sick and tired of douchebags in leadership positions telling me that being a whore for Wall Street is just a pragmatic and/or "third" way to ensure the best interests of the American people are preserved. THey want us to "shut up and vote" just Wall Street's way of keeping us barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

These so-called Democratic Party confidence men and women are like charismatic carpet baggers from the right who seized an opportunity to exploit the goodness of millions of Americans who consider themselves liberals (but perhaps are too afraid to say it publicly).

By not standing up for principals which can counter balance Republican extremism, the Democratic Party leadership is guilty of an epic betrayal of its constituency.

We deserve better. Somehow we need to get control of the party and throw the Wall Street proxies like Wasserman Shultz and Hillary Clinton out on their butts. Let them take a corner office at Goldman Sachs. It would be a hell of a lot more honest work than what they are doing now.

[Armstead]

4. "An epic betrayal of its constituency" Exactly

[Snarkoleptic]

20. I often feel like a consumer and labor unit rather than a citizen- Bernie is the cure...

[whereisjustice]

68. we are commodity units, like corn and pork belly. And by the way, with "big data computing"...

You are the product. Android and Windows isn't free. Your information is being bought and sold and being used to discriminate against you based on wealth, health, education level, race, habits, etc in subtle and not so subtle ways. We are being stripped of any right to our own privacy so that Wall Street can sell our data to discriminate against us using high tech s/w developed in India so that they don't have to pay US taxes.

Makes me sick thinking about it. Our engineering and s/w community is off the rails in a greedy pursuit that will lead to nothing good for American workers.

Every stinking s/w programmer (or ex-programmer and current MBA) thinks they are going to get rich quick and become next Bill Gates.

They might as well be Donald Trump.

[Trajan]

51. This is one kick ass statement ...

Elegantly laying out the ugly facts for all to see .... Carpetbaggers from the right - Stealing the Liberal mantle and parading shamelessly as 'Democrats' while serving the deeper, darker right wing cadre that would bankrupt the system to suck out the last dregs of middle class wealth ....

What saddens me is people like Al Franken and Tammy Baldwin, whom we all supported wholeheartedly with our efforts or financial donations, being sucked into that same machine now ... Making choices that directly COUNTER the desires of their own constituencies ... It's a damned shame ....

EDIT: Oh hell ... I forgot to mention our own Senator, Ron Wyden, who not only supports TPP, but actually helped author both TPA and TPP.

Our 'Liberal' congresspersons, Earl Blumenour, Suzanne Bonamici (My own rep), and Paul Shraeder, ALL Democrats, and ALL agreed to TPA .... It was so disappointing for Oregonian Democrats to see .... Such a shameless embrace of corporate power over citizen's rights ...

This situation ... This tension between the top echelon and the rest of us ... This cannot go on much longer ....

The revolution needs to begin at the DNC. ... The Carpetbaggers need to go ...

[whereisjustice]

62. With roots in Oregon, I understand your frustration. Who is willing to stand up for working people

on the most important economic and social issues of our time? Democratic Leadership wants us to rally around Reaganomic trickle-down micro-solutions like "profit-sharing" and "privatization". The sooner we confront the ugly truth that just because you are pro-choice and not completely opposed to gay marriage, doesn't make up for the fact that the Democratic Party's conservative mindset is creating social chaos driving a wedge between people to distract from the crimes against humanity. I don't use that term lightly - just look at our prisons, Wall Street/Washington corruption, out of control medical and education systems. We are punishing the non-rich with immoral, unregulated social and economic policies.

Democrats are fighting to defend Wall Street (massive fraud), State Dept (endless wars), HHS (privatization of health policy), DoJ (for profit prisons).

Democratic Leadership is just advancing the same nonsense voodoo policies as the Republicans. The Democrats just use much fancier language to masquerade the negative consequences for the middle class and below.

[Lizzie Poppet]

65. Bonamici's my rep, too.

She's a bit of a nonentity, other than this shameful vote.

And I've never been so disillusioned and disappointed in a politician (with, perhaps, one extremely notable exception) than with Wyden's part in the TPP debacle...

[Arugula Latte]

87. Oregonian here. The only one who hasn't disappointed me is Merkley.

That guy fucking rocks.

[ancianita]

100. Thank you. Best case that I've read about what's behind my dread.

[jeff47]

5. Don't worry, they'll just blame the kids for not voting. Again.

Because we know nothing inspires the young to support your cause like "Nope!".

[Armstead]

8. Those pesky kids....yep it's all their fault. Gotta blame someone

[jeff47]

9. Well, they drove my generation into apathy. Time to start on the Millennials. (nt)

[Armstead]

10. Heck the kids in their cradles will never even hear the word liberal if ConservaDems have their way

[LondonReign2]

150. Oh sure they will. Notice how many of our ConservaDems like to claim they are liberals?

If they have their way, "liberal" will mean 1980's Republican/Third Wayers.

[trillion]

25. Yep, but the truth is it's the people who for some reason I can't figure out, are hoodwinked into

Hillary. The Democratic party is bought and the last thing they want is a liberal progessive like Bernie to undo things like the greatest gift to insurance companies in history. Bernie wants to end the insurance companies in health care.

How well Bernie is doing is proof that we do have an informed base - quite a bit of it. I believe by the 2020 pres election the dem base won't have people that would support the hillaries of the world like they do today. Those people will be a fringe minority.

The great heartache in this is will Bernie or any candidate as good as him come around anytime soon again.

We need Bernie now.

[A Simple Game]

113. I'm sure they will give the liberals their share of blame too. n/t

[whereisjustice]

154. lol - exactly. Nothing gets out the vote by stamping out the idea of a better America.

[napi21]

6. That's why I I haven't donatedto the Dem Party org. in YEARS!

I send $$ to the candidates I support but NOT to the Party, or any of it's sub groups. THIS YEAR, for the first time, I posted a nasty message on the DWS Facebook page about her disgusting behavior. I was quite supprised and PLLEASED THAT THERE WERE many, many SIMILAR POSTS THERE TOO!

I think the party was still a marginally decent one when Howard Dean was the chairman, but it's lost all of it's principals since then. I hate to say it, but the Dems are as bad on the left as the Pubs are on the right. BOTH Parties need to die and be reborn with the goal of supporting their peoples best interests instead of ONLY MONEY!!!!

[GoneFishin]

7. If you have billions of $ to spend on lobbyists, why buy only one party when you can buy both?

[RiverLover]

71. Country Govt for sale: 2 parties for the price of 1!

[jfern]

11. Agreed, my opinion of the Democratic party has never been lower

They have attached themselves too much to the Clintons while fucking us worthless peons.

[Gregorian]

12. We don't have the infrastructure that cares about the progressive ideas.

So we aren't being represented. That has to change. Democratic voters need to be informed. We've got to replace the people in Congress with new faces with more progressive ideas.

Bernie is that alternative to what the DNC should have been doing. He got the messages out. Now we all know the truth about our economy, among other things.

Now we take what we've learned with Bernie, and use it. It's all true, and part of history. It's people versus business, and even conservatives know a good thing, I believe.

[Armstead]

13. I hope that happens

But what is depressing at the moment....is that rather than at least support the enthusiasm and advance the truths that Sanders has exposed, the Democratic Party is trying to quell that enthusiasm and deny those truths.

Campaigns against candidates are part of politics. But when the leadership of a party unites to kill off new energy and fresh ideas...that's something different altogether.

[dreamnightwind]

74. +trillions

[whereisjustice]

155. Democratic Party has been investing in Wall Street messaging at neglect of working Americans

I'm told it's just a means to an end. I guess I have to call Bullshit.

[malokvale77]

14. Well said

[Oilwellian]

15. I sported this cartoon as my sig for years

back when so many Dems voted for everything Bush wanted. I thought it captured their behavior during those dark days, very well. Not much has changed since.

[Armstead]

17. It's gotten worse. At least they pretended to care before.

...Now the mask has slipped away. Too many don't really give a damn.

[Populist_Prole]

67. Well summed up

Witness Clinton's hard turn right in her campaigning in response to a progressive challenge. Ordinarily they'd just blow smoke up our asses during the campaign and turn rightward once in office.

[rhett o rick]

101. IMO it's worse than the cartoon portrays. The Party Leadership works for the Oligarchy

and the grassroots Democrats are fucked.

[Duppers]

123. Perfectly illustrates the point of the thread.

[Doctor_J]

16. The party is dead on its feet. No soul left whatsoever. willing to turn away millions of young

just so a rich, conservative dc insider can (maybe) get what she believes she is entitled to. We will get slaughtered at the polls again.

[RBInMaine]

36. Ridiculous Tea-Left HYPERBOLE.

[hobbit709]

48. ridiculous corporate stooge response.

[BillZBubb]

89. I'll agree it is hyperbole, but there is a large kernel of truth in it.

The Democratic party has become overly concerned with corporate interests at the expense of average Americans. The soul of the party has been compromised.

[Armstead]

98. It is hyperbolie -- I'll admit it

But sometimes hyperbolie is the only way to sum up the cumulative impact of a lot of complex smaller trends and events.

[paleotn]

138. hyperbole?

....Blue Dogs getting crushed up and down the ticket has played out in how many election cycles now? To the point that they're an endangered species outside of DC lobbying firms. Hill may squeak by if nominated, but her coat tails are extremely short. Low energy and weak ideas at the top and weak Dempublicans in state races means we get crushed where it really counts. The ghost of Harry Truman is laughing at you.


I almost wish Hill would get the nomination and face Jeb. It would be the most boring, driest, snoozefest in electoral history.

[jonestonesusa]

18. This post deserves 300 recs. eom

[Dems to Win]

19. k and r nt

[bvf]

21. Best OP in quite a while, bar none. n/t

[RiverLover]

32. Best OP I've yet to read here.

I wish it were printed in the NYT and then discussed on TV.

[truedelphi]

124. And yet, sadly, the message that is most likely to be ignored by the very people we need to

Have thinking about these issues.

This stupid, corrupt party has relied on such uber memes as "The lesser of two evils" and "better to bring about fascism in a friendly manner than an unfriendly manner."

From back in 2012, I can remember Facebook debates with FB friends over how we needed to oppose the creeping fascism of the Democratic Party perhaps more strongly and more enthusiastically than the in-your-face fascism of the Republicans.

I mean, at least when something is in your face you react, but we all know the parable of the boiling pot and the little froggie, and how poorly that turns out for the little frog.

[passiveporcupine]

22. Cut it out!

we'll just try to ask greedy insurance companies -- who make their money by denying care -- to act a little nicer."

[Uncle Joe]

24. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Armstead.

[haikugal]

26. K&R for this excellent post!! nt

[Broward]

27. Great post, nt.

[beam me up scottie]

28. K & R!

[John Poet]

29. The "THIRD WAY" is simply a formula for turning

the Democratic party into a second Republican party.

[navarth]

136. Oh hey that third graphic

Democratic: By The People
Socialist: For The People

That's really quite good.

[mhatrw]

30. It's sick. It's nothing but an exclusive country club that we ain't in. nt

[Enthusiast]

31. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

[cali]

33. The party is riddled with corruption

[democrank]

34. We, the people

must start demanding more of our leaders and use our votes as bargaining chips. We must stop being so malleable and start reshaping our futures to represent our best interests.

Right now, we`re standing in a cesspool, content with being forced to buy some boots. What we should be doing is demand the damn plug be pulled.

[RBInMaine]

35. You assertions are wild-eyed hyperbole. Here is why:

Hillary's PROGRESSIVE plans:

Debt free college
Employee profit sharing
Infrastructure investment
Closing tax loopholes for the rich
Fixing and EXPANDING the ACA
Preserving Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security
Small business expansion
Investment in the new energy economy
No ground troops in the Middle East
Additional financial system reform and enforcement of existing new law

How is this not PROGRESSIVE????

[sorechasm]

38. This is where HRC stands during election season as if these were seasonal allergies.

Once she takes her medicine from the Clinton corporate sponsors, after elected she will easily be cured from these affectations.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/30/1477278/-The-Clintons-Really-Are-Out-Of-Our-League

If HRC is elected, we will immediately have another 'world crisis' which remarkably benefits her benefactors. The merchants of war and financial industry interests will then take all her time and attention. We've seen this movie before.

[angrychair]

99. Really?

I'll take two:

Debt free college?
Sure, if state governors agree to take money to lower tuition rates. Given their judgement on accepting Medicare funding so far, I doubt it. Not to mention requirements of working 10 hours a week. I am sure having to work as slave labor for the government, while carrying a full-time class load, is ok for some but setting up most for failure.
All while their wealthy counterparts continue to leverage their advantages of money and privilege by virtue of their birthday lottery.

No ground troops in the Middle East
She has advocated for a Syrian "no-fly" zone throughout this primary. I don't think that is "no troops in the middle east". Not to mention that she is advocating a foreign policy also advocated for by most teapublicans, the teapublicans that Gates recently said they have the understanding of world affairs of a child.
Second, how would she do it? UN? Since Russia and China are on the security council, I doubt it.
Through NATO? That would be unlikely not to mention directly confrontational with Russia.
Unilateral military action? Sure. As your first military/foreign policy action, unilaterally create a no fly zone against the will of Russia and the UN and likely some of our allies? Not to mention the president and the joint chiefs of staff have stated that such a move would likely create direct conflict with Russia.

[ancianita]

107. Keep this checklist handy. Remind us each time these get 'done and done.'

[truedelphi]

125. Why, simply because based on the record of Corporate-Controlled Politicians, we have

Figured out that the progressive message they rely on in order to get elected (and re-elected) translates into the Same Ol Same Ol once elected.
[h2][font color=red]
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!"

[/h2][/font color=red]

[paleotn]

139. Only because....

...Bernie has been dragging her kicking and screaming to the left of Bluedogtopia. Her actual track record and list of major donors supports hardly anything on your list.

[DanTex]

37. This is the party that brought us ACA, toughest financial regulations since WW2, saved the economy

from a depression, prevented the auto industry from collapsing, etc.

But since they didn't all jump on the Bernie train, suddenly they're a "gutless mess."

Not to mention everything Obama has tried that got blocked by the GOP. Funny how Bernie gets full credit for plans that will never become reality, but Obama gets none.

[Armstead]

39. You are echoing exsctly whst I am referring to

I have no problem with those who believe Clinton is better than Bernie as a candidate, for whatever reason.

But in the process the message is "Move on citizen. Nothing to see here. Everything is fine. No need to chsnge anything. Dont even think of trying."

"Plans that will never become reality." Thats the mantra.

[DanTex]

40. Who says nothing needs to change? A lot needs to change.

The double standard is immense. Obama gets blamed for things that the GOP blocked, but with Bernie, we're supposed to totally ignore political reality.

The only reason you're calling the party "gutless" is because it doesn't look like they're gonna nominate your guy.

[Armstead]

44. Not true. These things started long before Bernie campaign

This is not a beauty contest between Bernie and Hillary. It's not a Tiger Beat 'which candidate is cutest' contest."

[dreamnightwind]

77. Wow, epic fail in that post

"The only reason you're calling the party "gutless" is because it doesn't look like they're gonna nominate your guy."

I can't believe you wrote that. Nothing could be further from the truth. You seriously need to put your advocacy aside and learn what is really going on with people who support the Warren and Sanders wing. It's not about Bernie, it really isn't, it's about our country. We are tired of being sold out by bought and paid for corporate fauxgressives who only care about us at election time. To quote Rahm, we're just a bunch of f'n retards.

[jillan]

131. This isn't about President Obama. He was the right President for the last 7.5 yrs. Now it's time to

take the elect the right President for the next 8 years.

We can disagree on which candidate that should be but it is not anything to do with President Obama.

[Hortensis]

41. Oh, calm down you guys. Bernie may well win Iowa.

Good grief. That he's 3 points down on a poll is no reason to turn and attack the Democratic Party again. This kind of anxious, hostile response has become as predictable as dogs howling when fire trucks go by.

[Armstead]

43. Win or lose, it's the nature of the reaction that is so distressing

In the effort to prevent a "populist uprising" the core beliefs of those who want a more pro-active liberal party -- whic ought to be universally shares by Democrats are being smashed in the process.

It is one thing to say "Candidate A is better than Candidate B because they are more likely to succeed."

But is another to say "The basic values and goals of Candidate B will never happen because it's just too hard. We'll stick with GOP Conservative Rules. And we'll just echo the conservative message because Liberal Ideas are just Socialist Commie Unicorns."

[Hortensis]

57. Nonsense. EVERY time I come back to find new long angry threads

attacking Hillary, the Party, etc., for various crimes ranging from fixing the election to now conspiring to "smash" your beliefs, I know the more...ardent souls have been disappointed by something.

The last time I noticed was after the last debate, when I was surprised to find flaming outrage about unfair questions, plus all the usual slurs hurled at the usual targets. I'd thought Bernie had done well enough, but I immediately realized Bernie's performance must somehow have disappointed. Went and looked and, yup -- he gave just-okay answers to entirely predictable questions about his ideology instead of sweeping the nation to his camp with inspiring rhetoric. This wasn't even a tiny reverse that set it off, just a lack of something reassuring or to be thrilled about.

Iowa's tomorrow. Maybe try to realize that a win in Iowa means a long haul ahead that is just going to get harder, and that a lose in Iowa is serious but not the end. For all viable candidates. Either way, maybe those who are too easily upset could ask themselves how would Bernie act and model their reactions and behavior on his. He doesn't have to be told to grow a pair.

[Armstead]

59. You and I have both seen variations of this played out over and over again through the years

I have no illusions about Bernie, but think he is the one person who has moved beyond the "centrist blockade" to actually be turning g the larger debate and dynamic in a better direction. And the better he does the more those who are clinging to keep the facade in place are getting more obvious in their efforts to marginalize the effort to actually begin to change the imbalances that have become embedded in the system.

I really don't give a rats pattotie whether people like you believe Bernie or Clinton is the better candidate. But it depresses me to see how the effort to advance her is -- yet again -- also trying to stifle and insult movements for reform.

[Hortensis]

60. Contempt for the opinions of others

is an enormous part of the reason rigid ideologues on both the left and right wings normally fail.

The right wing tea-party movement succeeded briefly only because it was formed, funded and manipulated by experts hired by plutocrats. When the TPers got out of hand, the funding was cut.

On the left, America has never had a successful national movement by left-wingers so rigid in their ideology that they could not work together and compromise with liberals.

What I'm saying is, Bernie's more passionate DU contingent really SHOULD care about, and understand, why Hillary's enormous following likes and admires her, but after reading their posts here for some months now I'm inclined to believe that would literally be impossible for them.

Take note, however, that Bernie's caucus contingent in Iowa does in large numbers (80%!) respect Hillary and find her acceptable as their second choice. Notably, Iowa has a lot of liberal Democrats, so I suspect that's just one more piece of evidence to suggest the DU contingent behaves as it does because it contains few liberals.

[Armstead]

81. Partisans on all sides get passionate and worked up..That's human nature and social dynamics

And anger generates anger and passion generates passion...and sometimes people go over the top. People also have differing styles of expression.

I actually agree with you about the more dogmatic end of the leftist spectrum that demands pure socialism and other things that are outside of the basic compacts of what I'll call democratic free enterprise. or anarchism which seeks to tear down the system and start all over again....They are not open to compromise, moderation, etc.

But generally you will find those people opposing or dismissing Sanders from the left. He's too moderate and "just another politician" according to them.

What Sanders has tapped into is not a cabal of people demanding purity, or who hate moderates. Many, probably most, of Sanders supporters are not opposed to moderation in movement towards goals.

But I contend that a moderate is someone who is generally rowing in the same direction -- they may differ in pace, but they want the same things.

But much of the opposition and criticism is based on "centrist" things like attacking public insurance and throwing it under the bus as a unicorn -- or jamming through corporate backed gutting of the US economy and workforce to fill corporate coffers through top secret "free trade" scams. Those are attempts to push in the opposite direction.

[Hortensis]

91. No, all "partisans" do not get worked up.

Some personality types are naturally more open- and broad-minded and accepting of others and their opinions. Some are closed and tend to be hostile to those who aren't "with them."

Some tend to be honest overall, even in evaluating unpleasant truths. Some rush for lies to protect their beliefs and fend off unpleasant truths.

Some are calm under pressure and gracious toward opponents. Some get rattled and angry under pressure and behave badly toward opponents.

We all need to emulate the behavior of people who behave well. Pretending everyone behaves badly is just a way to try to excuse bad behavior.

The "purist" stuff goes somewhere I never did; I speak only of people on this forum and complaints about berners I read in online articles.

I'm glad to know you do believe moderate liberals are pulling the same direction as Bernie. That's a good sign for the future.

A big BUT, though: The notion of many berners that "corporatist" influences are something that we could just just get rid of if moderate liberals would only get on board is completely mistaken.

Corporate and plutocrat power is enormous and extremely well entrenched.

A hard truth that makes nonsense of the notion that we could just to a "hard-left" if we wanted is that half the nation is conservative in ideology and personality and is pulling strongly right; that includes many minority members of the DemParty. I don't know why so many berners refuse to acknowledge that simple truth.

Although many conservatives are finally realizing they've been screwed by their right-wing leaders, they still also believe that Democrats have caused most of the nation's troubles. That belief that they must save their nation from us has, for over 30 years now, made it easy for right-wing manipulators to both move them farther right and to persuade them to vote in any way they claim "will stop the Democrats."

They have become very well trained attack dogs, and the inculcated conviction that they must use their superior morality and judgement to save America from us is the ring in their noses (I know, but attack cow didn't sound right). You've probably noticed that Rush has always started most topics with some variation of, "Folks, you won't believe what the Democrats are up to now!" That's all his viewers ever need to hear to know that they are against whatever comes after. The same for all the other right-wing ring-pullers. If we're for it, there must be something wrong with it.

Right-leaning "independents" are little better. Come election time most have reliably voted for GOP candidates right down the ballot -- candidates that first have to be acceptable to the extremist GOP base. This election may finally be somewhat different, but don't expect a lot of right-leaners to vote for Bernie or Hillary. It's not going to happen.

[Armstead]

94. 2 brief responses

The notion of many berners that "corporatist" influences are something that we could just just get rid of if moderate liberals would only get on board is completely mistaken. Corporate and plutocrat power is enormous and extremely well entrenched.

That is EXACTLY everyone who believes that degree of influence is wrong needs to be passionate, and aggressive about it. One can be passionate and aggressive in a civil way, but when push comes to shove, those entrenched interests are NOT going to give in voluntarily -- even to relatively modest requests to give a little back. They HAVE to be pushed back against, strongly and clearly, by moderates and pragmatists as well. We have enabled and empowered bastards and the bad side of corporations for too long.

An enormous reality-check is that half the nation is conservative in ideology and personality; that includes many minority members of the DemParty. I don't know why so many berners refuse to acknowledge that simple truth.

That's simplistic and wrong. The same person can be both liberal in some ways and conservative in others. It may be in issues, or it may be on approaches. Everone is a mix of both, to varying degrees.

Often, what conservatives really want is a return to a more human-level of systems, as an alternative to Big Oppressive institutions.......The GOP has successfully sold the idea that the Government is the Big Oppressive Institution. But the Democrats have not countered with the fact that Huge Corporations are Big Oppressive institutions. Nor have they pointed out that THEY are the government and have power to change its excesses....in contrast to unaccountable corporations.


There are many people you might write off superficially as conservative -- but scratch the surface and they are often progressive populists below the surface. One example is that states that voted for Bush also voted to raise the minimum wage....People call themselves conservatives because that has been the only message they have been getting from Democrats as well as Republicans for 35 years.

So no I donlt byu the reality that we can't change things from a progressive direction because of some ingrained conservatism.

[Hortensis]

105. Brief? US? :) That blue thing's cool.

I just figured out how to do it.

"That's simplistic and wrong. The same person can be both liberal in some ways and conservative in others. It may be in issues, or it may be on approaches. Everone is a mix of both, to varying degrees."

Pretty correct personality-wise. However, under our general goulash-pots of positions we are all at base either conservative or liberal, in various strengths. These days people across the nation are dividing up into conservative and liberal camps, setting most considerations aside to vote their side of the ballot from top to bottom. The old saying that "all politics is local" is no longer true. Politics is right or left. Republicans will literally vote not to clean up their own drinking water if the "evil Democrats" are the ones trying to do it as part of some sinister plot to destroy America.

Nothing stays the same, and conservatives are starting to shift SOME blame for dirty water from just the "evil Democrats" to the Democrats and their elected leaders, but it's only a start.

"There are many people you might write off superficially as conservative -- but scratch the surface and they are often progressive populists below the surface."

Please note that many progressive populists are conservative. Not the knee-jerk hard-right type of conservative, but moderate conservatives. There have always been progressive conservatives, though right-wing leaders have done their best to destroy progressive conservatism as a force.

Fwiw, I don't happen to admire "populists." In my mind that term is not a synonym for "the people." The current outraged populist "hey, what'd you do with mine while I wasn't bothering to look" movement is just the newest reaction of millions of irresponsible jerks waking up to the reality that they're being screwed and looking for someone to blame. Sooo typical.

Yes, populist waves are good and necessary, but they shouldn't be necessary. They only occur after eras in which irresponsible citizens first cause their own problems through negligence and very often collusion by ignorant voting or not voting, ignore growing problems while they're only affecting other people, and when the situation's finally gotten so bad that they're hurting themselves, wake up mad and blaming everyone else.

Conservative progressivism, in contrast, has a long and very honorable history. They kicked off the Progressive Era reforms because at that time the DemParty was "the party of business," (not the GOP like now). Many progressive liberals jumped in, and the consolidation of progressives created a force that made awesome things happen. (Progressivism also took over the Democratic Party, and Big Money started finding the GOP better to do business with.)

Regarding your first blue'd text, to take the kind of giant steps you imagine we can to get business out of government and restore a proper balance of power and prosperity in our country in short order, we would have to once again work with moderate conservatives. We are very willing, but mostly they are not. Not yet. More power is accruing behind progressivism, but not enough. Not yet. They're still a formidable opposition force. And until enough conservatives join with us to create majority power for change, we will only be able to accomplish smaller, more incremental steps toward our goals. That's our reality for now.

[Armstead]

108. I will halfway agree with you

We humans are an unfathomable mix of angels and devils and whatever exists between them, i.e. humans.

Labels are handy for characterizing, but not so helpful when they create boxes that don't necessarily exist. People may start to blame the system because they are being personally screwed. But that often can be extended to recognizing that many others are also being screwed, which leads to solidarity and a form of selflessness and collective action that brings positive change.

The motivations, however, matter less than the efforts and outcomes. Most social change is a mix of self interest and collective ideals.

For example, there is a longstanding, small but growing movement called the decentralization movement, that is working to reassert local economics and political power. It grew out of a mix of social-change progressives (lefties) and basic business people and moderates who did not like to see things such as out of town developers messing up their communities, or Wal Marts killing their local businesses, etc. These coalitions are behind things like the shop local movement. It is a mix of self interest and community interest for friends and neighbors.

Those incremental changes have been going on at local; levels for many years. But there has not been national expression of them (except for lip service)) because on the national level the corporations and wealthy and powerful have too much power. In some important respects, that is what the symbolic things in national politics represents.

[Hortensis]

120. I love the idea of decentralization as

envisaged. Keeping the direction from being corrupted by theocrats, racial and ethnic supremacists varying by majority, corrupt and twisted local politicians, hard conservatives who do not agree with equality under the law, rapacious local business, etc., etc., etc. would be a first priority.

The next few Supreme Court justices MUST not be appointed by any of the hard-right GOP candidates or it would not work. Strong protection of the residents' civil and property rights from outside, and some principled limitations on what locals could do to each other, would be critical.

I do think we're headed that way anyway. The city versus suburb versus rural isn't working well. With urban amenities, land values are skyrocketing. Suburban dwellers have to drive too far for work and services and often lack amenities. Low-income urban dwellers are being pushed farther from jobs out to the suburbs, resulting in the spread of suburban slums; it takes money to keep up all those detached homes and yards. And rural dwellers are increasingly having sustainable living problems relative to the others, but we'll always have rural dwellers, whether they can afford to drive to the city just to watch a football game or not.

Plus, how to keep highly dense centers safe from terrorism? It's going to be with us for some while. Are more and more millions clustering in one spot really a great idea?

This all may well result in, not everyone moving "to the city" as some doomsayers imagine, but in development of more traditional town centers that will change the entire character of what once were just vast areas of subdivisions off ugly throughways lined with strip malls. Places where people live will no longer start behind the front doors of their houses but in communities with their own identities that provide reasons for wanting to live there. IF they develop well.

[rhett o rick]

127. I think you are seeing a growing unrest from years, decades of the corrupt DC government

robbing from the lower classes to make the rich richer. We can be told over and over to sit down and shut up or not to ask for too much, but we've had enough. There will be set backs but the movement has started and we won't be denied.

[Hortensis]

132. Of course. Please. I'm part of the "unrest."

As are so many of my fellow liberal Democrats who suffered all those years of inadequate power during the decades of conservative ascendancy. The notion that we were all happy is mistaken to the point of...total cluelessness. WE always tried to reverse this tide through the vote and were unable to. The tide was too large, part of a global shift right.

Yesterday we learned the the Cruz campaign attempted to intimidate voters by presenting data mining information on them and their neighbors. That could not have happened if we had been able to protect our privacy as we wanted during the conservative, business-serving era that was heralded by the election of Ronald Reagan. So many of our virtually sacred positions were overrun in that era.

As a moderate, progressive liberal, I do believe in the real value of using the energy of free enterprise for the good of society. Why wouldn't we? I have never made the mistake, however, of believing that business would do better if uncontrolled. I know that unregulated self-interest will inevitably become abusive and eventually inimical to the wellbeing of our republic and its people. We must control and direct the power of self interest. I know that not because I am brilliant but because nations that do do well and nations that do not do poorly, often desperately poorly.

Our task is to get business and wealthy interests out of government, out of election financing, and, actually above all, out of mind control. The ability that technology gives the wealthy to control our opinions and behavior, our markets, and our nation is scary. It must be controlled. And I firmly believe that it requires limits on wealth. Money is power, and we simply cannot allow people to be so wealthy that they can purchase the votes of our representatives with their pocket change, and require them to sell their influence -- or else.

How does that fit with your image of a moderate liberal Democrat? I'm pretty typical.

[Blue_Adept]

42. so fix it already.

It's what you guys have to do. Elect the right people in your state.

This is all ground level stuff that has to change, a narrative that has to change, that is not a top down solution.

Frankly, just put up the full list of the dems that must go and start working those states in order to push them out.

The problem is that you run into an area where those same dems are often quite liked or barely hold on at all and they'd be flat out lost seats and reduction in overall position to do anything.

I always feel a bit at a loss when it comes to this because I've got zero issue with who my state sends to the house and senate. Outside our brief stupidity with Brown, we've had Kennedy and Kerry in there for decades and now have Markey and Warren.

But I can't exactly go and "fix" other states to get their shit in order.

Corruption is both top down and bottom up.

[Armstead]

50. You make a good point -- However, the elites put up so many roadblocks to that too

The current split being highlighted by the S v. C is just the underlying tensions writ large.

[Chathamization]

54. I don't think the biggest problem comes from elite roadblocks. Everytime progressive candidates lose

here it seems like most people didn't bother turning out (primary turnout is usually very low), the people who turned out didn't pay attention (you ask the few who bothered showing up who they voted for, and they start drawing blanks after naming 2 or 3 candidates), and the tiny amount who pay attention to policy tend to focus on a couple silly issues ("Wasn't this the person who suggested an 2% alcohol tax increase? Definitely not voting for them!&quot .

We need more people paying attention and electing people who actually represent them. There's no reason why so many deep blue states should be electing so many corporatist ConservaDems.

[Hortensis]

63. And how. Hillary wants automatic voter registration

for every citizen to help combat inadequate representation of blocks that don't vote.

Blue Adept, I envy you. Our Georgia rep lists his ALEC membership as one of his credentials.

[dreamnightwind]

80. Yes there is a very big reason

"There's no reason why so many deep blue states should be electing so many corporatist ConservaDems."

It's called money.

In my own district a few years ago, Jared Huffman (not yet an incumbent) ran a well-financed campaign against the farther left and ideologically much closer fit to this district (one of the most progressive districts in the nation) Norman Solomon. Huffman got the slick mailers in every mailbox, the fancy signs posted everywhere, the endorsement of the local newspapers (they aren't really local, they're owned by the same giant media conglomerates), and what little T.V. time there was. Solomon had a lot of very enthusiastic volunteers backing him, doing grass-roots organizing, knocking on doors, but in the end, with a great candidate, an extremely progressive electorate, and energized support, the progressive candidate lost handily to the fauxgressive Huffman.

Huffman isn't the devil, but this district is way farther left than him, and we had a rare and excellent candidate who was unable to overcome the obstacles of money and corporate institutional support.

Our real challenge is to learn to defeat money with progressive values. Bernie's campaign is a great attempt at this. We have to stigmatize candidates accepting corporate money, and not support them, or we'll never get anywhere. Defeating money is really hard, not impossible but unless we as a constituency swear off corporate politicians, we will continue to get our asses handed to us, and our jobs handed to the most desperate and least regulated labor forces on the planet.

[ancianita]

110. I remember that, donated to Solomon's campaign.

[dreamnightwind]

111. as did i. thanks for doing so! are you in this district?

[ancianita]

114. No, I split life between Illinois and Florida. I send $ to progressives in runs outside my states.

[dreamnightwind]

115. even better, thanks again, we need all the help we can get.

[ancianita]

116. Happy to help. Also sent $100 to some gal in San Diego who won against an incumbent neocon!

I really do a yay-yo dance when stuff like that happens.

[Chathamization]

142. Good points, and I've seen something similar play out a lot. I do think we can overcome the money

with strong progressive infrastructure. It can be difficult sometimes to cut through all the garbage in all the different campaigns, but this is where I think progressive groups like DFA and WFP really help. Candidate endorsements can help people know who's worth voting for, and the groups are also good for more generally keeping people informed about what's happening. For instance, the questionnaire our local DFA group gives local candidates tells you where they stand on a number of different progressive issues. If we got people to pay attention to these groups instead of meaningless stuff like fliers, we'd be in a much better position.

I'm hoping Sanders turns his campaign into something like this after the election, particularly since he focuses a lot on how this is a broader struggle well beyond the candidacy. If progressives really got organized and connected, there's a ton of stuff that could be accomplished.

[Gregorian]

159. I've been posting threads asking for support for a Norm Solomon approved candidate. No replies.

We have several great progressives wanting to get into Congress, and a supposedly liberal board like DU isn't interested.

So what do we do?

I personally gave enough to Norm Solomon that he called me at home. I doubt Huffman would do that. I am so impressed with Norm. When we can't support grass roots candidates, we're in trouble.

And the DNC is obviously not working for us the way it should be.

And all of that after fascists nearly collapsed the country. You'd think we'd be invigorated, and pulling together. Half of our party has a motto that goes something like "No we can't".

[dreamnightwind]

160. That's awesome, thanks for supporting him

I don't know the answer to your question. DU seems like a good place to stoke up support. The site's owners are more DLC establishment Democrats, but plenty of users are on the non-corporate side of things.

Sometimes threads disappear becaue of timing or placement.

The Democratic Party officially stayed out of the Huffman - Solomon race, to their credit, though I think they did support Huffman in some ways.

I've always felt that the left is not as good at organizing as the right, that needs to change. For one thing, we're pretty much doing anything we do with no compensation, which shows real enthusiasm but it also means causes and politicians are piecing together less reliable volunteer labor. We could do better at crowd-funding support infrastructure so we could hire people to work to elect progressives. Or just try to do better with volunteer efforts.

I would talk to someone like MaryM at the Jackpine site, she's very involved and much more knowledgable than I am on these matters.

The NGO's like DFA, PDA (I think), maybe even MoveOn, are basically our only infrastructure at this point. Also we probably need to show up and invade our districts' Democratic Party meetings, I know I never go to those things, should though.

I think the political tides are turning, and there's a critical mass of citizens no longer satisfied with establishment politicians. So the time is ripe for identifying and developing candidates who are willing to run on strong progressive agendas without using corporate money to do it.

[Vinca]

45. It's not the party of FDR anymore, that's a fact.

[Le Taz Hot]

46. Outstanding OP!

Man, there's been some outstanding writing on DU lately.

[mythology]

47. It's amusing that people believe this

Objectively speaking the parties are becoming more and more polarized. They actively aren't becoming the same. This is something that is really obvious to political scientists and yet I regularly read here that the parties are the same.

[Armstead]

49. The GOP rank and file are uprising for the right-wing version of the same thing

I certainly disagree (to say the least) of much of that the GOP and the Teabagger stand for.

But they are going through the same thing. A rebellion against Corporate Well Heeled Establishment who espouse platitudes but ultimately ignore the people who sent them there.

In a sense, the grass roots of the right are also pushing to revive a political contest between Liberalism and Conservatism -- but they also face a Beltway/Wall St./Corporate Elite that is trying to tamp that down.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

52. We don't want our country back. We want our party back from the carpetbaggers

who belong back in the Republican party, and go around proclaiming that we're the ones who aren't 'real' Democrats simply because we won't support their right wing ideas.

[Hortensis]

69. The Democratic Party has always included

some conservative blocks. There are far fewer conservatives in the party now than there have ever been in the past. The shift of the party somewhat to the right (but not on the right) back in the 1990s was reaction to America's strong shift right in the 1980s and 1990s. It was real but temporary and the party has now shifted back to the left again, though gerrymandered districts are keeping some people in office who might be sent home otherwise.

As for this supposed infiltration by conservative subversives, the party's overall orientation doesn't come from subversion but from the simple fact that most Democrats tend to be moderate liberals in their ideology. You misinterpret a dominant ideology different from yours for evil forces at work.

Unless you can understand and accept that your fellow Democrats are mostly moderate liberals, and that your block is very much a minority, you will never be happy with the Democratic Party. Have you considered joining another one?

[Smarmie Doofus]

53. Little things.

>>>The message from Camp Clinton and its allies is unmistakable. "Don't expect us to work for for liberal progressive change. That will never happen. We don't do that. We only do little things. Tiny things that the GOP will allow us to do." >>>>>

*Very* little. The party... as a national ( and fifty-state) organization is basically about maintaining the status quo. It ( the status quo) has been good to them. They are careerists. And politics is their career.

Hence the parade of DEM electeds responding to Clinton Inc. requests for primary endorsements.

It's what they DO. It's how they advance professionally. It's their idea of an investment in the future.

K and R

[Armstead]

56. Having lived in DC for a while, there is an element of careerism at play

It really does get to be a bubble

[Smarmie Doofus]

137. But it's true in local politics as well.

EG: NYC and NYS Dems.

Only two DEM elected that I know of have endorsed Sanders : State Senators Perkins and Sanders ( no relation).

OTOH, there is a whole daisy-chain of DEM who have fallen in line to endorse Clinton. Including some, like de Blasio who have flaunted their alleged cutting edge progressivism.

Clinton is in large part a product of the NYS party and the party expects people they have funded and "brought along" to PLAY along.

The relationship between party and "partiers" reminds me a bit of what some have observed about the composition of the German National Socialist Party and the Soviet Communist Party: that a lot of people signed up.... not because of ideology... but because it's the way you were able to get ahead.

Professionally, that is.

[olddots]

58. not only are you a great writer

you are a great thinker .K and R

[oberliner]

61. More bashing of the Democratic Party on a forum meant to support the Democratic Party

This is just getting ridiculous.

[Armstead]

72. This is in response to the bashing of one segment of the Democratic Party by another

I fully support the Democratic aspects of the Democratic Party.

(I know Howard Dean said that but others have too.)

[Arugula Latte]

86. The party has become "Democratic" in name only.

The poobahs in the party, including the Clintons, are doing big business's bidding. The little people are left unrepresented. Only Bernie speaks for them.

[libdem4life]

64. We do have two parties. The Corporatists vs. the Awakening Revolutionaries

Not much difference between the first American Revolution. Throwing off the cloak of the Royalists to become Colonial Revolutionaries. Perhaps this election is our "Boston Tea Party"...please excuse any reference to any Republican Group who wants to send us back into another age.

Electing Bernie will be that Sea Change...even coming close or a strong showing in elections. Maybe a bit like Paul Revere.

[whereisjustice]

66. K&R for change!

[liberal_at_heart]

70. K&R. Well said!

[CharlotteVale]

73. K&R

[KansDem]

75. We don't need another "I Got Mine To Hell With You" Party...

One is way more than enough.

[whereisjustice]

78. [phone]

[wtawilltaw]

76. This realization came to me during President O's first term...

It was always we can't do this or that instead of forcing republicans hand they coward or were the establishment Democrats part of the obstruction. Sort of like sex either you do something willingly or it's rape. For some reason it always seems like Democrats were willing participants.

[Matariki]

79. They revealed themselves when they had majorities in both the Senate and the House

AND the Presidency. And still only accomplished token 'change'.

[wtawilltaw]

84. Exactly

[Arugula Latte]

85. Yep. I'm still furious.

[Matariki]

82. We need to study the tactics of the far right and the tea party.

They essentially took over the Republican party. How did they do it? How can we take the Democratic party and push it to become truly PROGRESSIVE?

[truedelphi]

126. But in terms of getting their candidates elected, they got swindled.

In 2012, Ron Paul actually should have been awarded the "win" in numerous primaries across the USA, but the way that the voting results are announced informs us that the Party Big Wigs always get to state who wins. Even if the "winner" actually lost.

[Deny and Shred]

129. The problem is money

GOP gets big dollars from those who benefitted from trickle down, from MIC expenditures, Bush tax cuts, lax regulations, etc.

There isn't much money in extending helping the less fortunate, nor in social justice, not immediately anyway - only costs.

It would require overcoming not only a lack of funds, by the backlash by those with the funds. They happen to be fully entrenched as well.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

83. Trickle-Down is

(I posted this yesterday and it killed the thread since it was contrary to the OP's theme and made more sense.)

Trickle-Down is only deemed a problem when Republicans are in office. We are willfully blind to it when Democrats are in charge. We're just relieved to be in charge, so in the case of Trickle-Down, we don't hold Democratic Presidents to the same standard.

We finally have a choice in the upcoming election: more Trickle-Down or a paradigm shift. Until Democrats are capable of acknowledging their culpability and role in Trickle-Down, we don't appear ready for a paradigm shift. We'll know in a few months.

I will credit Democrats for coming around on Bill Clinton. More Democrats are critical of his economic policies, today. Maybe in a few years, more Democrats will feel the same about Obama.

[MisterP]

109. mass imprisonment, too--sure it surged under Ronnie, sure he replaced asylums with prisons

(more of a lateral step anyway), but the rates took off under Clinton, under Pubs like Giuliani and Republicrats like Bratton

[Jack Rabbit]

88. Of course Hillary is discouraging our dreams of a better America

She's got a job to do and she's been well paid by the corporatist establishment to do it.

[avaistheone1]

90. I feel beyond sad.

I feel bitter and angry about the Hillary campaign approach. She is absolutely shameless.

[Jack Rabbit]

104. I understand your bitterness and anger

I take meds for depression and so I try to deal with Mrs. Clinton's campaign the way I deal with any other disasters or betrayals: laugh it off. Sometimes it works better than others.

Her "no, we can't" approach really shouldn't be so disappointing. I don't expect much more of a President Hillary Clinton if she's elected than I would of a President Ted Cruz or President Jeb Bush. I should appreciate her honesty in trying to lower our expectations, but I don't think President Obama did what history demanded of him when he took office, which was nothing less than a new New Deal. Space here does not permit a discussion here of how much of that is his fault and how much is the fault of others. The fact is that it still needs to be done and the Zeitgeist which was crying for dramatic change when Obama took office is screaming hysterically for it now. I have no time or patience for a presidential candidate who says she thinks it's pointless to lead us in that direction, but will continue to work with the American oligarchs as they have worked with every president starting with that second-rate matinee idol in an effort to stamp out American democracy and with it the middle class.

Three and a half decades of voodoo economics is already to much. Senator Sanders is the only candidate in whom I have confidence to change course and steer us away from the rocks ibncome inequality and endless wars and into calm waters headed for true democracy. At least he will try to do that. Mrs. Clinton is admitting to us that she won't try, and, therefore, it is pointless to expect her to succeed. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who deserves my support. Governor O'Malley is my second, but that is a distant second.

[MisterP]

92. "follow the money" is an investigation heuristic, not a command!

[Plucketeer]

93. Corruptocrats

"they have also hammered down the values they claim to represent." Yeah, the values AND the people they claim to represent. In two words: Reprehensible representation.

[Duval]

95. K&R!

[Red Knight]

96. They aren't worried

Because the Republicans are outright nuts.

They don't fear losing votes in the general election because they know that any Democrat looking across the aisle and seeing the absolute insanity and the nightmare possibility of a Trump presidency or a Cruz presidency or a Carson presidency will ultimately swallow hard and go out and vote for the establishment they have created.

At least they assume that.

But that may not always work. At some point people will throw up their hands, say, "The hell with it," and stay home.

And then the people lose anyway and the establishment grip becomes even tighter. And frankly, the Debbie Wasserman Shultz's of the world are probably "OK" with that. It's the other option "People Power" that scares the hell out of them.

[BillZBubb]

103. The scenario you suggest has happened many times in off year elections.

The Democrats get creamed in non presidential years because they offer nothing to excite the base. Many times they turn off the base. It happens over and over. "We're not crazy like those guys" just isn't enough.

[ancianita]

97. This hurts. Like being shown good evidence that your love has already left you for another.

That other being a one world corporate fucking government.

This will be my last general election vote.

Then the party that left me can go suck it.

Goodbye real democracy, I never knew ye.

Unless this Underground truly changes into an Underground.

[RiverLover]

147. I hear you.

You won't be leaving alone.

[jwirr]

102. That is the New Democratic Party in a nutshell. Really sad

isn't it. That traditional party was something to be so proud of. I miss it.

[mountain grammy]

106. K & R

Excellent post.

[JDPriestly]

117. Excellent post!!!

[capitolalb]

122. Raising taxes is not a winning strategy

Sanders will be soundly defeated if nominated. Raising taxes or talking about raising taxes is not a winning idea.

[Armstead]

135. Doing nothing is not a winning strategy

[liberal_at_heart]

148. Not raising taxes is why we keep having to cave to cuts to social services during budget deals.

[felix_numinous]

128. The PTB have no clothes at this point

Gods help them if they try to steal this election, the old tricks won't work anymore.

[NCjack]

130. DNC is ashamed of RDR. He raised taxes on the rich, those who

deserve all the money in the money in world. The voters saw through Mitt Romney and picked Barack Obama. We got betrayal. Now HRC, a bonafide member of the 1%, offers us the sequel. No thanks. Let's get back on the FDR path to the future.

[tasgator]

134. Just a little historical lesson here.

FDR was part of the 1%. His family was part of the "establishment" and he was a part of the terrible government for many years, including time as a presidential appointee in the military-industrial complex. But he managed to come up against a hostile Republican Party, hostile Supreme Court, .01% going guano loco, and he still got a lot of things done. His cousin had even served a little bit of time as President. Pretty much "establishment" if you ask me. Wonder where we get another candidate like that?

[dubyadiprecession]

140. Bernie wants to move the party further to the left and that would be a recipe for disaster.

[RiverLover]

141. Wake up dubya

Democrats haven't governed left in a long time, too busy capitulating & collecting $$$ from wall street & corporate funding.

[Armstead]

143. Perhaps you might change your avatar pucture

Wouldn't want anyone as far left as that

[RiverLover]

145. Good catch Armstead!

Can't believe I missed that.

(What a hypocrite!!!)

[Armstead]

146. Well I guess you put me in my place...Gosh I feel so ashamed

not

[RiverLover]

149. Where will you find those "100 new Democratic voters"?

Or will you just pay for them?

[ancianita]

151. You won't get them. You have no awareness of Hillary Clinton's agenda. Past legal activism

is no indication of any established agenda.

Here's a fellow Clinton supporter's list of "liberal progressive changes":

Hillary's PROGRESSIVE plans:

Debt free college
Employee profit sharing
Infrastructure investment
Closing tax loopholes for the rich
Fixing and EXPANDING the ACA
Preserving Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security
Small business expansion
Investment in the new energy economy
No ground troops in the Middle East
Additional financial system reform and enforcement of existing new law

Yes, I'll be checking off these accomplishments as I cry with joy over voting for her. And you can beat us all up here as each item gets done and done.

Or after she gets done dealing with all the upcoming year's geopolitical silliness. Maybe after she gets done with her reparative stab at the damage her husband inflicted -- and publicly apologized for -- on the nation's black communities during the 90's.

Carry on with your "Who Really Knows" narrative. That "pissing in your cereal" "grumpy old man who loves the sound of his own voice" comedy forum snark? Yeah, real respectable. Real good judgment.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

152. Hard to believe, but I joined DU about two months after it was founded, and

the mainstream Democrats have been giving variations on the same lame excuses for 15 years now.

"We can't fight for Florida because we'll look like sore losers."

"We can't accomplish this because Bush will veto it."

"We have to vote for the lousy Republican bill because it was going to pass anyway."

"We have Congress, but we still have Bush, so all we can do is react to the Republicans."

"We have the White House but not Congress."

"We can't even propose single-payer because it's not politically feasible."

"We can't pull in the military-industrial complex, because terrorism."

"We can't raise taxes on the rich, because the Republicans will say nasty things about us."

"The Republicans are offended at what we said. We have to apologize!"

"We have to renew the Patriot Act because bipartisanship."

"We have to run DINOs in red states (or no one at all) because a real Democrat can't win there."

"No, we have to eliminate Dean and Kucinich and nominate Kerry, because it's his turn."

Hillary Clinton is the poster child for those atittudes.

I know some people who support her, but they fall into two camps: 1) "It's time we had a woman president" and 2) "It's her turn."

[Armstead]

156. My God...LL...One of my old DU political soulmates

I was wondering where you'd been...Good to see ya.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

161. I'm not around much anymore, maybe once a week

but

[Armstead]

162. I come and go over time...but got hooked on the primaries

[RiverLover]

157. That's just so sad. Its true though. We need our party back.

GO Bernie!!!!

[Logical]

153. So true! Nt

[Heddi]

163. If I attribute this to you, can I copy this to facebook

I won't take credit for it, but this is very powerful and I'd like my non-DU friends to read it

[Armstead]

164. Check your DU Inbox

[sabrina 1]

165. They and their Republican counterparts were paying a price for their betrayal of the people

whose votes they feel entitled to, long before Bernie stepped up to the plate.

Independents are now the largest voting bloc in the country with people fleeing BOTH parties

Look at the losses Dems suffered in the last two mid terms.

Still they didn't get the message, or didn't want to.

With Repubs now with only about 29% of registered voters, Dems had a chance to be the party of the people, Bernie is giving them another chance.

That they won't take it, means something went really wrong, and I think we know what it is.

If they won't take it, then we the people, the Dems who they seem to despise so much, we will have to take it ourselves by not voting for their candidates, but for people like Bernie. And we will