Wow... DU Cited TWICE: 'On the Left, a False Choice Fuels the Growing Civil War Over Obama' - HuffPo

[WillyT]

On the Left, a False Choice Fuels the Growing Civil War Over Obama
Peter Daou
Political consultant, former adviser to Hillary Clinton
Posted: July 6, 2010 03:41 PM

<snip>

There is a civil war on the left over Barack Obama. The fault lines are jagged, and depending on the issue, porous, but broadly, the split is along two fronts:

1. Those who believe that critiquing -- and occasionally opposing -- the president on issues such as gay rights, civil liberties and national security is healthy and necessary and those who believe that Obama's progressive critics are going too far, reinforcing rightwing attacks and undermining his presidency.

2. Those who argue that an incremental approach is the best we can hope for and that Obama's list of accomplishments is impressive and those who say that in the long run, watered-down legislation, half measures and empty 'bipartisanship' are worse for America (and the Democratic Party).

...

Strikingly, this civil war is premised on a false choice: that an incremental legislative approach and a well-articulated grand ideological vision are mutually exclusive. They're not. Rapid, sweeping changes may not be feasible in the face of entrenched interests and steely GOP obstructionism, and credit should be given to the president for seeking and achieving solid wins. But neither is the White House prohibited from standing up for core Democratic ideals and presenting them powerfully and unflinchingly, explaining to the public in clear terms why Democrats have the better plan for America. Nor does the glacial pace of progress in Washington obviate the need to reverse George Bush's radical excesses, something the Obama administration has failed (so far) to do.

Progressives demanding more of the president shouldn't discount every accomplishment, but they are correct in pointing out that if you do the legwork but a) fail to frame it with an overarching vision, and b) undercut it by imitating some of the worst practices of the Bush administration, then your efforts are largely for naught.

...

The great mystery to so many progressives is why the White House fails to grasp this most basic of concepts: act and frame your actions. It makes little difference if Obama is a progressive at heart or if Rahm Emanuel hates the left - simple politics dictates that you have to make the 40,000 foot case for your inch-by-inch progress. If you don't, your opponent will do it for you. The imminent November electoral disaster bears out this point.

Still, despite the intensity and passion and the increasing fracturing of the left, the White House has consistently telegraphed that it doesn't care about progressive disquietude. Liberal blogosphere stalwart Atrios points out that the White House is more solicitous of center-right critics: "Important people in the White House waste valuable time giving a s**t what David Brooks thinks."

Perhaps the White House should take more notice, since the contours of Obama's legacy are being sketched by the two sides in this Democratic civil war and not by Republicans, the media, pundits, or historians. Out of the tension and internecine strife on the left emerges the portrait of a president who made tangible progress on big legislative challenges, but whose unwillingness to tie them to a comprehensive and cohesive ideological agenda and whose embrace of his predecessor's shameful legacy on civil liberties, secrecy and national security allowed opponents to paint victory as defeat, thus swaying the nation and severely denuding his accomplishments.

<snip>

Link (w/DU citations): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-daou/on-the-left-a-false-choic_b_636778.html

OpenLeft's Take: http://openleft.com/diary/19354/on-the-progressive-divide

:shrug:

:kick:

[emulatorloo]

1. I believe Peter Daou used to post here

Thanks for putting this up.

[WillyT]

2. Anytime !!!

:hi:

[Hissyspit]

3. Did he have a pseudonymous username or under his real name?

[emulatorloo]

7. Honestly I can't remember, but I believe he was upfront about his identity. 2004ish?

On the other hand, It is entirely possible my brain is creating this out of whole cloth.

Maybe some less fuzz brained person will remember, lol.

[Hissyspit]

16. PeteNYC:

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3932579#3934433

[emulatorloo]

17. THANKS!!!!!! n/t

[jonnyblitz]

no, he is "PeteNYC" on DU and I actually saw him post here

relatively recently within the last few months, give or take. He was quite prolific when i first started here in 2003. He worked for Kerry in 2004 and Hillary in 2008.

[Hissyspit]

27. I remember now. He used to do "The Daou Report" for Salon:

http://daoureport.salon.com

I remember seeing his posts and talking to him, but, honestly, I failed to make the connection!

[jonnyblitz]

39. He also hooked up Will Pitt and got him an invite to AL Franken's

apartment with a bunch of other well known journalists to interview John Kerry during the 2004 election. If i wasn't so lazy I would search through the archives for the threads about this from back then. I wish i could remember who the other journalists were besides pit. they were big names...

[Hissyspit]

43. I only heard about that after the fact. I joined in Nov. 2004

after limiting myself to reading the front page for about a year (which was VERY useful, of course; so much important information that was being ignored by the mainstream media). As I have mentioned previously here, I would see the link to go into the discussion forums and resist it because I was worried I would spend all my time posting on the Internet. Turns out I know myself vewy well.

[YvonneCa]

122. Correct. n/t

[katandmoon]

4. This progressive got the message loud and clear.

For the first time in 38 years I will be sitting out the next presidential election. Obama clearly doesn't want my vote, and I will oblige him.

[redqueen]

10. deleted

[emulatorloo]

15. Your choice, but don't advocate sitting home around here. I really don't want to be punished w

another Republican President. You may say Obama is just as bad as any Republican. But I have lived under Republican presidents, I know that isn't true.

[LostinVA]

21. The poster didn't say that

[emulatorloo]

23. "I will be sitting out the next presidential election"

Full Text of post:

"For the first time in 38 years I will be sitting out the next presidential election. Obama clearly doesn't want my vote, and I will oblige him."

[LostinVA]

33. I know what they said -- they still didn't say what you are saying they did

The quote you posted proves my point.

[emulatorloo]

49. reread my original post

There is nothing there to "prove"

[Grinchie]

179. Thats what I'll be doing to. Does that surprise you?

If it does, you better wake up.

[tomp]

48. of all the nerve, telling people what or what not to advocate.

all because you have lived under republican presidents. you're just being silly.

[emulatorloo]

52. 1. Sitting home is what the Republicans want dems to do. 2. Advocating it is = working to defeat

Democrats,

DU RULES:

"You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website."

As my post says, katandmoon is free to do what he or she wants, that's the magic of voting in the USA. Also free to advocate sitting home, but not on DU

[tomp]

57. 1) du has the right to say that, you don't.

2) your reasons for saying it are just plain stupid and very shallow political thinking, kind of silly and childlike.
3) the are many ways of saying something without violating rules, so don't expect the rules to save your silly butt and your crappy candidate.

[moriah]

113. Oh, damn, you weren't being sarcastic.

Crap.

[stevenleser]

177. I know, I thought he was being sarcastic too

"of all the nerve, telling people what or what not to advocate.
all because you have lived under republican presidents. you're just being silly."

Actually, I think that is a great reason to tell people whom you think they should support.

[emulatorloo]

120. What happened to the whole "I am entitled to my opinion" concept?

I can say anything I want, as long as it doesn't violate DU rules.

The teabaggers are going to be out in full force in 2010. They're the one who have crappy candidates. I don't look forward to living in an Arizona or Oklahoma type environment. Call that silly or whatever. Look at that kook in Louisiana - he signed laws to allow guns in churches today, and to place more restrictions on a woman's right to choose.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. He said what he/she is going to do. He/she didn't advocate or advise that others do it.

Unless there is a miraculous change in Obama from triangulating centrist to progressive, I will not be voting for him 2012, just as I didn't vote for him in 2008.

I think that "not as bad" is a piss poor reason to vote for anyone.

[emulatorloo]

119. I'm clear on what katandmoon said he/she was going to do. His or her choice. I just asked that

he/she not try to get anybody else to sit home.

[Raineyb]

189. You didn't ask, you ordered and it's rather cheeky of you to do so as you're

not in charge.

[LooseWilly]

195. Hmm... no senate elections in '12 in Cali... I can't think of any reason to leave home.

My rep. should be fine without me. Maybe something will come up though, and I'll have to write myself in for president...

[truedelphi]

110. I believe that BOTH PARTIES want most of us to sit at home.

And in fact, ever since about 1969, most people DO SIT at home.

The election in 2008 was an exception to that rule. But usually, NOBODY wins the Presidential position, because around half the population of eligible voters knows that NOBODY is the only real selection, and they stay home to prove it.

[Foo Fighter]

208. I think you're right on that.

If NOTA was on the ballot and voting was mandatory, they'd win in a landslide.

[Techn0Girl]

126. Great ... a Rule Nazi.

You're.
Not.
Helping.

And by that , I mean - the country

[shellgame26]

165. If you don't like the rules

then go away...

[Zhade]

198. The poster didn't break any rules, so get the fuck over it.

NT!

[katandmoon]

140. I am not advocating a fucking thing. Don't put words in my mouth. I said what *I'm* doing. PERIOD.

[moriah]

111. Forgot the sarcasm thingamabobber?

Many people are sarcasm-impaired these days.

[pokercat999]

184. You're wrong Obama is WORSE than a rethug president!

Obama knows better and other than wanting a second term in office I can't for the life of me figure out what the hell he is doing. He promised "change" and offered "hope" but has delivered the same old shit on a stick. A rethug president we KNOW what we are getting, with Obama we get lies, half truths and legislation of the corporations disguised as a left agenda. He simply does not know how to govern or even manage, he's a total loser.

The real bitch for me is I still "like" him or at least his image. If he could have lived up to half the promise, but he is lost and we need another candidate in 2012. I hope he declines to run like LBJ.

[treestar]

59. Are you sure you're really as old as that would make you?

:shrug:

[katandmoon]

141. I first voted in 1972. In 2010, that'll be 38 years ago. I know how old I am.

[moriah]

115. Well, if you choose that, remember the old saying....

"If you forfeit your right to vote, you forfeit your right to bitch."

[katandmoon]

142. The reasons I won't vote for Obama again will still obtain in 2010 just as they do now.

[shellgame26]

162. There are many things that frustrate me about the democrats too but

When it comes time for voting, I always think; "What will be the end result"? If the end result is 8 years of republican rule where:

1) Over a million people will die in an unnecessary war.
2) The Oceans will be polluted for years to come because of secret energy meetings.
3) The drinking water of several states will be poisoned resulting in the death of many people because of secret energy meetings.
4) Gays and lesbians will be seen as a scourge on society.
5) people will be tortured.
6) I could go on and on and you can add anything to this list

These things may or may not affect you but I know that this is the END RESULT. So yeah you can sit it out and keep your vote but the END RESULT is real and your anger will only increase when there are even more horrific END RESULTS.

[Zhade]

200. The reason the Gulf is dying IS BECAUSE OBAMA LIFTED THE OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING BAN!

It happened under a Democratic president, which blows that point out of the water, so to speak.

[Foo Fighter]

146. That's like saying that if you don't shop at Walmart, you don't have the

right to complain about what a crappy company it is.

People abstain from voting for many reasons -- they don't like any of the candidates, they believe the entire system is fucked, etc. Just because they don't vote doesn't mean they don't have a right to bitch about the candidates, the system, or whatever it was that made them decide to abstain in the first place.

[verges]

171. Bad comparison.

In fact, not shopping at Wal-mart is more likely to carry that message than shopping there would. By shopping there, it could be construed as an affirmation of their bad policies. Whereas a vote in an election is more likely to have an effect on the whole.

I fyou don't vote, you don't have the right to bitch because not voting shows that you don't care which candidate wins. And even though there are sinmilarities, there are still maeked differences in the basic philosophies of the Democratic and Republican parties.

Go ahead and make your concsience vote or lak of vote during the primaries. That's the time to make your statement. During the general, it will always be the lesser of two evils. But, just remember, if you hae two evils, one WILL be worse. Please try to prevent that from happening. To paraphrase Smokey the Bear: "Only you can prevent Prwesident Palin."

[Foo Fighter]

191. "By shopping there, it could be construed as an affirmation of their bad

policies."

Just like voting could be construed as an affirmation of the system and/or the candidates. If a person doesn't believe in the system and/or doesn't like any of the choices, they have every right to abstain AND bitch about the rigged system and/or the lack of choice in candidates.

I'll make my conscience vote or lack thereof in any election I want, both primary and general. I stopped buying that "lesser of two evils" line a LONG time ago. I don't tell anyone they have to abstain and I don't expect anyone to tell me I have to vote.

"It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it." - Eugene Debs

[verges]

192. And when Palin wins by a small majority,

It will be the fault of the people like you.

I don't want to put words in your mouth; but, if all candidates are bad, and you refuse to vote for them...does this mean that Palin can be no worse than Obama? That you wouldn't care if Palin won over Obama?

[Foo Fighter]

194. Nice try. I never said that.

And yes, you are trying to put words in my mouth. Here's a review of the new rules in case you forgot:

Inappropriate attacks against Democrats
- Broadly suggesting that there is no difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, or that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. (Arguing that specific policies are the same would be permitted.)

[verges]

197. No. I didn't say that you did say that.

I put it in the form of a question because it seems like not too far extrapolation to me. I'm really trying to understand why you feel A non-vote is better than a vote for even a mediocre Dem. If Palin gets the Repub nomination, would you still feel the same? Too many recent elections have been just too damn close. And I really have a hard time grasping that a reasonble person would think it's okay for the Republicans to win!! Suit yourself though. I'm merely offering advice and my two-cets. And I'm sincerely sorry if you felt I was somehow ordering you one way or another. And if you stop to think about it anybody ordering anybody on an on-line chat group is pretty silly. To assume you're being so, seems to me to be a pretty negative knee-jerk. Oh well.

[Foo Fighter]

205. OK, let's try this again.

You see, you can't ask if I think Palin and Obama are the same. You can ask if I think their policies are the same. DU rules.

Sorry if I misunderstood your initial post. It's just that with the new rules, at times, people try to twist around what someone has posted in order to "catch" them in a rule violation. Apparently that wasn't your intent so please accept my apology.

I'll try to answer your general question though I will change the scenario a bit. Let's say I have a choice of two candidates:

Candidate A: Hitler
Candidate B: Stalin

Who am I supposed to vote for -- Hitler to prevent Stalin from getting in or Stalin to prevent Hitler from getting in? My choice: I wouldn't vote for either. (Note: I'm not in any way equating Palin and/or Obama to Hitler and/or Stalin. I just used those names to demonstrate my point.) IOW, if I think both choices suck, I may vote third party, I may do a write-in or I may not vote at all. In the end, it's entirely my CHOICE what I do. I don't tell anybody else who they should vote for and/or whether they should even vote. I respect that it's their decision to make and I expect the same in return. I don't think that's asking too much, what with it being a free country and all.

And I fully agree with you that attempting to order others around and tell them what they HAVE to do in an online forum is, well, a fruitless endeavor at best and likely to backfire. Unfortunately, I see a lot of that here. Persistence brings resistence.

[verges]

211. And what if it's ;

A. Hitler
B. Walter Cronkhit?

I can't accept your premise that all candidates are equal. The democratic process is set up to meet the needs of the most people. It's a greatly flawed system, I'll grant. However, there is no hope if people who should know better willfully undermine it. Do you feel that your feelings are completely unique? Are you so special that no one else could feel the same way about voting? What if all progressives felt that way? Surely the RWers would win by landslides!! Is that an acceptable outcome? President Palin, to me, is not an acceptable outcome.

And I still don't understand how someone who professes an interest in politics could possibly even consider not voting.

Please. Reconsider. Democracy doesn't work if people don't vote.

[Foo Fighter]

214. No, once again, you're dismissing my premise.

I'm stating that if it's a choice between two candidates that I compltely disagree with, where both of them suck the big one, that I either won't vote, will vote for a third-party candidate or will do a write-in. Apparently, that's unacceptable to you.

You state that if all progressives feel the same way, "the right wingers will win in a landslide!!!" Uh, if that's the case, the problem isn't with the progressives but rather with the party that failed to win their votes. Why is it that the voters are always blamed when the fault lies at the feet of the chosen candidates and their associated parties?

I always parse my vote. If and when I see someone on the ballot that I deem worthy of my vote, I will vote for him/her. The initial behind their name denoting their party designation means precisely diddly squat to me. I look at their previous voting record, their policies, what they stand for, etc. Yes, I realize that's a rather unique concept in a country where party means everything and policy means nothing but it's not something I will give up. And I don't expect others to give it up either. Anybody is free to vote or not vote as see feel fit.

If "President Palin" is ever even remotely a threat to win, it would be solely due to her opponents('s) lack of ability to counter her as such in an election. If she's even a remote challenge in any way, I would have to question the aptitude and ability of her competitor since, as the US system allows now, there are only two real (very well-funded) "competitors" for the presidential election. If someone can't wipe the boards with her, well, then they're even dumber than she is and most certainly isn't worthy of my vote.

And if you think democracy actually works, you might want to read through Kevin Phillips' "Wealth and Democracy." It might just possibly open your eyes to what's really going on. What passes for "democracy" in this country is nothing but a sham that allows the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer. If you have more than two firing neurons, you'll understand what he's talking about.

Another book in the same vein is Michael Parenti's "Democracy for the Few." I haven't actually read the current version as my library has yet to carry it it but I have read a few excerpts and, if you can afford to buy it and/or your library had it, you might educate yourself just a bit as to just how flawed the so-callled concept of "democracy" in this country really is,

[Zhade]

201. Ever heard of the First Amendment? Our right to speak is not contingent on our voting habits.

Never have been, never will be.

We in fact DO have the right to bitch, period. Don't like it? Oh fucking well.

[verges]

203. Just because you have a legal right doesn't make it right.

If you don't care enough to vote, why should anybody listen to your political opinions?

[Foo Fighter]

206. Well said!

People seem to forget that this is a free country. Well, at least in theory anyway.

[moriah]

176. Actually, it's more like saying if you DO choose to shop there....

... then you don't have the right to bitch. After all, you're choosing to give them your money. If you really don't like them, shop elsewhere, but if you're giving them your money actions speak louder than words.

If you don't care about our country enough to go vote, but then complain to all that will listen about the state of our country... well, actions speak louder than words there too.

[Foo Fighter]

193. By that logic, if you DO vote, you don't have the right to bitch.

After all, by voting, you're showing you have full confidence in a system and believe in it. If the election doesn't turn out the way you want, you should just accept it and not complain.

There's a myriad of reasons that people don't vote. Hell, in most elections almost half the country doesn't vote. From those I have talked to, the two most common reasons they DID'T vote was because a lack of choice of candidates and/or not believing in the system. They also tended to be very active so it's not like they're just sitting around doing nothing.

[moriah]

196. You still don't get it, do you?

Do you feel sorry for someone who is out of a job, but instead of trying to find one sits on the couch and watches TV all day? A person who has been pounding the pavement trying to find work that is suitable for their skills might still be unemployed given this economy, but at least they're trying to do something about it.

Yes, I'm aware that nearly half of the country doesn't vote, and it saddens me. If all of those people think the candidates presented by the two largest parties are so awful or the system is so corrupt, they could all vote for a third-party candidate and WIN -- half of the vote vs 1/4 or so for each of the larger parties. But by keeping silent, they are perpetuating the system they say they hate so much. Their actions are not matching their words.

I may think Republicans are insane, and people who vote third party misguided unless they have a plan to motivate all of the non-voting people in this country to actually go to the voting booth, but I do have a certain amount of respect for them for at least trying to make their voice be heard. But I have absolutely no respect for someone who bitches about the system when they aren't willing to take a little time out of their lives to go to the voting booth.

And since you say they were trying, just how are they "active"? Are they door-knocking? Are they phone-banking? Or are they just discussing things and clicking online petitions or letter generators without bothering to edit the original text? (You know how little the congress-critters actually pay attention to the form letters in those online drives, if you take the time to put it in your own words why you want them to vote a certain way, they're a hell of a lot more likely to listen.)

If the fate of your country doesn't matter enough to you to step outside of your house and go vote, even if it's for a candidate that I do not support, I have no respect for you.

Just my opinion.

[Foo Fighter]

207. I'm afraid that you're the one that doesn't get it.

First off, your analogy with an unemployed person sitting on their ass vs. a person actively deciding not to vote doesn't wash. They're not the same at all.

You say that all the people that don't vote could potentially vote for a third-party person and win so why don't they? Well, there's the little issue of having a whole bunch of "third parties," none of which have much traction and certainly not in all 50 states. Then there's the issue of overcoming the hurdles of ballot access, raising the many, many, many billions of dollars to go head-to-head with the other parties, M$M access (yeah, good luck with that) and on and on. In an ideal world, it would be simple but the world we live in is far from ideal. Which is realy too bad IMHO.

And you still don't get it. It's not the matter of "taking time out of their lives" to go to the voting booth. There are a whole lof of people out there that don't BELIEVE in the system in the first place, hence they DON'T want to "legitimize" it by casting a vote. IOW, they DON'T believe that by voting for a "representative," their interests will be represented. It would take a while for me to explain it to you and, quite frankly, I just don't have the time (not to mention that others could explain it far better than I) but suffice it to say their beef is with the problems inherent in the system and thus, they won't support it. Voting is a form of support and hence, they abstain.

OK, now why in the hell would you think that someone that doesn't believe in the system and isn't going to vote would volunteer to door-knock or phone-bank? Online petitions and worthless letters to Congress? Ha! Not hardly. You really don't get it, do you? There are a LOT of other ways to be active. Most that I have spoken with are very active at the LOCAL level, you know, where they can actually AFFECT REAL CHANGE. You've heard of Ithaca Hours and BerkShares? Well, one of the guys I know was starting up something similar in his local community. That's activism. Step back a bit and take the blinders off and you might discover that there's a whole other world out there.

"If the fate of your country doesn't matter enough to you to step outside of your house and go vote, even if it's for a candidate that I do not support, I have no respect for you."

So, if I decided to get off my ass and vote for some goddamn obnoxious, repulsive Repuke, you'd suddenly respect me? Yeah, somehow I doubt that.

You don't respect people that don't vote. Well, I have no respect for people that have no tolerance for allowing others to make their OWN damn choices and decisions. If people want to vote, that's fine with me. If not, that's OK too. In the end, it's THEIR decision and THEIRS alone and I respect that. I just don't see why others can't do the same.

[moriah]

213. If you honestly thought they were the best people for the job....

... I would think you were an idiot, but I would still respect you for participating in choosing the government you think is best.

Government is NOT just federal. You talk about working locally, then at the same time denigrate party-building because it looks too damn hard? The way you build a party is starting locally. If 50% of the country doesn't vote, then that means 50% of your town doesn't vote for mayor, city council, sheriff, or judges. You think the people who are supposed to represent you don't do it well? Then find someone you think would do a good job, or run yourself, and get the 50% of people who don't vote to vote your way. It doesn't take the millions of dollars you're thinking of to win local elections. But that is how a party is built. And even if it doesn't leave your city or your county or your state, at least you've made your local government better.

You say they don't like "the system". What do they pose as an alternative? If you think "the system" is so awful, try living without one on the local level. I don't know if your ideal of the way you want to live is in a community with no police and no organization, no ability to prosecute crime, settle disputes between people when they aren't being happy shiny people holding hands (maybe one of them says he only got one HOUR note for two hours of work?) or organize a garbage service. If a town where muggers can run rampant and trash piles up on the street because no trucks come by to take it away doesn't particularly sound like your version of utopia, then you like having a local government. And that means that somehow, there does have to be SOME system in place to take care of those issues -- and the only way to make that system into what you want it to be, to make it legitimate, is to participate!

I've been involved with the Intentional Community movement for 12 years now. For people to work in groups, there has to be some kind of organization, some kind of system. In smaller ICs, things can be decided easily enough by a consensus circle since you can get everybody effected in a room to discuss what crops they want to plant, who is going to cook dinner, and what all groceries the community needs to buy that they doesn't grow themselves, etc. But if Jane doesn't speak up and say she wants to make some TVP chilli for supper next week and therefore she needs more beans purchased, she shouldn't bitch when there aren't enough beans for the meal she had planned.

But when the IC gets larger, like, let's say, Eastwind (approx. 60 adults) or Twin Oaks (approx. 80 adults) there does have to be some form of representative government.... as those communities and others like them have learned. Town hall format is still used for a lot of decisions, and either consensus or majority vote for various policy changes, but they still have people who are nominated and voted into various roles in the community to represent them. People tout Athens as a "true democracy", but even then, the men that made the decisions were representing their wives and families. There is a reason why representative government has been successful for as long as it has... because it works better and is a hell of a lot more fair than most other forms of government capable of addressing the needs of a large population.

And you know what else? Those people at Eastwind, Twin Oaks, other ICs that are large enough to be mostly self-supporting and autonomous, using barter more than cash, addressing as much as possible by consensus and town-hall style formats for their own government? They vote in county, state, and national elections.... because not even the most autonomous collective is unaffected by the decisions made at higher levels of government. And they want to have a say in who is going to nominate Supreme Court justices who might rule on a case that affects them or people in their membership. They want a say in who is going to sign or veto bills on the state level that might affect the land adjacent to their own.

"The system" might suck, but it's the best we've got so far. Do you have a better suggestion?

[Zhade]

199. A ridiculous saying, of course. We forfeit nothing.

I won't be voting for Obama again, and will NOT shut up either. Deal with it.

[moriah]

202. As I said, your choice.

That person was saying they were going to sit out of the election entirely. If that's what you plan to do, that's your choice as well. But don't expect me to respect you if you decide to sit out of the election then bitch about the outcome.

Also, don't expect this forum to be welcoming of anyone who actively works towards Obama's defeat in 2012 should he be the nominee as expected, as they won't be any more welcome than the PUMAs were. As the rules here state, "If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website."

[Foo Fighter]

209. Exactly. n/t

[Techn0Girl]

128. I'm with You ....

I will not be voting this election as well.

Let the Republicans take the remaining wealth of this country.
I don't have anything left to lose personally.

Let them take the wealth , the hope and our freedoms.
Let the corporations and the Wealthy rule the country.

Americans will either rise up against it if it gets bad enough - and finally effect real change - or they will get exactly what they deserve.

[katandmoon]

143. It's not just the Republicans who are taking it.

And I just can't help out their helpers any more.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

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

[sendero]

129. Or mine..

.. I will join you.

[SocialistLez]

185. Vote Green. Please don't sit out. NT

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

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

[Hissyspit]

5. DU References:

DUer readnomore quoted...

An even harsher assessment comes from a liberal commenter at Democratic Underground:

"I'm not criticizing Obama for failing to be perfect. I'm criticizing him for failing to be mediocre. Perfect = courageously calling out union-busters, supporting EFCA, pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq, boldly championing LGBT rights and shaming the bigots, ending torture, debushification on par with denazification/Kruschev's destalinization. Mediocre = fighting against union busters and supporting EFCA -- but being less bold and more apologetic, pulling out of Iraq with the help of the UN and drawing down troops in Afghanistan, announcing no expansion into Pakistan and Yemen. Overturning DOMA, DADT. Piss poor = abandoning and shaming unions, abandoning EFCA, continuing to build grotesque and palatial US bases in Iraq/Afghanistan, surge in Afghanistan, continuing renditions/murders/abductions, expanding Bagram (which also houses a black site torture prison), making it legal to assassinate US citizens abroad "suspected" of terrorism, cowardly and shameful on LGBT issues -- can't even fully champion DADT at wartime with LGBT soldiers returning in bodybags, Bush et. al given a pass."

And DUer cherokeeprogressive:

At DU, the civil war plays out daily and is well summed up here:

"We've become fractured as a family. Those of us with the most emotional investment in Barack Obama's presidency have come to see those with the most at stake (i.e. gays like my daughter) as threats to a "successful" presidency simply because we refuse to take a back seat to anyone else's agenda, and vice versa. We've lost our focus."

[WillyT]

6. And... The UnReccers Are Afoot...

What... you're not proud of DU being cited???

I am.

:shrug:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. I'm proud too, WillyT, and I just gave you another rec!

:patriot:

[WillyT]

11. Thanks CP !!!

:loveya:

:hi:

[msongs]

12. the governing strategy seems to be "better than Nothing". one way to do it I guess nt

[Robb]

19. You're using "cited" incorrectly

...the word you're looking for is "played."

And no, I'm not proud of DU being played.

[WillyT]

26. Thank You For Your Concern...

:eyes:

[Robb]

29. Don't be so coy. It's working quite well.

At least step up and take a little credit.

[WillyT]

30. If I Knew What The Hell You Were Talking About, I Just Might...

What EXACTLY, is your concern?

:shrug:

[Robb]

35. There are, as I have said since the beginning of the year, only two kinds of news stories.

There appear to be more, of course. In each news cycle, the media will offer a thousand stories on politics, the wars, the economy.

All of them will slant to do one of two things, and sometimes both: divide the left and embolden the right.

Which do you think this darling of a piece does? :D

[WillyT]

38. It Explains Fairly Accurately What's Going On On The Left...

What... you think nobody is noticing???

You think that by not facing it/openly discussing it, it will somehow magically go away?

I'm thinking that by looking at it, and coming to a better understanding of it, we just might be able to MEND IT.

:shrug:

[Robb]

42. The "left" as you categorize it is being played.

Nothing more, nothing less. Polling repeatedly bears out there is no "civil war" on the left. There is little if not nothing to mend.

It's very hard to admit to being played. It takes a strength of character the right believes the left does not have. They appear to be correct, if the blogosphere teapot tempest is any indication. I do not however think so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x163797">Please:

...This is the same media who a year ago we knew couldn't be trusted to report accurately on the color of the sky if it somehow helped progressives. But now we jump at every "OMG teh Democrats are actually secret fascist warmongerers!!11!" story they throw out there.

We are in a lull at the moment. Don't be fooled. This eye of the storm was brought on by a weekend, nothing else. We slap one another's backs, they are ready to twist reality anew on Monday....

This is not complicated. It is politics, and it is not new.

[WillyT]

45. Well If Polling Says There's No Civil War On The Left... What're You Worrying About ???

:shrug:

[Robb]

46. The propaganda being catapulted, actually.

Which it is, rather nicely. And I don't believe you really get any joy from it. That part has to be an act.

[RainDog]

58. if there's no "civil war" then why were so many liberals disgusted by Obama's HCR?

and the fact that the public option was taken off the table before the negotiations even started?

if there's no civil war, why were so many so repulsed that Obama put Warren in the inaugural and promoted the lying shitbag "I'm cured of the gay" asshole preacher?

you're projecting your own wishes onto the situation.

there are PLENTY of people who think the democratic party is DISGUSTING - but they also know they have no option at the voting booth.

I was called recently to work for the campaign for the democratic rep. in my district. I said I wouldn't because of his votes. On the 4th of July a kid came by asking me to sign a pledge to vote and I said I wouldn't.

I asked him if he knew this rep's vote on the latest unemployment extension act. He ASSUMED the guy had voted to extend unemployment b/c the guy has a "d" after his name. I told the kid to go look it up.

what the democrats have to worry about is people who get to the point that they don't think the party represents their views and that the party is too often indistinguishable from republican stances on issues like unions, civil rights, and war the rich are waging on the middle class and poor. those people aren't going to spend time arguing on du - they just aren't going to bother to vote.

[Robb]

61. 81% of Democrats approve of Obama's performance this week.

...And I believe that's near a record low. :shrug:

Don't blame me, blame Gallup.

[RainDog]

64. how many of them are like that kid who had no idea which way the his rep voted

on a huge issue - and this kid was marching in the 4th of july parade with the dems.

the media doesn't present information about issues time after time - Obama wins the popularity contest against... who? Palin? Beck? of course.

21% of Americans have no idea that we won our independence from the British, either.

but, honestly, I'm not here to argue with you. I'm just letting you know that people who are aware of issues are not happy with democrats and some of them are becoming too discouraged to vote.

the WaPo has an article today that notes that Obama is losing white independent voters - who, btw, had lower turn outs in this last prez election than the previous one.

how many of those are stupid Americans who think the only way to express dissatisfaction is to vote for "the other guy?" I dunno. neither do you.

but, honestly, let's just keep posting photos of Obama in a bathing suit and the American public will vote for him and continue to get the shitty representation they do. at this point, I'm just about beyond giving a fuck.

[Robb]

65. You're speaking in anecdotes, I'm speaking with data.

I can appreciate why you feel the world is as you do, of course.

[RainDog]

94. the WaPo article is data

as is the data about how ignorant a sizable segment of the American population is.

as far as my anecdotes - I talk to people every day about things like this. Take it for what you think it's worth. I know very few people who voted for Obama who are happy with his performance.

The day before that young man displayed his ignorance of the votes of the guy he was campaigning for, another person in my town that I'd never met before told me he was experiencing something like "voter remorse."

the point is that they aren't going to vote for a republican - they're just disappointed with Obama's performance. Obama could change that. But he seems to be happy with catering to the crowd he does...which is why so many people that I know no longer support him - even if they do not actively campaign against him.

So, the whole world doesn't feel as you do, either.

[Robb]

98. So you're not exactly hearing rumbles of "civil war," then?

Which is rather my point.

Of course the whole world doesn't feel as I do. What an agreeably boring world it would be. :)

[RainDog]

103. I hear a lot of conscientious objections

that there are not better choices to vote for - I hear a lot of anger and disappointment.

maybe you could call it a cold war - as in, a lot of people feel cold toward the democratic party and have no interest in helping elect the candidates that are offered up by the party.

people I know are putting their money and time into causes that are not related to the party b/c the party is so full of hacks it's a waste of time and energy to expect something good from them.

John Stewart calls them incompetent. I call them out of touch with the reality of American life for the majority of people in this nation - who want good health care, a solid social security safety net, living wages, an end to wars of choice and/or aggression (i.e. Iraq), an end to torture as national policy and respect for rights to privacy.

[hfojvt]

169. how can people be so aware of issues and yet so clueless?

Here's a clue. The unemployment extension passed the house. So the "betrayal" of your rep, really does not matter one whit to the final result. Here's another clue, it passed the house because the house has a majority of DEMOCRATS.

But that's okay right? There's no need to give a rat's patootie. People can just quit voring or quit voting for Democrats and they won't have to worry about having sh*tty representation any more.

[Mojorabbit]

182. When the DCC

called me for a donation I gave them an earful and she said almost everyone she had called had the same concerns. That tells me part of the base is very unhappy. Shrug.

[WillyT]

67. Ok... So I Have You Telling Me There's No Civil War... Nothing To Worry About...

yet I'm somehow "catapulting the propaganda" that at least two other left leaning blogs are openly discussing.

Then I have somebody at post #60 telling me that the blogosphere is irrelevant, and too self-important.

So if there is not civil war on the left, and the irrelevant blogosphere is the only place this is being discussed...

Again... what are we to be worried about?

:shrug:

[Robb]

81. We, nothing. You, perhaps.

I take back what I said earlier, your glee may indeed be genuine.

[WillyT]

82. Well I'm Sorry You're So Sad...

Try to have a nice day.

:hi:

[Robb]

86. You're delighted at the prospect, however dim, of Democrats being defeated?

My days are going to be tons better. :D

[EFerrari]

88. Robb, instead of putting words in other poster's mouths

why don't you address the article?

[Bluebear]

89. Because nobody is possibly as brilliant as he?

[RainDog]

96. why is it okay for him to attack and accuse WillyT?

of glee, etc?

kill the messenger? something rotten in the state of denmark?

[Robb]

100. The OP admitted to his own glee, I went through no door not opened for me.

...That my line of questioning is somehow an "attack" is laughable.

I attacked the message -- and the replies were all directed toward me, not my argument.

Comedy, and frankly cribbing from House Republicans' playbook, to claim to be the victim now. The OP does not, why do you? :hi:

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

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

[Bluebear]

107. Don't insult Denmark.

:0

[Robb]

97. No, you're DU's resident genius.

Crown's all yours. :hi:

[Bluebear]

101. Thanks for the compliment. You're usually telling us how smart *you* are!

:hi: I don't know what happened to you over the years, but something sure did. You and I won't be running into each other anymore here, so good luck!

[Robb]

102. I leave it to you.

...You usually show people. :hi:

[Bluebear]

104. Damn, didn't edit my ignore message in time, so just to repeat...

We won't be seeing each other here again. good luck to you.

[Robb]

105. I'll still see you

...You will increasingly see a reflection that does not resemble reality. That's the good part of the ignore feature, I suppose.

Good luck back at you.

[ooglymoogly]

134. Lame.

[Bluebear]

163. Like I care.

/ignore too. Put my lame ass on ignore so you won't have to listen to me.

[ooglymoogly]

190. Why would I put a good giggle and snort on ignore? nt

[Generic Other]

51. The only ones who played me are the ones who advanced my agenda as candidates

And then followed a different course when in office.

[WillyT]

63. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said...

:applause::applause::applause:

[mmonk]

125. That's it.

And it has been done.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[MisterP]

95. I myself don't think it's "on the left"--that is, left v. left--but left v. center and some liberals

especially given that the ones saying "this is the best of all possible worlds" don't even bother defending the WH's glaring sins of commission, and only assume that lefties are riding them unfairly because "they're advancing a progressive agenda too slowly": the left says that all the facts and information points to a rather conservative WH; the center/Loyalists say that "he's the most liberal President in 42 years" based solely on selected liberish laws (which would pale against the conservative laws if they were ever compared--which is why they never compare them)

[sabrina 1]

153. The news media didn't cause the divide in the Democratic Party.

Policy did that. Policies like lifting the ban on Offshore Drilling, like not even trying to fight for real Health Care reform and maintaining and saving the failing, corrupt, predatory, for-profit Private Insurance Industry by handing them a windfall.

Policies like not holding war criminals accountable. Or like refusing to give gays the right to serve in the military.

Or not shutting down Guantanamo Bay and turning a blind eye to torture in Bagram and elsewhere.

Policies like retaining Bush war mongers like Gates. And keeping on those who caused the financial meltdown like Bernanke and Geithner and Rahm Emanuel as COS. No matter how angry people were about it.

But with just a few nasty comments from the fringes of the rabid right, the same administration had no problem kicking people like Van Jones out of their 'big tent', or Acorn who probably did more to help get them elected than any other organization.

And then the attack on teachers, on unions and on progressives. Republicans did less to demonize the 'left' than this administration has.

Not to mention the 'let them eat Cat Food Commission' and the President apparently unable to find real economists to put on it, instead he puts enemies of SS like Alan Simpson and Pete Peterson, Erskine Bowles etc. all lying about SS while the president declares himself to be 'agnostic' on this issue.

I don't agree with the Daou on what caused the split in the party. It is between those who have the attitude of 'my party right or wrong' and those who care more about this country than any political party.

I don't pay much attention to the media, I follow what people DO, not what they SAY.

So let's place the blame where it belongs and give credit to people for not being stupid enough to base their opinions on the U.S. media. It is the last place I look to for real news.

[defendandprotect]

157. +1000% --

[Robb]

170. What divide?

DU is not the Democratic Party. It never has been. Had it been we would've nominated Kucinich at every turn.

There may be a divide on DU, but among Democrats this administration has an 81% approval rating as of this morning. And I believe that's near an all-time low.

...Is that a divide? A "civil war?"

"I don't pay much attention to the media." :rofl: That's the funniest thing I've heard all day, and it's been a funny, funny day. :patriot:

[sabrina 1]

175. Well of course if we were only talking about DU there wouldn't

be a problem and the Dems wouldn't be worried about the upcoming election.

Nor would many members of Congress who are beginning to wonder why the WH is not supporting them the way former Democratic administrations have done. They're getting a little worried about their own reelection. And not happy that after alienating supporters to help the WH, they're not getting much help from the WH now, when THEY need it.

Democrat in Chief?

A year and a half after they sat, shivering and awestruck, on a January morning and listened to the sounds of a million cheers careering off the marble walls of the Capitol, the Democrats who work under the dome can feel those same walls closing in fast. Throughout the dismal spring, it seemed as if every visiting delegation that drove up in a coach bus — Main Street merchants, family farmers, Rotarians and Elks — arrived with tales of angst and unrest back home. Every well-paid pollster who came through the door brought with him a stack of surveys and focus-group memos, each more dispiriting than the last, numbers portending an emphatic rejection of the majority in this fall’s elections.

..........

And then there was the president — their president — who for 17 months had cajoled them into taking tough votes on stimulus spending, on the trading of carbon emissions, on health care. Barack Obama, the postpartisan president. He continued to go out and shake his head disbelievingly at “the culture of Washington,” which to the Democrats in the House sounded as if he were saying that his own party was the problem, as if somehow the Democratic majorities in Congress hadn’t managed to navigate the bulk of his ambitious agenda past a blockade of Republican vessels, their ship shredded by cannon fire. And all this while the president’s own approval ratings fell below 50 percent — an ominous sign, historically speaking, for a majority party.

It seems that when this President wants something, he CAN get it after all, but Democrats in Congress don't feel he gives much in return!! Does that sound familiar? It does to a growing number of people.

Anyhow, even Congress seems to be pretty divided from this WH. They let US down by going along with the WH on issues they KNEW were not popular with democrats. They thought that would buy them help in their reelection campaigns, but it looks like they, like the rest of us, are only worth talking to when the WH needs something.

Read it, it's a long but interesting article. You might not feel like laughing after you read it though, so on second thoughts, maybe you shouldn't! :-)

[lordsummerisle]

172. +1 n/t

[IndianaGreen]

173. K&R

Right on!

:kick:

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

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

[HughMoran]

77. You have it exactly right

We're being played as fools.

It's shameful that some think this is a good thing.

[inna]

85. The word "cited" was used absolutely correctly.

[harun]

183. 113 recs and you still need to whine about UnReccer's?

[Robb]

204. LOL nt

[WillyT]

210. Said The Man At Post #183 In Repsonse To Post #6...

Almost 24 hours later.

:facepalm:

[SargeUNN]

9. can't argue too much with the article

I have seen enough here myself to agree it is a fair article. I have seen such wrongful post as Obama hasn't done anything which is totally wrong and when corrected these people stood by it anyway. I think we have those here who aren't progressives that want to stir up and divide us but I think we have some who just are angry and want change at a rate that isn't possible. In this world today we expect instant everything including reform but refuse to accept that in this political climate getting anything done is quite and accomplishment. I personally have seen the damage those who won't even credit Obama with anything do damage here in Arizona and some are good decent people who are so angry they don't get they are hurting the very things they want. We turn on each other we are not going to do anything but strength the wrong ones.

[sendero]

138. I'm sorry..

... that I'm not willing to accept, much less applaud, the total control of our government by business interests.


And that is EXACTLY what we have. And while it is not all Obama's fault, I see him doing NOTHING about it, so I blame him.

You can call me irrational or a purist or whatever. You are wrong.

[Jamastiene]

149. That's the whole point.

These problems have been there for a while now. It's certainly not all Obama's fault, but he certainly not stopping that total control either. Corporate control of our government is the elephant in the room that so many do not seem to be able to see.

[sendero]

151. Even token blows..

.. against the corporate empire would go a long way with me. But we are getting not even those.

The financial "reform" bill, with loads of bullshit consumer "protection" that isn't worth a bucket of warm spit, while allowing the REAL problem, BANKS TRADING DERIVATIVES WITH TAXPAYER BACKSTOP, goes completely unchallenged.

Regulatory capture - no, regulatory neutered lock stock and barrel.

[redqueen]

13. K&R

[IOKIYAL]

14. Sigh... when will you all get it? The media only talks about you (The Left)

when you are mad at Obama or refer to you as "critics say" when there is disagreement over something republicans did or say. You are being used to create a narrative that's not based on any facts and you just lap it up thinking that people are actually listening.

[JoeyT]

18. So more or less exactly how the party treats us.

We're awesome when they need our votes. Then when it's time to craft policy we're just a bunch of crazy people that are obviously too detached from reality to bother listening to.

[emulatorloo]

22. That's not exactly what the article is about.

[JoeyT]

36. Oh, I know.

I was responding to the claim that the media only pays attention to the left when we're useful to them.

[EFerrari]

74. Seriously.

:dilemma:

[Hissyspit]

24. And how do you propose we NOT speak up about the things that are important?

About the things that we have ALWAYS spoken up about? How do you propose we NOT be used as symbols for hypocrisy by the media and the Right for NOT speaking up about the things that the Obama administration does wrong, which we criticized the Bush administration and the Right for those same things?

I use FACTS all the time, thank you very much. Any useful suggestions besides 'just shut up?' and 'don't get mad when the administration trashes you?'

I actually "get" a lot of things.

This magical world where Obama was never going to get criticized from the left is not going to exist and was never going to exist.

[SargeUNN]

41. Speaking up is one thing, giving up is another

seems people aren't understanding the difference. I have coached teams that were at the bottom of the barrel who looked hopeless and when I took over the team there were those who suddenly expected a championship the first season which was unrealistic, but they expected it. When the team lost their first few games people started saying I didn't know how to coach, that I would never produce a winner, went to other key people to try and get me removed, attacked me even when signs of improvement were surfacing. Suddenly one day the team hit their stride and started to win (in fact never lost another game during that season) and by the end of the season they tied for first place and won the championship game. The ones so against me during the beginning suddenly wanted to claim credit and be important to the program, but I wasn't going to include them on that level because they had actually retarded the work. I would have welcomed their constructive input but instead they chose to be destructive and instead of approaching me and having a discussion in a decent way they attacked me behind my back viciously.

Today we have those who refuse any credit to Obama, and instead of constructive critism they use vicious attacks calling him names that the right wing use, refuse to acknowledge anything, and worse try to sell lies and half truths.

Sure I disagree with Obama on things, I have called and told the White House, I have stated on air that I thought he was wrong, but I also offered ideas, stated my support of him, and stated what he has done right. I had callers who would then call in and say I was a cheerleader, but truth is those didn't know what they were talking and don't even have the understanding to know that a cheerleader will state disagreement with a coach. We really need to just remember the real enemy is the right wing.

[EFerrari]

71. Yes, the right wing media does that. So?

That they will always try that narrative is besides the point. No one laps that up. When are you going to get that we are not a mirror of the right and that we do things in our own way, which involves dissent and discussion?

[JHB]

20. Thank you.

A welcome change from some recent flamebait threads.

[supernova]

25. KnR

These are fair cites of our debates here.

And I'm not embarrassed by it. It's part of what we are.

[WillyT]

28. Exactly !!!

:hi:

[supernova]

31. keep up the good work WillyT

:hi:

[WillyT]

34. Thanks SN !!!

:hi:

[Monique1]

50. No way, no how

will I give my vote away to a repuke. I support Obama although I might disagree with him at times. I will not spend relentless time bashing him and give the right wingers talking points.

Do remember the many years the NO Saints were horrible? Did their fans give up? No, they kept rooting for them and look what happened at the last Super Bowl! So, those who want to keep bashing Obama keep it coming! Just hope you enjoy your bashing when the repukes take over all branches of government in 2012. It appears that bashing is the thing to do now no matter who is leading. I thought when Obama won the election our side would come together but I read otherwise.

If you all read the beginning of threads here most of them are negative against Obama. Just remember negativism is catchy. If you look hard enough, you can find fault with anything. I do think there are more repukes and teabaggers on this board than we realize to upset the apple cart.

So if you want to sit out the next presidential election go ahead but don't come complaining that the repukes are in charge of this country again. How can you say after 1 1/2 yrs you have already made your decision how you plan to vote or not to vote in 2012. It appears it is a wee bit too early to make a final decision. Sounds like I will sit out the election in 2012 is a repuke talking point. Just saying.

I worked in management for several years, those who say they want change don't really want it unless it is their way. Change takes time. In most cases change comes in baby steps because of those who are so entrenched in their ways.

[Luminous Animal]

32. Chis Bowers response is well worth reading, too.

http://openleft.com/diary/19354/on-the-progressive-divide

[KoKo]

69. Yes...Bower's view is a very good read and the comments by his readers

also are worth a look.

[jgraz]

37. K&R

[myrna minx]

40. K&R n/t

[JackRiddler]

44. There is not a civil war on the left over Barack Obama - false framing and rhetoric.

Some would like to present it as a "civil war over Obama" because that's the way to make it urgent for those defined as "Obama's critics" to shut up before the Republicans take power again.

I basically agree with the article but urge the author to avoid this form of rhetoric.

The fault lines are not so clear that it should be called a "war," and furthermore the conflict is not and should not be about Obama, the president, at all.

It's about the grave failures, moral wrongs and intractable crises of the corporate-dominated system of political economy, which Obama, the president, is either not addressing or addressing in a false fashion.

What you have on the left are varying degrees of tolerance for the continuance of disastrous policies by the Obama administration.

Some of these are longstanding problems (the energy, banking and military-industrial sectors), some of these are specific Bush inheritances (Afghanistan escalation and most of the "war on terror" policies continuing under new slogans).

Again, to say this is about "Obama" already greatly reduces the debate and favors those who want to make it a question of simple partisanship or loyalty to a leader.

This isn't about a leader, it's about policies and principles.

[tom_paine]

53. Well said, Jack. The Corporate M$M/RW Lie Machine fusion sure does love making everything about

"personalities".

Keeps them from having honest policy discussions.

But to me the most amusing quote from the article is this, "Perhaps the White House should take more notice, since the contours of Obama's legacy are being sketched by the two sides in this Democratic civil war and not by Republicans, the media, pundits, or historians."

(slaps forehead)

Has this fellow been on the nod for the past dozen years? There is NOTHING in this country that isn't framed, defined, redefined, and laundered into "conventional wisdom" by the RW Lie Machine and it's cowed pet Corporate M$M.

A person can wander this country every day for a year and find demonstrable RW Lies, even those 100% debunked several times, held as absolute belief. Not by TeaBaggers or rabid Rushpublics (though they do hold them, too), but by plain old "disinterested" Americans, independants and even some Democrats.

Because, as one CBS correspondent returning from another major power fallen under the spell of RW Authoritarian Lies 77 years ago, "The propaganda just sort of seeps in."

So much of the problem, as it was 77 years ago in Germany, is the Liberal Tendency to over-analyze and bend over backwards to be fair. Unfortunately, this is seen as a weakness to be exploited by the RW Authoritarians.

The points you bring up are quite true, but are painful truths and therefore subject to people's seeming limitless capacity to deny what's right in front of them, if it's too unpleasant. So people turn away and seek more "conventional" answers.

Unfortunately, trying to find the answers by building on the "conventional wisdom" of a nation that is dominated by RW Authoritarian Lies, Misinformation and Disinformation, is futile, to say the least.

But "the propaganda just seeps in", as this article clearly demonstrates.

[JackRiddler]

55. Thanks, and kudos for the long, intelligent comments.

[Vinnie From Indy]

164. Yep!

Our media is merely the latest greatest propaganda platform yet devised by humankind. The fundamental messages of hate, racism, scapegoating and fear used by the RW has not changed for thousands of years.

If one ever needed proof that the mainstream media in America is fully on board with doing the bidding of the powerful one need only look at the start of the Iraq war. Immediately after 9/11 there was hardly anyone in America that associated Saddam with the attacks. Within two years, over 50% (maybe even more) of Americans believed that Saddam had a hand in the 9/11 attacks. That idea did not spontaneously pop into millions of Americans heads at the same time. It was carefully, deliberately and repeatedly put there by our mainstream media using a myriad techniques.

I guess one can only hope that the pain of economic collapse will focus thoughts about these issues in more Americans minds.

[Mimosa]

56. ITA it's about policies and principles, not personalities & posted it many times. n/t

[EFerrari]

80. Well, for you it is. I tend to look at systems, too, and not individuals.

But for other people, this is certainly about Obama, and they'd probably view the way we frame the issue as impractical and detached from political reality.

[JackRiddler]

83. That definition of "political reality" is a big part of the problem.

Real reality is breaking it down, but people remain under its spell. Those who can define for the people the real reality that won't go away (the Gulf, the economic crisis, the inevitable bankruptcy of the empire and its lost cause in Afghanistan, the growing dispossessed masses) will also get to redefine the "political reality" of parties and personalities. Most real change does not come gradually, it happens quickly and redefines the bounds of "political reality." You would think people had learned that lesson from the bold-strokes transformations of the early Bush years. All the great politicians - FDR, for example - understand this. Such seem to be scarce nowadays, but the hole for big narratives to explain real reality is going to be filled, like any vacuum. It won't be covered up by technocratic fiddling around at the edges. It would be wise not to let the Tea Partiers keep poking around in Big Narrative territory unchallenged. The DLC gradualist schtick may have "worked" to the satisfaction of its runners in the triumphalist 1990s. It's completely inadequate for a time of global earthquakes.

[EFerrari]

87. Usually when people start talking about the Real reality

it only means they have trouble moving between frames. :)

[JackRiddler]

118. A sarcastic response that eludes the point. Or perhaps...

...it's just a matter of agreeing on definitions.

As I consider you friend on this board, I'll try.

Reality is a construct of perceptions, thought to be of the real world, as arranged within one's frame. Part of that construct is personal, part consists in acts of consensus and convention between people, and part actually forces its way in from the outside world.

The part that forces its way in, which I called "real reality" for fun, is making mincemeat of the "political reality" as defined by those who orient themselves to parties and personality leadership, those who hold the supposedly "pragmatic" consideration that these are the necessary mediators in speaking to people and "getting anything done" because "that's how it works" and you can't overload people with ideas and utopias and radical changes and boring programmatic statements.

Instead, what is speaking to people increasingly is a real degraded environment for humans, real hunger and want, real helplessness in the face of systemic breakdowns. The US ability to carry its bloated, useless empire and its wars is also coming to an end. In such a context, people want, need idealist big narratives to explain their place in the world and what to do. It is a moment for bold strokes statements, and I sure hope that need is not going to be filled by the total charlatans of the right. But if Obama (who showed such a talent for tapping into the moment in 2008) wants to avoid that for the conventionally defined, old "political reality," that's what is likely to happen. So there is nothing pragmatic about a gradualist position in the midst of political and economic earthquakes. It's just a different form of suicide.

[EFerrari]

130. Oh, I wasn't being sarcastic or directing the comment at you, JR.

I was thinking about all the times people say "you're out of touch with reality" when they mean "see it my way".

[JackRiddler]

136. I see. Well then, thumbs up and damn the torpedoes.

[nashville_brook]

155. absofreakinglutely.

[defendandprotect]

159. Agree . . . it's about "policies and principles" --

and I would add the vast dangers if we don't begin to reverse them shortly --

That's why I want to see someone else running in 2012 --

Grayson, Whitehouse, Feingold -- Give me Ed Schultz, give me Michael Moore --

give me someone who doesn't want to continue wars and who has respect for a "people's"

government vs a corporate government --

not to mention a MIC/CIA government --

[Catherina]

167. I wish I could recommend your post n/t

[Shining Jack]

174. I totally agree. n/t

[Deep13]

47. Not every disagreement is a fucking "war."

No shooting and killing = no war.

[defendandprotect]

160. Agree -- this is more like the liberal/progressives saying "enough" -- !!

[Mimosa]

54. No matter which side, D.U. is the hottest site there is. n/t

[defendandprotect]

161. Nothing being said here which isn't being said by liberals/progressives outside DU --

and even more L O U D L Y --!!

[treestar]

60. Oh come on. Blogosphere people trying to make themselves relevant

There's a reason why this guy does not have Rahm's job. They just show their bitterness. Get over losing and think of the country.

[EFerrari]

72. LOL. It 's funny how threatening a little column seems to be.

It's just a column on a website. It can't actually bits anyone.

[HughMoran]

79. Unless you disagree with it

Then it's a 'pack of lies' and damaging to everything one holds dear to them.

[glitch]

124. I think you meant byte anyone. :) nt

[Foo Fighter]

150. Boy, if people think a column is a threat, they should probably avoid

cartoons too. Especially those by Tom Tomorrow. ;)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. It's amusing to see some people here say the left is, simultaneously, irrelevant and powerful. K&R

i.e.

a)The left is irrelevant because it's unrealistic in it's attempt to push policies.

b)The left is powerful enough to destroy Obama's presidency by sitting the election out or voting 3rd party.

[WillyT]

70. Yeah... Weird Huh ???

:shrug:

:hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. Weird? No. Predictable? Yes.

[Blue_Tires]

75. I'd still like to see stronger, more assertive action from Congress

on issues that they don't think Obama is moving fast enough on...

The relative inaction of this timid, so-called "majority" congress should be an even bigger story...

[eleny]

76. Sounds like what I've been reading here for months - K&R

With long time DUers being ts'd and the management taking another look at the rules, it seems like the article sees accurately what's happening in the party.

What's going on is no small thing. Permitting the assassination of American citizens abroad for being suspected of being terrorists was a tipping point for many. What's going on is no family spat. And we all sit on the hard spot with our back to a big rock.

[NJmaverick]

78. This huffington post article is weak. The topic was covered much better by our own GrantCart

in widely discussed prism thread.

[JackRiddler]

84. As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger, "What do you mean we, white man?"

[RainDog]

99. I respect GrantCart, even tho I don't always agree with him.

he's articulate. he tries, for the most part, to avoid insult for its own sake (tho he, like everyone else here, does that too sometimes.)

in the prism article, however, the presentation of various factions did not represent conservative factions in a way that those who disagree with them would view them - this is, at its core, the basic disagreement, imo.

[stevenleser]

187. The strength of the prism post is that he did not present any of the groups like those who disagree

with them see them. Thats the point. That is what makes it fair. No one wants to be portrayed in the way that their most strident critic sees them.

[stevenleser]

178. Yep n/t

[FrenchieCat]

90. I'm not sure why DU is being used as an example,

considering that there are folks here who aren't progressives,
or liberals, but rather moles plotting to sow discord amongs
Democrats during an election season.

[EFerrari]

91. Maybe because moles aren't having this conversation

although some of them may try to manipulate it.

[FrenchieCat]

92. They indeed are part of the DU overall tenor.....

so yes, they have an effect, and they know it.

[EFerrari]

93. You overrate trolls. They can't swing a poll here, for example.

And iirc, the polls we've done lately show that a significant number of posters to DU have issues that aren't been addressed. Add to that, DU as a whole seems to be even more liberal that the few of us who post a lot if recs and polls are any indication.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

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

[truedelphi]

112. I very much agree. n/t

[metapunditedgy]

154. Omigod! You're saying there are trolls who are trying to stir up

criticism against the liberal base of the party???? How could anyone do such a thing??

If I hear criticism of the liberal base from politicians or their staff members, should I consider them right-wing moles, as well?

[defendandprotect]

158. Well, anyone who thinks that DU liberals/progressives are saying something ...

that liberals/progressives everywhere aren't saying, isn't listening!

DU isn't leading the way -- they are mirroring the way --

and reflecting wider sentiments of the public.

[Marr]

212. Hmm... I don't know if you can fit the whole forum under that bus.

At least not while you're still standing on it.

[whatchamacallit]

106. The last sentence in the OP says it all! (nt)

[Danascot]

108. I am always impressed that there is so much

insightful, intelligent and well written commentary here on DU, reflecting a broad range of progressive thought - much of it far superior to the paid commentators who write crap for a living.

[Eyerish]

109. K&R

[derby378]

114. Moral of the story: Obama is not Too Big To Fail

If the Democrats speak up in the 2010 primary, he can be replaced. The only question is whether or not there's a serious challenger to Obama who is willing to become a human lightning rod when it's time to hit the campaign trail.

[NorthCarolina]

116. K&R

:applause:

[KansDem]

117. "I think therefore I rec"

:dem:

[SlipperySlope]

121. This is the heart of our divide

And we have not decided which side we land upon.

[hulka38]

123. The guy overcomplicates the divide.

[underpants]

127. COOL!

:kick:

[Laelth]

131. Bunch of hooey. n/t

-Laelth

[droidamus2]

132. The big problem

I think the big problem with the Obama administration they are in the center politically but they see themselves as being to the left of center. Therefore when they think about strengthening their standing among the independents, who they need to win in 2012, they actually end up helping the right wing in this country.

[ThoughtCriminal]

133. The reasons that the White House should listen

should have little to do with politics.

They should listen to progressives because they have solutions that would actually work to help the economy, save the environment, provide affordable health care, promote more stable international relations, improve the quality of life, and preserve individual and civil rights.

And, while I think that Obama has accomplished far more than many here are willing to give credit, pandering to "Right-center" is not "Smart Politics" because it only helps preserve more of the same problems and non-solutions that have dominated policy for decades.

[yurbud]

135. comment I posted:

I left out my last paragraph only appears on HuffPost, and if you see it there, you'll be able to figure out why.

The author sets up a false dichotomy between incrementalists and "completionists."

Of course compromise is inevitable in politics, but what has disappointed progressives about Obama is what his starting positions have been, whose arms he twisted, and whose backs he patted (and what his staff has undercut behind closed doors).

Pretty consistently, Obama has twisted the arms of progressives in his own party to coerce them to go along with "reforms" drafted by corporate owned excrement like Max Baucus and even Joe Lieberman, who rank and file Democrats across the country contributed to defeat in his primary only to see his Senate colleagues refuse to attack his independent run in the general election.

They weakened health care reform by blocking the most cost effective and effective policy, solely to save for profit health insurance companies who let average Americans die so they can make a few more bucks.

A sitting president can influence assholes like that by threatening to withhold his active support in tough reelection campaigns, but he didn't do it.

More than an ideological betrayal, Obama has betrayed our democracy, but asking corporate criminals how much change they are willing to give us as charity instead of making them get down on all fours, bark like a dog, and be the bitch of the rule of law and democracy.

[flyarm]

144. K&R Thanks for posting WT..!! eom

[BrklynLiberal]

145. Mark for later must read!

[MissDeeds]

147. Thanks for posting this, WillyT

The divisions in the party are there and should be addressed. It's nice to know that DU is seen as a credible site that exemplifies the debate currently taking place.

K&R

[humbled_opinion]

152. This article sums up

My take on the Obama Presidency this far.

[creon]

166. Choices

People do have some hard choices to make. I made mine, basically, in 1968. I withdrew, permanently, from involvement in politics. I witnessed LBJ ruin his presidency, the party and politics in general with the decision to escalate the war in Vietnam. if he had not made that decision, life for all of us would have been much better. But, he made it. So, I think that 1968 was a terrible year for all of us. 1968, in a way, defines today. It poisoned the well.
It means, I think, that any progress will be an inch at a time; as the necessary political will and political courage is gone for my generation. And, perhaps, for my children's generation. This lack of courage and will, I think, defines the situation. And, guarantees that change is so slow and ephemeral that it does not appear to be change at all. Perhaps people younger than I have the wit and the wisdom.

I think that there was no one to vote for in 2008. There was no one with the political and moral courage to face reality; and, call for substantive change. That includes nearly all the federal elective offices: President; HoR, Senate. I can, very easily, see why no one would want any of those offices.
What is to be done? We need a reversal of fortune. I do not know the source of that reversal of fortune. If it does not occur, I see many years of economic, moral and political stagnation. Most of us will go to our own private sphere and live as well as we can.

How shall I vote? Democrat. If for no other reason than inertia.

[defendandprotect]

168. Obama's "Solid Victories" . . . . ?

Are the wars over?

Do we have Medicare for All?

Was it simply a nightmare that Obama is taking up the attacks on Social Security and

Medicare where Bush left off?

This last line does say something --

and whose embrace of his predecessor's shameful legacy on civil liberties, secrecy and national security allowed opponents to paint victory as defeat, thus swaying the nation and severely denuding his accomplishments.


"Glacial pace" . . . ? While the glaciers in reality are melting too fast for most of us ...

Senator Bernie Sanders recommended lost week that rather than Congress going home for the holiday

they should be running 7 day a week sessions until they get all that needs to be done accomplished.


What liberals and progressives are saying is that the Democratic Party has moved so far to the

right that it is rotting from within. Liberals and progressives everywhere are saying "ENOUGH!"


We've been waiting since '06 for the Democrats to end the wars --

Pelosi on video . . . morning after '06 election . . .

"Democrats were elected to end the war!"

Exactly!

And just the reverse has happened -- we've had another four years of re-funding Bush's wars!


Further, anyone who suggests that liberals and progressives are somehow confused about WHY

we have corporate decisions coming from this White House is naive --

Certainly liberals and progressives aren't naive --


We have seen corporate fascism all over the world -- what its intent is -- and what ultimately

happens. That is what we are facing which we may be able to do something about.


What we may not be able to do anything about is an even bigger threat to us all --

Global Warming.


Without doubt, both conditions are caused by our economic system . . .

Capitalism which exploits nature, natural resources, animal life and even other human beings --

and has brought us fatal pollution of the planet.

[SkyDaddy7]

180. #1 Should be short and simple...

Obama is a failure on all accounts. Then combine the existing #1 & #2 because those are the same.

That is the split I am use to running into.

[rucky]

181. Sounds about right, but one piece of advice...

People need to stop giving a shit what people say, and focus on what they do. If a move from the WH takes us a step back, we have the right to oppose it. OTOH, we should really accept that Obama has an incremental strategy, and look at each individual action that is an improvement - however slight - as a way of keeping the door open for future change. Having Obama explain his long-term vision may be reassuring to some of us, but it won't help pass any legislation - just provide fodder for the opposition. So far the blanket attacks on his character have not affected him much, but he's taken heat on individual issues. Those battles come and go pretty quickly, but if the character attacks ever take hold, he's toast in 2012.

[LatteLibertine]

188. HuffPost?

Haven't been there in a long time. The way they often screen comments drove me away. It's odd and extremely arbitrary.