If You Don't Agree With Obama, Find Another Party?

[I]f you don't have a plan for how [to . . .] help lead to better outcomes, you aren't really a Democrat anymore, and your activism can't necessarily be considered progressive even if uses progressive terms and angles. That's fine. No one is compelled to support the Democrats over the Republicans or to support policies they disagree with. But we should call this kind of blogging what it is, which is anti-Obama, and anti-Democratic Party...and anti-government, really. -- Booman, (Booman's reply to my post, see also below the fold Booman's further explication on the Clintons and the DLC)

I've known Booman through the internets for about 5 years. Since I first encountered him, his detestation of Bill and Hillary Clinton was expressed consistently. the Third Way politics Clinton practiced during the 1990s represented all that was evil to Booman. I've always disagreed with that assessment, believing that Clinton, a consummate pol, adapted his politics for the times. Yes, in the 1990s some triangulation was necessary was my view. I did not believe that was true for the Obama Presidency, or for the 2000s for that matter. Like Markos at daily kos, I abhorred the DLC's drive for "values" voters and more triangulation. I fought for a Fighting Democratic Party. I still do. More . .

Given that history, it is somewhat surprising to see Booman's "Obama's Dem Party, love it or leave it" admonition. It's not as unreasonable a view as it might appear at first blush. It is reasonable to think that criticism should be measured and the push against Dems muted. But in my view, that is the wrong approach for the Left blogs. I believe, as I have for some time, that the Left blogs can and should be a voice for the Left Flank of the Democratic Party. I believe that Left blogs should fight for policies they believe in, not the pols or the political parties:

As citizens and activists, our allegiances have to be to the issues we believe in. I am a partisan Democrat it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the times. Republicans aren't them. But that does not mean we accept the failings of our Democrats. There is nothing more important that we can do, as citizens, activists or bloggers than fight to pressure DEMOCRATS to do the right thing on OUR issues.

And this is true in every context I think. Be it pressing the Speaker or the Senate majority leader, or the new hope running for President. There is nothing more important we can do. Nothing. It's more important BY FAR than "fighting" for your favorite pol because your favorite pol will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, disappoint you.

In the middle of primary fights, citizens, activists and bloggers like to think their guy or woman is different. They are going to change the way politics works. They are going to not disappoint. In short, they are not going to be pols. That is, in a word, idiotic.

Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. Do not fight for pols. Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.

Booman now holds a view that a certain level, or type, of criticism of specific policies and actions by Democrats is the same thing as criticism of the idea of government. That it makes you "not a Democrat." How that squares with his willingness to vilify the Clintons and other "unworthy" Dems is not clear to me. More importantly, I do not see how he believes he can judge what constitutes "constructive [progressive] criticism" from what is "not being a Democrat." The obligatory nod to Glenn Greenwald does not suffice. If all anyone did was blockquote Greenwald, I feel confident that there would be carping.

To provide some meaning to his judgments, he needs to go beyond "Greenwald good," "Hamsher bad." What does he think is "acceptable" criticism? What is "unacceptable" criticism that requires being labelled "not a Democrat" in Booman's mind?

In any event, what's do you think about all this?

Update: Booman on the Clintons and the DLC:

On Clinton: [a few] things.

I was a vociferous supporter of the president while he was in office, but worked hard for the Bradley campaign because I opposed their vision for the party, which downplayed labor and constituencies in favor of corporate funding. Plus, I just thought they surrounded themselves with scoundrels[. . ..] When given an option, I chose Bradley and then Obama. If Hillary were president, I'd be supporting her much more than criticizing her.

One of the keys to Obama is the new constituency he created, which is the opposite of the cynical DLC model [. . .] So, I oppose Clintonism much more for [. . .] what kind of party that [they] built or wanted to build, than I do over economic or social policy. I think the band of the possible is really quite narrow on economic and social policy and there isn't a whole lot of difference between any potential leaders in the micro sense. But the DLC model leads over time to an atrophying of the party base and a reliance on corporate money which exacerbates the narrow band problem.

Booman's makes some good points that echo some of the reasons why I supported Obama over Clinton during the primaries. I also think there is an implicit acknowledgment that in fact Obama will not change politics due to his personal characteristics but more because of his political appeal. Of course, it also overlooks things like Rahmbo as CoS, Summers and Geithner in Treasury, triangulation, the betrayal of labor with the excise tax, etc. I'll have more on this later.

Speaking for me only

< The Base | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'd like to know (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by cawaltz on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 12:48:30 PM EST
    who elects people to the board that determines whether or not someone is a good Democrat?

    I mean seriously when did this become Communist China where speaking out against government leadership's actions on your behalf makes you a bad anything.

    That's okay Booman, keep creating more Independants dude. It's a winning strategy, for sure.

    My dogs have me thinking about (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:07:22 PM EST
    purebreds today, but then there are often  breeder lines within purebreds.  I think Booman needs to understand that he only speaks for the Booman line, a line with no bark as well as no bite :)  The title of his essay is "Why We Blog" and in his arrogance that his dogs ARE the breed, he fails to realize that the title is actually "Why I Blog".  I think it is safe to say though that Booman does not have a dog in any fight :)

    I checked the "about" tab to (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:11:01 PM EST
    find out who the heck Booman is.  Dog is a big part of it, apparently.

    I forgot about that (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:14:41 PM EST
    Yes, he had a Newfie that his blog is named after but I think he has passed on.  How strange considering who Booman is most upset with right now :) I guess Dog People don't always get along.

    Most people don't get along (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:12:12 PM EST
    at some point.  I think a lot of people forget this.

    I think it is a strange thing to need (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:17:44 PM EST
    and to fight for, this everybody always on the same page. Particularly when this blogging realm is mostly about ideas.

    Yeah, and while a lot of people (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:18:02 PM EST
    prefer harmony to fighting - not all though - I don't think that anyone has gone all the way through their lives without having some sort of significant conflict even with people that they love and respect the most in the world.  The expectation that we could achieve harmony of any sort within the context of politics and the Democratic Party is completely ridiculous.

    Futhermore, if you look at the Republican Party in its current state, you'll see the real effects of the with us or against us mentality.  The left flank often gets tagged with being "purists", but I think that the centerists tend to be much less flexible and purist in how they think and operate than we do.  We are used to losing a lot of battles and ultimately compromising.  They, on the other hand, seem to really believe that it should be their way or the highway.  One only need to look at the high poll numbers in favor of the Public Option to see that the "centerists" were more concerned about their ideological world view than they were about what most people in this country wanted.


    What do you mean, "we"? (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by lambert on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:13:59 PM EST
    As the old joke goes...

    Somewhat related... (5.00 / 6) (#78)
    by Fabian on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:36:08 PM EST
    Got a kids book about livestock guardian dogs at the library.  It included pictures of some purebred LGDs and some mixed LGDs.  If you take two different purebreds bred for the same job and breed them together, you usually get dogs that can do the same job their parents did.  

    It's all about what the dogs actually DO and not about their appearance.

    Ditto for politicians.  I don't care what they look like, what they are marketed as or how carefully they've been trained and preened.  Best in show isn't what I am looking for, job performance is.


    It's not important that we have a Black President (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 12:56:54 AM EST
    Who went Harvard and speaks well?  I don't think so either.  I've never understood why we put so much emphasis on race.  Appearance should never be the most thing.  Don't care where they went to college either.  

    It seems to me that (none / 0) (#196)
    by TomP on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 07:39:13 AM EST
    there is a witchunt of the left now among some bloggers.  Booman lost me long ago (several years ago) with his reflexive Obama cheering.

    His attempt to purge Democrats of the left is a very poor move.  Obama needs the left.

    Look at 2000.  Or 1994.

    The centrists seem envigorated by the health care sell out bill and they are coming out to purge leftist bloggers. Even moderates like BTD are potential targets because BTD dares to crticize Obama.  


    Who Knows (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 12:57:25 PM EST
    His boundaries have always lacked clear definition along with a blatant blindness to his own biases.  And I thinks he gets thrown the occassional bone for being such a good boy.  All I have to do though right now is look at my son, and I'm grateful for those fighting for a better healthcare bill.  President Obama's kids have a much better chance of surviving the healthcare hostilities out there than mine does.  And if a blogger wants to take an extreme, even risky to their future credibility position at this time while they attempting to call attention to certain facts and failings that those in power would rather not be revealed, I am not inclined to even dislike them.  I could even find myself slipping them a quiet donation.

    "The New Democrats" (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 12:58:34 PM EST
    have been talking like this for quite some time, starting with people like Donna Brazille before the election.

    And I think that people who don't agree with Obama are leaving the Democratic party and finding a new direction to go.  I think because of that, the pendulum is definitely going to swing away from the Boo-Obama Democratic coalition, and back to some semblance of what we "old Democrats" have always thought of as the Democratic Party.  I'm not sure of when that will occur, however, and it will take many eons of Democrats being out of power to get there.  And I'm a long-term thinker, and believe that getting a true two-party system back, rather than a Republican/Republican lite party system is worth losing many, many elections.

    So I've definitely and without a doubt left the party and have no problem voting for other parties, even if it means Democrats lose.  Undoubtedly Booman will agree with my choice.  So good job Booman, I agree with you! (for once)

    They learned nothing from Nader. (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:20:51 PM EST
    It is amazing really and unbelieveably arrogant.  Of course the DLC always should have been called the "Democratic Arrogance Committee".  I remember when they rolled into this town telling everybody how it was gonna be.  They were all about the President and didn't care about anyone or anything else.  All folks like this are good for are whittling down the Democratic Party into a small elite and irrelevant group that presumes to shout orders at voters rather than meet their needs.

    Bill Clinton was one of the original (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:23:46 PM EST
    members of the DLC.  I think people tend to forget that....

    I agree that he needed to go centrist to win....


    Being a Centerist doesn't have anything (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:40:24 PM EST
    to do with what my comment was about.  My comment was about the STFU tenor of the DLC crowd - and the foolish arrogance of out right taunting your left base by telling them to stuff it instead of finding ways to work with them.  Their "you're either with us or against us" approach did nothing but undermine party support - and while Clinton himself was basically unaffected - his job was made that much harder as the Congress was more radicalized on the right and less Democratic.  The cult of personality folks really do not understand that a popular President can only take them so far - if they really want great power and flexibility, they have to keep the party in good shape too.

    He may have gone centrist to win (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:52:31 PM EST
    but he gave us hate crimes legislation.  I will always treasure that and that wasn't very centrist of him when he asked that the list be expanded because stuff was being left off.  I know none of that probably made Jeralyn happy, but it made me happy.

    The thing is that Clinton did not... (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by Romberry on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 08:46:30 AM EST
    ...go centrist to win. Really. Just like Al Gore in 2000, it wasn't until Clinton ratcheted up the liberal/populist rhetoric that appealed to the base in 1992 that he pulled into the lead. And it was after he began backing away from those positions and went all dead armadillo on Democrats that the political fortunes of the Democratic Party as a whole took a serious dive.

    Going "centrist" when the center is moving ever rightward (because the Republicans are now the party of crazy) is not a recipe for success. People want to see that their leaders actually stand for something, have principles and will stand up and fight. Mushiness and wishy-washy don't cut it. I believe that this is something that in hindsight is recognized by Bill Clinton himself:

    "When people are insecure, they'd rather have somebody who is strong and wrong than someone who's weak and right." - Bill Clinton

    From where I sit, that's what Obama is up against today. He appears weak. He appears to be someone who doesn't really stand for much of anything, at least in so far as he might be willing to stand up and fight for it. And I believe that he is well on the way to losing the Democratic Party base and a sizable chunk of independents who thought they were voting for someone that would actually lead.

    Booman has become a cultist worshipping a personality, just as Republicans did with Bush. It was wrong for Republicans and it's wrong for Democrats. If cultism is what is required for admission to the party these days, if I must put aside what I actually believe and accept that whatever our Magnificent Leader says without question, then Booman is right. I am no longer a Democrat. In fact, given that the Democratic Party, now that it is in power, seems to be beholden to the same corporate interests and Wall Streeters as the Republicans that controlled Washington before them, I don't really consider myself to be a party line Democrat. If anything, I am truly independent. (And I gotta say, it feels pretty good.)


    I am with you, even if they lose (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:44:24 PM EST
    I think Tip O'Neill got it exactly right.  Give voters a choice between Republicans and Democrats pretending to be Republicans and they will vote for the real thing every time.

    What is maddening is that progressive policies often poll as having majority support, and yet . . .  


    Leaving The Party (none / 0) (#181)
    by norris morris on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:29:17 PM EST

    I am beginning to agree that becoming an Independent is one way to help formulate a better party system.

    Currently there is little difference and there should be a whole lot of difference between the 2 parties.

    Having seen a lot of elections I am beginning to see the Democrats in the wilderness they are currently creating for a long time.

    I's impossible to watch the humbug thrown at us parading as the promised new political behavior we were told was possible with Obama.

    Democrats haven't learned how to govern and who their base really is. I am really sorry this is so, but the contempt and rejection of progrssive ideas that Team Obama have been showing us isn't encouraging as they don't get it.

    The word progressive has never been so misused and so misunderstood. Booman thinks progressives are "leftist troulemakers who only want perfect", and of course hate Hillary and Bill no matter what.  And the Party Uber Alles.

    Progressives are those who want change that engages policies they believe in ranging from war,economics,womens's rights, gay rights, and I could go on and on.

    Obama outlined many of these policies and beliefs into positions he promised to fight for to bring about needed CHANGE.  Remember?

    I don't really care if he doesn't call himself a progressive, but I do care about his inability to have defined himself credibly after all of his [now empty] promises.

    And, no, I did not invent  fantasies about Obama's
    positions. He's a very articulate and impassioned
    orator when he wants to be. I do not hero worship
    or have needed to embellish his words. I am not a Village Obamabot.

    The problem with Team Obama and the leadership currently in power in the Democratic Party offers me very little, if anything at this time.And I believe they are miscalculating their positions as well as the base.


    In all fairness (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by bdub78 on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:03:09 PM EST
    I think his comment is more measured than the excerpt posted here.

    There is a link (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:05:43 PM EST
    in all fairness.

    The excerpt is pretty jarring though and I try to place it in context of Booman's own previous statements regarding the Clintons.

    I do think the divergence in view requires some explanation.


    Well, didn't Kos once intimate (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by dk on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:09:38 PM EST
    that Hillary Clinton was not a Democrat?  Perhaps Booman is in that camp too?  In other words, he doesn't even really think of the Clintons as Democrats.  Thus, they can be attacked as mercilessly as possible, according to his internal logic.

    He did (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:17:23 PM EST
    I criticized him for it.

    Yup (none / 0) (#198)
    by Romberry on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 08:50:18 AM EST
    And it was a damn fool thing to say. I hope that Kos recognizes it in hindsight. (Would be nice to see him say so.)

    Perhaps it is advocacy? (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:06:47 PM EST
    yes, yes there was (none / 0) (#27)
    by bdub78 on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:19:20 PM EST
    But I was pretty horrified when I read the excerpt.  When I went back and read the rest, not so much.

    Why? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:24:09 PM EST
    I think the excerpt is pretty bad and I am not sure it becomes less bad after reading the whole post.

    Now I think the post is an interesting one and I think I ask for some further comment on the points I raise, but I think the excerpt could and should have been left out. It is not good.


    Actually, I originally read the post from the top (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Avedon on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 07:45:37 PM EST
    And it made me queasy.

    I've said this before and I'll say it again:  FDR had general strikes.  Obama has typists.

    We're not gonna win unless they can hear us yelling.


    Avedon (none / 0) (#183)
    by norris morris on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:43:25 PM EST
    I'm yeling.

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#39)
    by bdub78 on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:36:20 PM EST
    This quote is why I thought that... (none / 0) (#46)
    by bdub78 on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:44:56 PM EST
    "Is this first thing you do in the morning to look for ways to talk about how the president has disappointed you? How Congress sucks? Then you aren't interested in keeping the Republicans out of power any more. You are fighting a different battle."

    I don't necessarily agree with that, but I originally thought that with that context, it was not as bad as the excerpt was standing alone.
    However, the more I think about it, the more right you are.  He wrote, "your activism can't necessarily be considered progressive even if uses progressive terms and angles."  That is pretty indefensible, regardless the context.


    Keeping the Republicans out of power? (5.00 / 8) (#108)
    by esmense on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:37:54 PM EST
    That's what we should care about? Just who wins or loses> Not what those who have power do with that power? If Dems use power to serve the same interests and meet the same goals as the GOP, what difference does it make who is in or out of power? And if those interests are counter to our own, aren't we fools to help either party stay in power?

    I presume Booman feels his interests are being served by this administration. Otherwise, why  condemn others for acting like citizens seeking effective representation -- rather than mindless partisans? Or, fans.

    He seems to have politics confused with American Idol.


    American Idol (none / 0) (#182)
    by norris morris on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:42:10 PM EST
    Or, Democrats Uber Alles.

    This is not the Democratic Party. It's an invention of Booman's and he's taken seriously because he feels he's with the current Dem power group.

    A struggle for the Democratic party will evolve if this administration continues its ways and if political characters like Booman are taken seriously by anyone.

    To show open contempt for bloggers is really his way of echoing what the White House actually thinks.  WHouse has been leaking that bloggers, progressives,and lefties are not their base is stupid ham fisted strategy.  Denial is not a political position.

    It's also real stupid to admonish bloggers and show them contempt as bloggers are actually voters. Are they so out of touch they don't know this?

    American Idol and Uber Alles are not positions that citizens who expect fair governance will tolerate.


    Hence the link. (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:06:12 PM EST
    BooMan, with the "creative class"... (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by lambert on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:13:09 PM EST
    ... happily threw the base out of the Party, using or condoning techniques like caucus fraud that would have made Karl Rove blush, if he could blush, and now he's telling us "Good riddance."

    I was happy to accept his invitation to leave then, and I'm even happier I made that choice now. IMNSHO, any engagement with either legacy party has unacceptable opportunity costs. Give them no money, give them no time, give them no endorsements, give them no coverage. Let them do what they do, and seek another way...

    Unconvinced (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by hookfan on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:55:48 PM EST
    Wouldn't complete withdrawal of involvement promote furthur irrelevance UNTIL ANOTHER WAY IS CLEARLY FOUND OR ESTABLISHED? Why not opt for strategic or specifically targeted involvement in the meantime? No way am I not going to show up in Primaries and vote against policies and vichy bastards that are not in my interest on both federal and local levels. In the meantime why not work to organize ourselves in such a way to, if not overcome at least limit, the class, gender, and racial divides that are used so easily to keep us disempowered, and establish a large monetary and voting bloc? How to do this is a subject for further discussion. I don't believe at present this can effectively be done within the current strictures of the Democratic Party. But I haven't given up the idea of visiting it upon them. . .

    I will keep pushing (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:03:55 PM EST
    and will throw a bone to who seems to give me a sincere response knowing that it may not be sincere.  I will reward positive behavior though in listening to me for a change.

    He does love him some Obama (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:15:54 PM EST
    Which isn't necessarily a bad thing....until it is :)

    I think Greenwald told him that (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:17:26 PM EST
    once, that there are worse things to be :)  Who knew that everything was worse :)

    This is interesting: (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:17:17 PM EST
    There is a place for both, but if you are waking each morning to blog about what a bunch of corporate whores the Democrats and the president are, you haven't really adjusted your style to the new situation in Washington.

    I distinctly recall Barack Obama campaigning on being an outsider to Washington who, if elected, would do things not in the old ways but in completely new and different ways.

    It seems to me that (none / 0) (#190)
    by cal1942 on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 11:21:38 PM EST
    haven't really adjusted your style to the new situation in Washington.

    Is accepting the status quo without question.  If Booman's willing to always accept "the new situation in Washington," then he's telling us that he will bend in whatever direction the wind blows.


    I went over and read the whole thing (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kmblue on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:18:16 PM EST
    was surprised most of the comments agreed with his stand.  Censorship anyone?

    Most blog commenters (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:22:40 PM EST
    agree with the posts at blogs.

    That's just self selection.

    I think less so than most places, you'll see disagreement here because Jeralyn is such a great blog host.

    I certainly censor my threads when they devolve into personal attacks on me. But not because I want to censor them - but because I do not get to fire back.

    I like to think I leave dissent on substance up, but who knows? We're all just human.


    You don't (none / 0) (#155)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:18:32 PM EST
    fire back???



    There was commenters disagreeing with his ... (none / 0) (#117)
    by magster on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:50:37 PM EST
    posts criticizing Reid for attempting to include a public option in the Senate Bill before conference.

    One thing that Booman and BTD do is regularly stick around in the comments to debate.  I don't think he censors.


    I did not mean censorship of comments (none / 0) (#195)
    by kmblue on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 05:20:22 AM EST
    I meant censorship of critics of the Presidents.
    Sorry I was misunderstood.

    BTD has it right (none / 0) (#199)
    by Romberry on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 08:53:41 AM EST
    Self-selection. Booman is the gathering spot for the "Obama, right or wrong" crowd. (Of course for that crowd, there is no "Obama wrong.")

    Aren't we all trying to get better outcomes? (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:18:32 PM EST
    Unless I plan on being a party activist - working for the party, going to conventions, etc. I don't see why I should care if Booman or anyone else thinks I'm a Democrat or not. I call myself one because I have to declare a party when I register to vote in this state if I want to vote in the primaries, and by and large the Democrats at least purport to support most of the same outcomes I do. I am increasingly frustrated at the methods they chose to achieve these purported goals, and I certainly are going to let that be known in any forum I choose.

    For the life of me I can't see a thing wrong with that position. If Obama or anyone else care so much about getting my undying support, they can darn well start earning it.

    That's telling him. Blog away, (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:23:21 PM EST
    Booman.  Who cares what he thinks?

    He has run into that problem (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:26:27 PM EST
    it would seem.  But he has a sort of newish import in the Hamsher wars.  He does seem to like being a refugee hangout.

    What is so crazily absurd about (5.00 / 7) (#127)
    by magster on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:02:13 PM EST
    Booman's post and Joe Klein and the general blogosphere flaming of Jane Hamsher and Howard Dean is that they are being criticized for demanding adherence to the tenets of the party platform and Obama's actual campaign promises.  How does that make them not Democrats?

    From the platform:

     "Families and  individuals should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan..."


    Hooray (none / 0) (#184)
    by norris morris on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:54:53 PM EST
    Ruffian Your post was right on target in that it's what we as individuals expect, and if expectations aren't met we really do show this at the polls.

    It's like that old song (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by robotalk on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:22:51 PM EST
    it's Booman's party
    and he'll outcast you if he wants to.

    Of course, it is unlikely the dems can get reelected without the left, but let's not worry about pragmatic concerns like that.

    Who are the purists and who are the pragmatists?  The issue now confuses me.

    Isn't Booman advocating keeping (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:24:12 PM EST
    quiet?  He isn't pushing anyone out to a third party.  

    The left being quiet. (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by robotalk on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:28:17 PM EST
    Not a realistic goal.  Whatever the intent, will have the effect of no support or third party.

    9 out of 10 Democrats (none / 0) (#57)
    by Politalkix on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:07:45 PM EST
    have a favorable view of President Obama (see link). So the "frothing in the mouth" criticism of the President on his personality and on almost every issue by the majority of posters in TL and some in the left blogosphere do not really constitute criticism from the majority of Democrats.
    There is also nothing wrong in expanding the Democratic Party coalition. Politics, like life, is never about statism. It must be kept in mind that even FDR and LBJ built new coalitions during their times; while building their coalitions, they also lost a fraction of Democratic voters who had voted for the party over many decades.
    I am not supporting a curb on the criticism of the President, that would violate the spirit of free speech, necessary for freewheeling discussions, that I like. However, it will be useful to understand the level of support the President still enjoys among the majority of people who identify themselves as Democrats, while reading the criticisms of the President in the left blogosphere and judging the reaction of the WH to such criticisms.

    Not really (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:16:27 PM EST
    As I've mentioned here before, the useful numbers are looking at the numbers of Independents (which have increased since Obama's election), and how those Independents feel about him (not very highly).  Democrats and Republicans do not decide elections, except when one group is highly energized and turn out and the other group has depressed turn out.  It's Indpendents who will decide an election, and remember there are many disaffected Dems who now call themselves Indies (myself included).

    And of course this poll will show a "majority" of Democrats support him - that's the point - many of those people are acting just as in lockstep as the Republicans did with George Bush.


    Really, It's Independents (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by norris morris on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:59:40 PM EST
    Just remember it was Ross Perot who elected Clinton.

    Underestimating Independents or Democrats who are looking for solutions other than what's put before us is a fatal political assumption.


    False (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 11:21:44 PM EST
    Clinton would have won with or without Perot.  Every study reached the same conclusion.

    What portion of Perot's 19 percent (none / 0) (#192)
    by Spamlet on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 11:36:46 PM EST
    would have gone to Clinton rather than Bush?

    Basically 50/50 (none / 0) (#194)
    by Steve M on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 04:15:38 AM EST
    I think they found that no state other than Ohio would have flipped to Bush if Perot weren't on the ballot.

    The idea that Clinton only won because of Perot was, sad to say, a pure GOP talking point designed to delegitimize a Democratic President.  No truth to it.


    Independents (none / 0) (#76)
    by Politalkix on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:31:49 PM EST
    are the least likely to vote on the basis of ideology (that is the staple of blogosphere fights). If Obama can get the economy back on track and show some improvement in employment figures, he and the Democratic Party will be fine. Economy and employment are of paramount importance, nothing else matters.

    Depends which kind of Indy's (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:08:43 PM EST
    you're talking about. especially since most pollsters' metrics end up lumping 3d Party leaners as Independent.

    This is true (none / 0) (#80)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:39:06 PM EST
    And they are (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:03:09 PM EST
    more likely to vote than the "new Dems" that only voted for Obama

    Actually, I think more (none / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:00:00 PM EST
    Republicans than Democrats have become Independents.  That is why the number of Republicans is at an all time low...Republicans became so embarrassed by their party they refuse to self-identify with it....I think it also has to do with the conformist side of Republicans not wanting be associated with "losers."

    The conservative Independents will vote Republican in the end.  Especially this next go round....


    That was last year, not current trend. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:09:19 PM EST
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:11:27 PM EST
    Every latest poll tracking generic congressional ballot shows Republicans trouncing Dems.  Those aren't just Republicans answering the polls.

    Not true (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:15:43 PM EST
    "Every poll?"  Try one or two....

    Find a known poll (none / 0) (#96)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:18:15 PM EST
    that shows the opposite.

    Dems are bleeding supporters -face the facts.


    Voila! (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:32:38 PM EST
    Gallup has the Dems ahead.

    Gallup says:

    Both parties maintain the allegiance of their bases, with 93% of Democratic registered voters preferring the Democratic candidate and an identical 93% of Republican voters preferring the Republican.

    And, yes, I understand the explanation that all disaffected Dems now self-identify as Independents...but I would like to see a known pollster agree with your wish in this regard.  Gallup is polling registered Dems....

    The reality is that it is all based on the economy.  People are tired of a bad economy....The drop in Obama's polls--to the awful number of 53% approval where he is now--has little to do with anything else.  


    Which misses the point (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:42:14 PM EST
    Gallup is polling registered Dems....

    If they aren't registered as Dems any more, then the numbers are skewed, right, and it doesn't account for Independents?  

    Out of the 5 pollsters who poll on this question, only Gallup came up with a Dem lead in the last month.

    And just because you want to wish that everyone is still in love with Obama and that way more people are Democrats and will follow their leader blindly (which is kind of the point of this whole post) doesn't make it so.

    Yes, it's mainly the economy - but that's tied to the stimulus package, which most voters see as a failure; the bank bailouts, which most voters see as givewaways to big corporate donors; the health care debacle, which most voters are now unhappy with; and now Afghanistan, Gitmo not closing, the NWA flight and the slow WH reaction, etc. and it's going to be a whole host of things that people are going to look to.


    umm (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by CST on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:47:37 PM EST
    just so you know, the polling does include independants as well.

    Also, regardless if the Republicans are ahead or not (and I think they are slightly ahead), I don't think the margins are big enough to win back the house.  I won't cry if the Republicans kick out some blue dogs (who are the vulnerable ones) so long as the leadership stays with the Dems.  Maybe kicking out the blue dogs will at least force house leadership to hand over plum jobs to more liberal members.

    That being said, I'd much rather see them lose primaries than general elections, obviously.

    At the end of the day, I think it will come down to a state by state thing.


    Great Balls of Fire! (none / 0) (#128)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:03:53 PM EST
    I think you win the contest for most strawmen in one post!

    No, I did not say or imply that everyone is or should be "still in love" with Obama, or that they "blindly follow" him.

    And, you had to resort to a Republican website to make your point about polls?  Remember you said all polls showed Dems being "trounced."  But you left out the most prominent of the pollsters.

    And, I'm not sure how you get to five pollsters.  It is four in December....and you count Rasmussen.

    I think you are prone to a wee bit of overstatement.

    As to TARP and the bank bailout.  That was absolutely necessary, even if politically unpopular.  The banking failure that led to a contraction of the money supply is what caused the Great Depression.  That is what we faced a year ago.  And, B of A has repaid the TARP money and Citi and Wells are following suit.  The Federal Government will actually make money on the loans....

    We'll see where things stand in 2012 and 2010, but  the economy is improving and that should help Democrats--it all depends on how fast the employment numbers turn around...


    Huh? (none / 0) (#100)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:24:17 PM EST
    Every poll shows Republicans trouncing Dems?  Every Rasmussen poll, maybe.  That's just not a factually correct statement.

    More than Ras (none / 0) (#102)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:27:09 PM EST
    Come on (none / 0) (#106)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:36:15 PM EST
    You know what you said isn't true.

    You're right (none / 0) (#113)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:44:55 PM EST
    Only 4 of the last 5 polls in the last month who asked the queswtion

    Quick google search (none / 0) (#120)
    by CST on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:56:30 PM EST
    proves you wrong.

    This link has a fancy chart that shows pretty much all polls going back to '08.  Fairly split amongst pollsters - except that Ras does a ton of polls.

    Here is another one (not in your five?) that shows Dems ahead as of December, by about 2.


    3 of the 5 are Rasmussen (none / 0) (#126)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:02:05 PM EST
    and surely you're not claiming that the GWU Battleground poll showing the GOP with a 1-point lead represents a "trouncing," right?

    What I'm saying (none / 0) (#129)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:06:30 PM EST
    is that despite what some people want to think, the Dems are not nearly as popular as they were in 2008. The assertion was made that most independents are former Republicans because they are demoralized, which is completely ridiculuous, as they are very energized.  If you don't like the polls I cite, then you must, at the very least, be as critical of all these same polls who show "85% of Dems are happy with Obama" because that just isn't possible.

    Let's throw out all polls because we could all find polls that match our narrative. But let's not also fool ourselves that it's just the big, bad Republicans who make crap up.


    "just isn't possible" (none / 0) (#132)
    by CST on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:09:36 PM EST
    I thought all the dis-affected Dems were independents now?  That means the ones left are happy with Obama...

    Which one is it?


    No (none / 0) (#137)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:14:32 PM EST
    Just because some chose to stay registered as a Dem doesn't mean an overwhelming majority are happy with Obama.  Maybe they think they have nowhere to go.

    But you knew that.


    Doesn't mean (none / 0) (#142)
    by CST on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:21:00 PM EST
    they aren't either.

    I do not know (none / 0) (#162)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:38:52 PM EST
    anyone who contends the Democrats are as popular as they were in 2008.  That's a far cry from saying every poll shows them getting trounced though.

    You are right that if I question a poll, I should question all of its findings.  The thing is that I am not questioning a poll.  I am questioning your characterization of recent polling because, to my eye, your characterization is not correct.

    Basically either Ras is right with their wacky LV screen, in which case the Dems probably will lose badly, or they're not, in which case we have a competitive race where odds probably favor the Dems losing a handful of seats overall, if present conditions hold.

    As for these polls that show 85-90% Democratic approval of Obama, I certainly do not take them to mean "Obama is thrilling the base, smooth sailing lies ahead!"  I think "approval" covers a pretty broad range of opinions ranging from total adoration to something like resigned acceptance.

    I think it would be a big, big deal for a partisan Democrat who voted for a Democratic President to say, one year into his term, "I no longer approve of this President."  So I'm not surprised that polling shows very few Democrats who out-and-out disapprove at this stage.  But some of them are saying no more than "It seems like he's doing an okay job" which isn't the most ringing endorsement even if it shows up as "approve" in the polling results.  A more interesting metric would be comparing how Democrats felt about Obama on Inauguration Day with how they feel about him today.  I wonder how many Democrats would say they actually like him better now.


    Don't you realize (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:14:50 PM EST
    that Obama has been doomed, doomed I say, as far back as March/April 2008.  He was never going to win against McCain.....He would do poorly with "real" Democrats....

    Today, according to Gallup, he is at 53% approval. But he is really doomed, doomed this time.  The trend is very, very bad....and he will implode....it will happen.....

    Obama is probably at his lowest point in popularity right now.  The economy should turn--it usually does, and his numbers will go up.  The worst threat to him politically is a terrorist act or a complete blow-up in Afghanistan.

    Not to say that progressives shouldn't complain about policy....But too many are just waiting to dance on his grave because of old grudges....

    Even Lincoln suspended habeaus corpus.  FDR allowed the internment of Japanese Americans--contrary to the view of his Attorney General.  Truman dropped the bomb.  JFK created the Green Berets.  LBJ and Vietnam.  Bill signed Welfare Reform.  Yet, they form the Pantheon of good, liberal Presidents....

    Some perspective would be helpful.


    Oy (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by sj on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:22:12 PM EST
    Do you regard Bush v. Gore (5.00 / 6) (#133)
    by Spamlet on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:10:06 PM EST
    as an "old grudge"? Just asking. Maybe you can set forth your criteria for when a legitimate political grievance can be dismissed as an "old grudge."

    My reason for asking is that "too many," as you like to say, believe that the defection of longtime Democratic voters is not to be taken seriously. (And "too many," when they say "old grudge," actually mean "old hag." That's a problem.)

    But why should the 'Bots take the loss of longtime Democrats' support seriously? Dear Leader and his bought-and-paid-for minions certainly don't. It's "What, me worry?" all over again, and the "new Dems" do bear a certain resemblance to GWB's "clap harder" 23 percent.


    I didn't call anyone a (none / 0) (#150)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:55:02 PM EST
    hag.  Or even imply that.  There are plenty of male HRC supporters who are still re-fighting the Primary.

    So, you don't like the Primary Rules--change them....

    Bush v. Gore has hopefully been remedied with better voter protections....

    I don't dimiss the loss of any Democratic voters....


    No point talking about the primary rules (5.00 / 5) (#172)
    by Spamlet on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:44:33 PM EST
    if people are unwilling to face the fact that the rules were broken. Until then, good luck with your "new Democrats."

    Sure, you can (none / 0) (#174)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 07:11:59 PM EST
    If voter intimidation at caucuses was the problem, there are all kinds of things that can be done short of extracting confessions from all the "Obots" and having Obama resign from office....Pols don't apologize....

    How about trying to do away with the caucuses?

    How about a mail-in primary like how they vote in Oregon--that could address the expense issue of running actual in-person primaries....

    But no one is interested in pursuing such remedies.  You can fashion a remedy that does not involve changing the rules but rather better enforcement....

    But that doesn't address the real problem:  Obama got the nomination and is President.  His very presence is the offense.  Nothing can be done about that....


    Did I ask Obama to resign? Or apologize? (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by Spamlet on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 07:46:50 PM EST
    Did I demand that confessions be extracted?

    Let me answer: No, I did not.

    The DNC and its Rules and Bylaws Committee endorsed and compounded the fraudulence in 2008 and told me I wasn't needed, so I resigned from the Democratic Party. What do you care? Are you getting nervous about the midterms? About 2012?

    Process counts. As you and your fellow Democrats anticipate your next presidential primary, you might want to try a few of the innovations you propose. Or not.

    Obama, like all presidents, will do some things I like and some I do not like. Obama, for me, is not the point, although I recognize that Obama is very much the point for people who identify the Democratic Party with whatever is good for Obama.


    Well if I listen to Booman (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:16:33 PM EST
    I can sink him in a heartbeat simply by being observant and taking notes.

    You are making the same mistake Booman (5.00 / 6) (#166)
    by esmense on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:03:55 PM EST
    did -- confusing the desire for better representation on those issues you consider most important with a desire to see the administration, or the Democratic party, fail.

    The implication that lies within that kind of criticism of "the left" (for asserting its right to representation) is that liberal policies are political losers. But is that true?

    Frankly, if the Democratic party remains viable at all it is because of the success and continuing popularity of liberal programs like Medicare and Social Security. You don't hear Dems bragging as much about their "bipartisan" efforts, like the HMO Reforms of 1973, do you? They would, in fact, prefer the public forget that "moderate" Democrats enjoy primary responsibility for so many of the most hated elements of our current health care system.

    Most people didn't turn to the Democrats in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression because of the party's participation in deregulation of the financial industry or because Democrats helped sell labor down the river in the 80s.

    Those few who did, of course, are understandably pleased when Democrats win by running on the party's past liberal triumphs, then dismiss (as unrealistic and disloyal) supporters who expected them to govern that way.



    I would love to have another party (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:32:45 PM EST
    More independents candidates like Bernie Sanders, please.

    Sanders is not an independent. (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:30:41 PM EST
    He is a Democratic Socialist or Socialist Democrat - can't remember how they name themselves.  That's one reason I respect him so much.  He's not hiding out in the gray "independent" area - he's attaching himself to a real set of political principles.  From my perspective, what we lack within the Democratic Party are elected officials who are willing to stand firm on some of the basics of the party platform.  The party has been co-opted in some numbers by people that I think more of as Republican refugees than actual Democrats.

    You're both right (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:28:20 PM EST
    Bernie, bless him, clearly takes the label of where he's coming from ideologically, a Democratic Socialist, or Social Democrat.

    But he's an Independent in the most important definition of the term-- he's not beholden to anybody's party.

    He's like most of us, not real enamored of the Democratic Party but grudgingly caucusing with them as the lesser of two evils.


    So, I guess the new rule is that (5.00 / 12) (#37)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:34:25 PM EST
    it's our party, and we can't cry if we want to?  Is there a handbook now?

    Was Booman not paying attention when we were trying to hold the Democratic majority accountable after the 2006 election?  Has he forgotten how harshly the Democrats were criticized by Democrats over their repeated failure to use whatever power they had to stop rolling over for Republicans?  It wasn't just that we wanted the Republicans to stop what they were doing, but that we wanted the Dems to step up and join in that fight - and they let us down.
    That we are still trying to get the Dems to pay attention to us is not an attempt to help the GOP get back into power, but an effort to help the Democrats do the right things so they can stay in power.  How does he not see this?

    There is still plenty of criticism for Republicans, but when the leader of one's own party is kowtowing to and accommodating and co-opting Republican memes and policy, how do we, as "good" Democrats, NOT push back against that?

    I think the Dems are sitting on the train tracks, still believing they can stop the oncoming train by being nice to it; I like to think we are trying to rescue Dems from themselves, get them off the tracks, and then do what needs to be done to dismantle those tracks so the oncoming train derails.

    Honestly, I do not want to be a member of the Sit Down and Shut Up Party, which is where it's been headed for some time; if it works for Booman, fine.  I guess he will just have to close his eyes, stick his fingers in his ears and shout "La-la-la-la-la" because we are not sitting down and we are not shutting up.

    The blogs role (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:39:07 PM EST
    I think it is an interesting idea that the blogs of the Left can act as ballast to prevent or slow a party's drift towards the center.

    That position implies that the blogs can make a difference.  I think they do.  The reason Big Orange became so popular is that it allowed wide involvement.

    Holding a party's feet to the fire has value...and even more so when average folks are the ones holding the big shots to account.

    I would still like to see more reasoned criticism...instead of an eternal re-run of the Primary--usually in the form of cloaked proxy battles--and the I-told-you-sos echoing at every turn.


    Concern-trollery at its finest (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Spamlet on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 11:16:20 PM EST

    I would still like to see more reasoned criticism...instead of an eternal re-run of the Primary--usually in the form of cloaked proxy battles--and the I-told-you-sos echoing at every turn.

    No, I think you would actually like all criticism to stop now. LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!!!

    Holding a party's feet to the fire has value...and even more so when average folks are the ones holding the big shots to account.

    You think the bloggers are "average folks"? The so-called creative class? Really? "Average folks"--all those "low-information voters," the ones who wanted something other than American Idol from their party and their government--got the shaft from the Democratic Party in 2008. They learned that the big shots are in fact not to be held to account unless it's by the poobahs at Goldman Sachs.


    Reminds me of (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:42:28 PM EST
    GWB - "You're either with us or against us".

    Does this also mean I'm a terrorist if I don't support Obama?

    Yeah it does. lol n/t (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:31:23 PM EST
    I agree (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:45:09 PM EST
    My money and support will only go to candidates who espouse acceptable policy profiles (and act accordingly) and not parties. Also ACLU.

    I have said this before, (5.00 / 11) (#50)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:48:10 PM EST
    and I'll say it again.  The Democratic Party has left me, I didn't leave the Democratic Party.  But then, I'm an aging hippie.  I'm a Paul Wellstone-George McGovern-populist-very-liberal Democrat who happens to care about the poor, the marginalized, those without health insurance or a secure place to live, those living in countries torn by wars that we started, our troops who are continually sent to these countries over and over again, so what do I know?  I thought that Obama basically said "Make me do it" at one point (although I think he was talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?).  All we're trying to do is make him live up to his campaign rhetoric.  If Booman wants to push us out of the party entirely, that's his problem.  I refuse to drink the Obama Kool-Aid, and, if I have to, I will work for and support and vote for a third party if Barack and the other Dems don't start acting more like Dems, as opposed to DINO's, although I would prefer if the Democrats started acting more like Democrats.

    If you're a Wellstone populist (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:51:53 PM EST
    The party left you.  I don't know about McGovern, too little.

    Oh, yes, (5.00 / 7) (#58)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:08:05 PM EST
    Militarytracy, the party definitely left me, quite awhile ago.  I refuse to give up, though.  I support the ACLU, People for the American Way, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and similar organizations, and any candidate I can find who holds at least a good portion of these values.  What can I say?  Aging, anti-war, pro-civil rights, pro-feminism, pro-common working person, pro-populism, pro-GLTB rights type of leftie-pinko-hippie, and proud of it.  That's me, and I ain't gonna change now, sweetie.  ;-)

    Always good to find out there is (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:10:10 PM EST
    another person on the face of the earth who voted for McGovern!

    We're not all dead....yet... (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:28:26 PM EST
    We may be (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:32:02 PM EST
    close to it, oldpro, but I refuse to give up until I take my last breath.  And I'm glad to see I'm not the only one.  We may be fewer and fewer, but we've got to keep the party honest.  ;-)

    I love a fighter but just so you know... (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:55:46 PM EST
    ...it can't be done (keeping the party honest, that is).  Way too late for that, if you were paying attention to the '08 primaries and national convention and the treatment of the superdelegates by some select Obama strongarmers.

    Nope.  Too late for that party.  Dishonest to the core.  A party that cannot even have a rollcall at their televised national convention cares not at all about any of the things this former party member cares about.

    So, now the country (and your party) are stuck with this mediocre presidency, forced upon us by the believer people (those who need no evidence of competency or trustworthiness...hope is good enough!)

    Talk about a wasted opportunity.  Democrats sometimes make me want to puke...this isn't the first time.  Scoop Jackson and Richard Pearle were the first...


    If we can't (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:30:41 PM EST
    reform the Dems, I'm more than willing to go third party, oldpro.  I would just like to find a third party with my own values, and with any chance even slightly more than a snowball's in Hades of actually making a difference.  I despair at the indifference of most Americans, at their apparent willingness to vote against their own self-interests because they buy what the MSM media feed them, at their ignorance, their complacency......I could go on and on.  Americans seem to be supremely unwilling to protest against all of this.  I don't know the answer, and I don't know how to wake our fellow countrymen up.  Maybe it's just not bad enough yet to make them aware, but I don't know how bad it will have to get before they do.    

    Hillary Clinton stated she (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:19:16 PM EST
    asked Dems. to abort full roll call.

    Part of the deal she made. (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:48:01 PM EST
    Unlike me, she wasn't willing to blow the damn thing up.  She did what was required to stay in the party and wait for another day.  It paid off both for her and for the Party...and perhaps for the country, though only time will tell.

    More about the Primary (none / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:36:26 PM EST
    So many arguments here are proxies for the Primary....still

    You think (5.00 / 10) (#111)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:43:39 PM EST
    we should sit back and not be vocal about a broken system - one that turned the Dems into a party just as bad as the Republicans?  You think corruption and cheating are ok since your guy won?

    We'll just sit back and not worry our pretty little heads about it.


    "My guy" (none / 0) (#130)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:06:45 PM EST
    I thought he was a Democratic President....

    He doesn't think so (none / 0) (#131)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:08:55 PM EST
    Certainly never referred to himself that way.

    And he's certainly not my guy.


    Go fix the rules then (none / 0) (#152)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:12:55 PM EST
    Nope. Not proxies. This is not (5.00 / 6) (#119)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:55:02 PM EST
    about personalities...it is about process and policy....those of the Democratic Party who took my time, energy, money and votes for over 55 years and then broke their own rules while demanding my loyalty.  Finally found my limits.

    I am a proponent of Big Tent's philosophy...do not fight for pols...fight for policy.

    What's right is right.  What's wrong is wrong.  No matter who does it...


    Remember the 1972 California Primary (none / 0) (#136)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:13:33 PM EST
    McGovern....winner take all.....

    Who argued then that you shouldn't change the rules during the middle of the game....


    Lots of people, actually! (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:35:31 PM EST
    Keep in mind that 'changing the rules' and 'breaking the rules' are two different things.

    FWIW...I've always thought the McGovern-era PC rules were/are absurd.


    It's not about the primary, MKS, (5.00 / 10) (#122)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:59:34 PM EST
    it's about what the primary process revealed about the Democratic party, about its attitude towards women, its disdain for those who had fought long and hard for the best of the liberal agenda only to find out they weren't the "right" kind of Democrats anymore, how willing it was to cast those people aside and marginalize their message, and how easily it manipulated the rules to get the outcome they wanted.  

    Honestly, I hate talking about the primary, because it just makes me feel so sick inside; I would love for us to be able to let it go, but the "new" Democrats keep reminding me, every time one of them calls me unpatriotic for criticizing the president, every time I'm told that if I don't have anything nice to say, I should just shut up, I am reminded of that ugliness, and realize that the party is still infected with it.


    Bien sūr (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:50:08 PM EST
    To the barricades, mes amis!  I agree, Anne, and I, too, am tired of being called "unpatriotic" because I won't fall in line with the DLC, the "new" Democrats and their fellow-travelers.  I just despair, sometimes, about being able to change any of this, although I will keep trying.

    Well, with those comments (none / 0) (#134)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:10:40 PM EST
    tumbling forth, it appears the Primary is at the bottom of much of it.

    At some point, it would be good to move on...


    Yeah, let's do that (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:13:26 PM EST
    let's forget about a broken system - kind of like we should just move on from dealing with things, like, oh, terrorists getting on a plane and attempting to blow it up.  The system is broken, but we'll just move on - 9/11 is so 5 minutes go....

    Where did I say (none / 0) (#138)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:14:34 PM EST
    9/11 is so 5 minutes ago?

    Where do you come up with these strawmen?


    I said it (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:17:22 PM EST
    you said we're still fighting the primaries and we need to get over it.  I said (along with others) that we shouldn't get over a broken system (obviously you think we should).  So I said we should get over all broken systems - like security.

    And "strawman" is your new favorite word this week - did you get a dictionary for Christmas?


    Yes, dear (5.00 / 9) (#140)
    by Spamlet on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:18:35 PM EST
    I will state uniquivocally that, for me, the primary IS at the bottom of it. You want me to move on? Good. I did.

    Well, that is an honest answer (none / 0) (#144)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:28:35 PM EST
    So, I think we need to recognize that it is about that and not necessarily the most recent complaint against Obama....

    "We" (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by Spamlet on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:18:38 PM EST

    Party on. That's what I'm doing, but not with the "new Democrats."


    The Democratic Party (none / 0) (#143)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:26:41 PM EST
    has never been the open, fair organization that many here seem to imply actually existed.

    Okay, let's go back to 1968.  Daley??  Great, right?  1972 corrected that, right?  McGovern wins the nomination because he enforces the archaic winner-take-all rules for the California Primary....

    1976--perhaps the best year....unless you go to 1980 and the wonderful result from the all-out war from the challenge to an incumbent....

    And Bill never played hardball in 1992--he ran on a tax cut for Pete's sake.  Ask Jerry Brown about that....

    If the Primary rules need to be changed, well, change them--it has happened frequently enough...That is how you ended up with Superdelegates in the wake of the fiasco of 1972.


    So (5.00 / 8) (#153)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:15:16 PM EST
    you were happy when Bush was "elected" by the Supreme Court?  You thought justice was done then?  You refused to "refight" Bush v. Gore.  You got over it by about 2001, right?

    I doubt it...that is if you're the "good Democrat" you think we all should be.

    Well, guess what?  Some of us think justice wasn't done in the 2008 primary.  Some of us just can't let it go, because we feel it was something of a "crime" against Democrats, a betrayal of the reasons we joined this party, and the same reasons we're no longer members.  So, just as most Democrats couldn't let go of Bush v. Gore (until the idiot was out of office), because an injustice was done, we can't let this go because to many of us, an equal injustice was done.  


    That means you won't (none / 0) (#159)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:25:28 PM EST
    let go of it until Obama is out of office?

    How about trying to change the rules?


    If we "let it go" (5.00 / 5) (#157)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:22:43 PM EST
    it is sure to happen again. Some of the people would prefer to fix what truly is broken...especially when it's the main axle.

    I don't see anyone trying to fix (none / 0) (#160)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:27:23 PM EST

    If the problems is the rules, fix the rules....Who is trying to do that?

    If the problem is that HRC supporters don't like Obama supporters, or perceive the opposite, that is a bigger problem....


    Jesuschristonacrutch as my gramma (5.00 / 11) (#163)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:46:07 PM EST
    would say.

    RE da roolz:  it's not about changin' da roolz because the party machine will just BREAK them whenever it suits them to get the outcome they desire.  Did you follow the vote distribution AT ALL resolving the Florida and Michigan disputes?

    Paying attention is really necessary to following the bouncing ball but this is not rocket science.


    So, the people are inherently flawed? (none / 0) (#164)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:47:18 PM EST
    That is really what you're left with....

    Some are, some aren't. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:05:08 PM EST
    You haven't noticed that?

    Ever run a business or an organization, trained the employees/volunteers and then discovered that not everyone is Rhodes-scholar material?

    In politics, even more so.  Lots of wannabes and lots of folks without the talent or skill, way out of their depth but willing to do (almost) anything to 'be somebody.'  Or even...hang out with 'somebody' who is 'somebody.'  Corruption is just a step away for so many...not a leap...just a step.


    But that does not address (none / 0) (#173)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:45:16 PM EST
    the bitterness of HRC supporters at what is just "politics"....

    It appears that the bitterness is what underlies much of the Obama criticism, that bitterness is not going away, and no one has even the slightest inclination to resolve it short of Obama's leaving office....

    Got it.  In other words, it's hopeless....Thought so.


    Not the problem (5.00 / 9) (#165)
    by ZtoA on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:53:56 PM EST
    The primaries were terrible and Obama himself did not make the effort to unite the party during the GE - Hillary was supposed to do it and her supporters were told to get on board, STFU or go away. Then he had Warren bless the inauguration! Since then he has not lead like a democrat. Can the democratic party be saved by "fixing" a few rules?

    It isn't the rules that are broken (5.00 / 7) (#168)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:09:30 PM EST
    The rules were broken in front of everyone and there was no recourse. Some highly positioned Democrats and the Obots were so insistent upon the outcome having Obama at the top spot on the ballot, they went blind, deaf and dumb and couldn't find their sense of ethics with both hands and a map. Many of them remain in that state today.

    So, no one really is interested (none / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:41:20 PM EST
    in changing the rules--which is apparent from the lack of activity on that front.

    It looks as if nothing short of Obama's leaving office will cure the problem....The offense came during the Primary, so what came after is just window dressing.  There is no fixing anything--just ongoing rancor at everything Obama.


    "no one is really interested" (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by ZtoA on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 07:16:44 PM EST
    is not a good way to frame it. There would not be dissatisfaction if Obama was leading like a progressive or liberal. The issue is- does this political party represent ideas and goals that I can support? It is not about Obama really, but the political party. The real disappointment is with the democratic party itself. I've just joined the Progressive Party of Oregon, and would like to see a broader debate than just the two parties (which are so very alike).

    The cure (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 07:55:01 PM EST
    would be for Obama to surprise.  Everything we've disliked about Obama has come true in spades.  We aren't surprised in the least.  He showed himself for who he was pretty early on.

    The worse of the two candidates won greatly because the system was rigged in their favor due to breakage of rules Democrats created (see Florida and Mich).  The only way to ensure it doesn't happen again is to show that if you rig the process, you lose.  Unfortunately, so far this hasn't happened.  But because the Democrats elected a wimp and a Chicago wimp at that, it will happen.  The Democrats will lose power, and soon.


    Until you decide to listen, this argument is (5.00 / 9) (#180)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:19:11 PM EST
    a gross waste of everyone's time. Including yours.

    These comments about the rules committee breaking the rules are not using difficult words to comprehend. You are purposely refusing to respond to the comments as written.

    Not a current, or former Democrat would object one bit if Obama would start to lead his Democratic majority to put Democratic policies in place.


    I'm still a Shirley Chisholm Democrat (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by esmense on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 09:31:38 PM EST
    I cast my first presidential vote (primary only, obviously) for Chisholm. Civil Rights activist, feminist, economic progressive (with, frankly, a far more pro-labor voting record than McGovern, who, although he was a progressive, hailed from a rural, right to work state) and anti-war. I still believe it's the best vote I ever cast, and it is still the only one that didn't involve some compromise. I knew she couldn't -- in 1972 -- get the nomination. But in casting that vote I was voting for the candidate who represented my hopes for the party's future. How naive those hopes look now!

    Even though she ran in a limited number of primaries (still, I think more than any other Democratic woman until Clinton) she managed to get 10% of the Democratic primary vote. I believe a candidate like Chisholm would get much more support from the rank and file today -- but even less support from party leaders and funders than in 1972. Her race wouldn't be as limiting a factor, but her civil rights activism and pro-labor liberalism would be more disqualifying today than they were in '72. Both as an anti-war candidate and a proud and unapologetic feminist she would be completely dismissed by today's media and the Democratic establishment. And, quite likely, even more openly ridiculed.

    Chisholm and her campaign have been "disappeared" down the memory hole. In part I think because she and it give the lie to the popular slur against "2nd wave" feminists; that they were elitist with no interest in working class issues, working class women, women of color, as well as, of course, women who made what are now called "traditional" choices. (I still have my 70s era feminst "Every Mother is a Working Mother" tee shirt to disprove that one.)



    The Democratic Party (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:49:49 PM EST
    has never really been like that.  

    McGovern was disliked by many Democrats.  How else to describe his crushing loss in 1972--which was during the heydey of liberalism according to many.  Unions were never stronger--and Nixon got their vote.  The tide of Women's rights, Equal Rights, concern for the enviroment that led Nixon to form the EPA, and a penchant for government interfering in the economy a' la Nixon's wage and price freeze--that is was he did after all in the Navy during WWII--was sweeping the country.

    Nixon's policies were in many respects liberal. He went to China.  He dialogued with the Soviets....He withdrew--way, way too slowly--from Vietnam.

    His personal style though was criminal and fascist...slight problem...

    True progressives will never be in power because by definition they are ahead of the curve....


    Gosh, how else to explain 1972? (5.00 / 6) (#116)
    by Cream City on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:50:18 PM EST
    Uh, have you heard of Watergate?  And as much or more to the point, of dirty tricks?  Do you have any conception of just how widespread were the criminal acts of the Nixon campaign?  

    There was a lot more to CREEP activities than just taping an office door, y'know.  So we never will know what would have been the result of that election had it been conducted with "only" the usual level of political chicanery instead of outright criminality.


    Chicago '68 also made a huge (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:01:49 PM EST
    difference for how the Dems were perceived by the country...the ongoing war...Dems were demoralized and hopeless and the McGovern campaign was a nightmare of screwups...down the tube with 2 veep candidates.  Gary Hart was no Plouffe or Axelrod.

    I think the anecdote that (none / 0) (#146)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:41:07 PM EST
    best describes 1972 is Edward Bennett Williams. Famous lawyer who co-founded Williams & Connolly, the DC lawfirm that represents the who's who of high profile criminal defendants.

    In 1972, Williams was the head of the DNC.  He ran the campaign for McGovern.  He voted for Nixon.  Great book, The Man to See, is about him.

    Watergate revealed Democratic party strategies to the Republicans.  It may have mattered on the margins....but Nixon didn't need to go there to win....

    Horrible fascist criminality is right.  But Nixon didn't need it to win....The thinking at the time in the Democratic Party, after Watergate had toppled Nixon, was that McGovern was too liberal, (too ahead of his time) and that the wisdom of the party bosses should come back into play somewhat, after the too-radical changes to address Mayor Daley's iron fist in 1968.  Hence, the Superdelegates...


    I suppose if you blame (none / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:46:25 PM EST
    CREEP for Muskie's "tears in the snow," then perhaps....

    Nixon wanted to run against McGovern and was all too happy to see Muskie go away....

    But, on the whole, I think you give Donald Segretti too much credit for his dirty tricks...


    Yikes, you must be young (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by Cream City on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:03:05 PM EST
    or not have followed what was revealed, day by day by day, for more than two years -- all called the Watergate scandal now, but it was so much more.  Far more than revelation of Dem strategies or the tactics of Segretti alone, because he was far from alone.

    I worked in the McGovern campaign, and I know well what I saw.  And I didn't see that sort of sliming of the process again until 2008 -- but then it was not done to Dems by Repubs but done to Dems by Dems undermining their own party processes.  Disgusting.


    Heh (none / 0) (#101)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:26:27 PM EST
    I guess Reagan was liberal too, if you consider negotiating with the Soviets to be the raison d'etre of liberalism.  And the case for Nixon's liberalism that includes "he got us out of Vietnam" is a truly wacky one.

    Nixon broke the barrier (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:43:16 PM EST
    in negotiating with China and the Soviets....Having lived through a time when everyone believed we would all die in a nuclear holocaust--it was a big step forward.  

    Reagan's foreign policy failures were not so much with respect to the Soviets--he was restrained in deed if not in words--but where he really failed was in Central America....

    Vietnam--sure, Nixon was no liberal.  But there were many who wanted to go all out to stay and win....But listen to Progressives today talk about Iraq or Afghanistan....all talk about slow withdrawals....I find that interesting....


    Point being (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:57:55 PM EST
    you are using the same metric to define Nixon as the wingnuts do when they claim Bush "wasn't a real conservative."  By that metric, we have never ever had a conservative President.  No one who can win a national election in this country is reliable right-wing - or reliably left-wing, for that matter - on every single issue.

    Nixon also (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:44:20 PM EST
    signed the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act - something no conservative would do.

    Booman hated Clintonian (5.00 / 13) (#53)
    by kempis on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:57:27 PM EST
    "corporatism" until Obama made it cool:

    I had to rub my eyes a few times while reading this one.

    Apparently, we've lost a portion of the "progressive" movement to the Obama Personality Cult.

    Don't get me wrong. I see nothing at all wrong with praising Obama--when he does something praiseworthy. But people like Booman and Cesca and half of DK are twisting themselves into pretzels as they now embrace principles they once fought against, all because it seems to be what Obama wants them to do.

    And if they'd just be fanboys and girls and leave everyone else alone, that would be fine. But they denigrate anyone who questions Dear Leader--which, these days, means anyone who adheres to progressive principles, defending the interests of working people and others not usually championed by the traditional power base (corporations and them whut runs 'em).

    So, Booman, to me, has this and everything else bass-ackwards: the threat to progressive principles comes not from disloyalty to Obama; the threat to progressivism comes from blind loyalty to Obama, who for whatever reason, apparently is reluctant to push a progressive agenda.

    When the definition of progressive becomes "whatever Obama says," we're in trouble.

    Oh No, I just went to read FDL (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:01:19 PM EST
    and now Jane has a new post up "Right and Left Agree: Mandates are the Road to Neo-feudalism".  Today is the road to some kind of feud of something :)

    Why would Obama supporters (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by hookfan on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:14:05 PM EST
    complain about this? After all, isn't this a perfect example of bipartisanship?

    I don't know (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:20:41 PM EST
    but they (whoever the great "they" are) want them banned from Dkos or something.  I think we are supposed to all be trying to prevent FDL bloggers from getting their diaries on the rec list if I have this clear.

    Jackboot tactics are part and parcel (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by shoephone on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:29:16 PM EST
    of the Orange Place diaries. Always have been. No wonder I never bothered to register over there.

    I look for opportunities to write about (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:06:58 PM EST
    what they did right. Every now and then I find one.

    Have to question your second premise. (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:09:07 PM EST
    Interesting tactic (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by dainla on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:09:35 PM EST
    We're basically seeing this everywhere.  Attack the left for being naive, childish, which just pushes us further from the party.  It's brilliant.

    Then when they are crushed at the polls, they can blame us because they were endlessly disrespectful and we were supposed to take it, like abuse victims.

    Hmm (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by dk on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:10:27 PM EST
    One of the keys to Obama is the new constituency he created, which is the opposite of the cynical DLC model

    Yah, given that Obama's new constituency includes Donnie McClurkin and Rick Warren, I'll take whaetever the "opposite" is, please.

    Funny how Booman wasn't offended (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:21:16 PM EST
    by these guys.

    So supporters of single payer, the most (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:31:41 PM EST
    progressive among us, who have most vocfiferously opposed Obama/Democratic HCR are anti-government?

    I think pressure from the left can only work to improve the Democratic Party and keep the "center" from moving ever rightward.  Elected Democrats need to understand they have to earn progressive votes, not take them for granted.

    Who said this? (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:13:05 PM EST
    Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this site and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

    I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country's destiny.

    Hint: July 3, 2008

    Crying. (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:21:46 PM EST
    So Feingold is not a progressive. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Cream City on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:52:59 PM EST

    I've wondered this a couple of times (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:57:03 PM EST
    too during the ongoing debate.  Howard Dean not a progressive?  Feingold not a progressive?

    If Greenwald get's an exception (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by CST on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:22:01 PM EST
    others do too?

    They've gotta hand out cards for this stuff.

    Must show proof of "credentials" to criticize.


    Most voters don't care about the DLC (5.00 / 12) (#123)
    by goldberry on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:00:09 PM EST
    That's where you and Booman are off the reservation. Average working people dint give a flying f about the DLC and right now their futures are being held hostage by a small new coalition of voters who seem to think what the DLC does  is very important. Meanwhile, that snobby new coalition helps to elect one of the most compromising pols in history. He makes the DLC look like the SDA.
    I think both you and Booman are getting too Emannuel Goldtein over this DLC thing. To the Clintons, the DLC was a useful vehicle at one point in time but didn't define them or their approach to public service.
    As for the party, I left voluntarily. I didn't like the accusations of racism against me or the undemocratic and fraudulent way the 2008 primaries were conducted. Take my registration and do whatever you like with it. The party lost a liberal ally in me.  Apparently, it was fine with that. The feeling is mutual. It can apologize to me if it ever wants my vote back or kiss my ass.  

    Well said. n/t (none / 0) (#170)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:32:19 PM EST
    No one said they did (none / 0) (#200)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:21:06 AM EST
    complete strawman.

    Fine (5.00 / 10) (#141)
    by kaleidescope on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:19:06 PM EST
    If the Democrats don't want to work for my vote I'll vote for Nader or Barry Commoner or someone like that.  Again.

    It's a free country (or at least it used to be).  If someone doesn't want to appeal for my vote or my money or my time, they don't have to get it.

    That's the way ATT operates and the way the Israel lobby operates and the way Citbank operates.  It's the American Way -- those willing to have their votes taken for granted get nothing.  Why should I be different just because I care about the commons and not just my own selfish material interests?

    Call me a bad Democrat or not progressive if it makes you feel better.

    If Booman believes it was (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by ding7777 on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:25:14 PM EST
    Clinton's  personal shortcomings which damaged the party/country leading to the Gore/Bush fiasco,
    he really had his head buried in the sand.

    shorter booman: (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by jedimom on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 04:41:20 PM EST
    leave Obama alooooooooone, waaaah!


    Make me leave the party Booman, it is my party too and I am going nowhere

    Why does Booman exempt Greenwald? (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 12:49:34 PM EST

    Because (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 12:55:10 PM EST
    And thanks gawd for this, Greenwald is not criticized for criticizing the Administration. There is a rule.

    I'm happy for it.


    It's because Greenwald is smarter than (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    Booman and Booman knows this :)

    He's smarter than most of us (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:04:16 PM EST
    But that's not it.

    There's this unwritten rule that Greenwald is not to be criticized. It's strange.

    I love Glenn, consider him a friend, and am thankful for the rule.

    But sometimes I look for things to disagree with him on just so someone does disagree with him.


    I notice you haven't touched the (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    greenwald piece on the Rove divorce.

    I am no fan of (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:06:19 PM EST
    discussions about anyone's personal life.

    If anyone deserves to have personal life (none / 0) (#79)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:36:16 PM EST
    examined it is Rove.

    I am no fan of McCain but that SC 2000 primary stuff was pure Rove and pure evil.  Then there's the swift boaters of 2004.  Rove can't get enough of a taste of his own as far as I am concerned.


    Booman could have just left out (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    Greenwald instead of giving him a callout.  

    Although I am also happy with the result.


    Now he has a post up about BTD (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:34:19 PM EST
    He's going to get some mileage out this if it kills him.  People are reading......for now

    And this one (5.00 / 7) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:44:25 PM EST
    is stranger than the last one.  He has a new-found appreciation for what Clinton endured with the Republican Congress...because....? because the Democrats have both houses AND the presidency and they still go for Republican policies?  

    Teresa was the commentary (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:47:29 PM EST
    I've been waiting for.

    LOL ;-). (none / 0) (#71)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:24:02 PM EST
    Bill was our rear guard. (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Salo on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:00:57 PM EST
    Poor guy got blasted from all sides. Obama arguably has had it much easier. Much easier. He's not really even lampooned in the press at all.

    That's fine (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:35:30 PM EST
    I want to hear what you have to say (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:40:45 PM EST
    if and when you do, because your memory of who said what when scares me and I don't know if I buy his policy ideology over party ideology.  Just typing that scares me as Van Jones is already under the bus and we have evidence that Obama decisions are going to have party consequences :)

    Did you see Huff Post last night (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:43:22 PM EST
    about Obama and twittering?  He doesn't.  But someone is doing so on his behalf.  

    But but but twittering in politics (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:44:23 PM EST
    is gaming the system :)

    Actually (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:44:10 PM EST
    Booman sent me a really great e-mail that explains his thinking in a much more persuasive way.

    I think he is going to use it for his next post.

    when he does I will link to it.


    You're sweet (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:46:28 PM EST
    Who knew you had this side to you?  You are much sweeter than those who don't bark or bite.  Probably because you aren't all pent up inside :)

    Feh (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:04:53 PM EST
    just another version of the "you're a dried up old hag" storyline. So Booman would have the Dems emulate the GOP I guess. Whatever.

    He felt Bill Bradley was better (none / 0) (#187)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 10:39:15 PM EST
    for his issues than Al Gore? I didn't know Booman was so interested in privatizing Social Security.


    Booman belongs to the cult of personality. (none / 0) (#188)
    by AX10 on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 10:50:55 PM EST
    What we must be striving for is policy that works for the working class.

    As for supporting Bradley over Gore, Booman must remember that Bradley supported tax "reform" in 1986 which in turn gave massive tax breaks to corporations.  How is that for "progress"?