Hypothetical Question: Would Obama and the Clintons be as successful if they were actually Liberal?

[Armstead]

Reading about Obama's unvarnished support for the TPP and the rest of these awful "free trade" scams raised this question.

Speaking personally, I am sick and tired of Democratic leaders who I really, really want to support, and in many ways do support -- but who contradict their good deeds and wonderful words with awful stuff.

Put another way, leaders who talk a good game, but on many issues that count seem to be Trojan Horses -- bringing the usual cabal of Corporate and Wall St. Oligarchs into the city disguised as a gift to us all.

The most egregious examples -- but not the only ones-- are President Obama and the Clintons.

I am not going to blame this solely on corporate control of the media and political process. The Democratic Corporate Liberals who rise have political talents and a sense of personal decency that the public responds to.

I often agree with Obama when he speaks. I think in his heart he believes the same things I do as someone who is "moderate" but clearly liberal and progressive. He's tried to hold the tide against the attack of the GOP/Koch alliance.

But ultimately I can't trust him. On the real issues of Money and Power, he slides over to the Oligarchs position. He appoints elitist insiders. he helps to sekll shit like "austerity." He turns to Wall St. for advice and pats the progressive " base" on the head saying "Trust me I've got this." And then goes against everything I believe in....Even though I am just a Moderate Liberal and Progressive (not a radical).

The Clintons are the same way. Bill has inspired me on many occasions with his speeches and off-the-cuff remarks. He professes to believe what I believe...But as president, just when i was about to relax, he metaphorically pulled out the knife and pushed crap like Corporate Globalization, NAFTA, Deregulation, etc.

Likewise Hillary. She hasn't been president, but in her own way does the same thing.

Therefore most of the times over the last 30 years, when there have been Democrats in control I have felt like part of me really wants to feel good about them and support them wholeheartedly. But the otehr part gets mad and frustrated when I see thenm doing things I would expect from a Republican.

CONTRARY TO THIS, there are Democrats that I do feel comfortable with and/or agree with much more. Elizabeth Warren being the most visible current example, but many others too, such as Tom Harkin, Sherrod Brown, Barbara Lee and others too numerous to mention. And of course the best non Democrat Democrat Bernie Sanders.

Whenever one of these gets too close to being truly influential, or even making noise about running for president, they are ignored and/or dismissed. Sometimes for personal reasons. Dennis the K has been proven absolutely right on many issues, but he's not considered presidential -- he's kind of funny looking, he doesn't play well with others, he's occasionally too woo-woo, etc. Howard Dean (whose somewhere in the middle) was branded as temperamental and unstable. Or Bernie Sanders is considered s schlubby Jewish professor from a whacky green state....etc.

On paper, President Obama might have fit in that category, because of his ethnicity and lack of time in DC. But, with his considerable political gifts he overcame that, and proved to be a masterful politician. Bill Clinton also overcame a tough background to rise in the ranks because he was a master salesman and smart as hell beneath his Bubba exterior.

How much of their ability to rise to the top was based on their considerable personal abilities, and how much was their willingness to sell out their core principles along the way?

If they had remained true to their liberal instincts, could they have been successful? Or were they allowed to take their brand of Duplicitous Corporate Liberalism to the top because it was phony underneath?

[ProSense]

1. Yes, clearly

On paper, President Obama might have fit in that category, because of his ethnicity and lack of time in DC. But, with his considerable political gifts he overcame that, and proved to be a masterful politician. Bill Clinton also overcame a tough background to rise in the ranks because he was a master salesman and smart as hell beneath his Bubba exterior.

How much of their ability to rise to the top was based on their considerable personal abilities, and how much was their willingness to sell out their core principles along the way?

...Obama's success is based on the fact that he is black and charming. That's no doubt why the rich and RW hate him.

Krugman: Obama and the One Percent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024391415

[Coyotl]

150. if we accept the false premise that Obama is not a liberal. But, Obama is a liberal and

we clearly see conservatives have no problem with that aspect of factual reality.

Acceptance of the OP's false premise (Obama is not a liberal) flies in the face of reality,
unless we also accept the false assumption that reality is a self-centered construct.

Based on that false premise (reality is a self-centered construct),
everyone to my right is a conservative follows with ease.

[unblock]

2. not likely. unfortunately, liberals just don't have enough institutional power these days.

things were better when we had strong unions and genuinely a balanced media. then liberals had a fair shot and could compete with corporate interests.

today, the best democrats can do is pick which corporate interests to serve. there are very few liberal corporations so they pretty much have to make deals with the neutral or "centrist" ones, which makes the democratic party of today look rather like the republican party of 40 or so years ago (while the republican party of today looks like a blend of the birchers, neo-nazis, and kkk of 40 or so years ago).

i think we have a lot of work to do at the state and local and union and media and grassroots level before a truly liberal president can really become president on that sort of agenda.

[Armstead]

3. I think Obama (and Clinton) were elected largely on a liberal agenda

Perhaps they got the chance to be heard, and not taken down, by aligning themselves with corporate interests.

But I think their basic messages were liberal populist, and that's what gave them the push to defeat their GOP opponents.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

8. Democrats are our own worst enemy. The so-called "corporatists" and conservatives in the House

and Senate.

On the liberal side, we whine whenever our leaders aren't "pure" enough by our standards.

As long as we continue to do this, Republicans will continue to beat us.

[Ed Suspicious]

63. What a line of crap. If we need our democrats to be republicans to get elected, well what's the

fucking point? We have to stand for something.

[Nay]

72. Thank you, Ed. My thought exactly. Maybe the dems SHOULD start grooming

stealth candidates who can talk the talk with the rich backers, but then turn around and be outright socialists when they get in; but once the 1% figured that out, they'd be wellstoned or voted out by $$$.

And it doesn't help that when we get some so-called democrats in office, they appoint Republicans to everything.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

119. No. Maybe Dems should not attacking their own and run more progressive candidates for office.

[L0oniX]

115. ^^^^this^^^^

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

118. So you're saying that there are no conservative or corporate Democrats? How is it crap?

It is true that we have conservatives in the Democratic Party. They are commonly referred to as Blue Dog Democrats.

It is true that we have corporatists in the Democratic Party. They are commonly referred to as DLCers.

Those are facts. What "crap" are you talking about?

[lark]

65. It's way worse than that.

For most people I'd think, it's not about purity, it's about policy and keeping your word. Clinton/Obama both have given in to the corporatists and pushed bills that greatly hurt the american workers. That's pretty fundamental to me. Could a non-corporatist win the presidency? That's the real question. I tend to think not. Wall St. and banking clearly have this administration, as well as all the other administrations, firmly in their pocket. Don't think they would tolerate any real change, so make sure that never happens.

[Ed Suspicious]

68. Irony of ironies is that you name yourself "Liberal_Stalwart..." at the same time denigrating

liberalism it's practitioners as too pure and rigid in our expectations.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

120. No way, sure. I voted for Nader over Clinton. Twice. I voted for him over Gore a third time.

And I supported Kucinich over Hillary, Obama and Edwards.

I am a true liberal, but I don't allow people to tell me how to think and how to act.

I certainly don't allow people to tell me how I am or am not a liberal. You don't know shit about me and what I do in my personal or political life.

[unblock]

17. only partly, and this is where the dearth of institutional liberal power comes in

yes, they made a lot of appeals, and got a lot of votes from liberals. but they also, a bit more quietly (at first at least) made plenty of promises to corporations in exchange for the donations that helped them build enough of a movement to get their message out to liberals.

once in office, after a few half-hearted overtures to the left, fully served their corporate masters for the most part.

the biggest problem is that liberals have a voice on election day, but corporate interests have a voice every day through lobbyists and donations. so the message is more liberal than the actual governing.

[sabrina 1]

35. Yes they were, and Hillary lost because when it came down to who was more Liberal on issues like

torture (remember Hillary's response when asked about that, many people did) and war (the Iraq war
vote) and HC (she was for the Corporate Mandated Ins, Obama was against it) even though people didn't know much about Obama his positions on those issues in the campaign, and few others, made the difference.

[zentrum]

56. Read Chris Hedge's book...

"Death of the Liberal Class". He claims they got complacent, gave up and stayed home. and that to have an effective liberal class you need to have a small, well organized far-left group of people constantly at their heels. That too, Hedges says, became mostly mute in this country after the Viet Nam War.

McCarthyism won, in a certain way, because its perpetrators are more relentless than liberals. Enter Murdoch and Koch Brother types and a docile intellectual class and you get the DLC---a corporatist Republican-lite Democratic Party.

My Grandfather, a Democratic precinct walker, is turning in his grave.

[Nay]

75. We don't have institutional power because elected Dems keep putting Pubs in

appointed positions! And they won't support local Dems who are using their own money to run for local office. There has to be a coordinated effort nationally. I just don't see that even on the agenda anywhere once Dean got thrown out. (Don't get me started on that -- instead of ruling Dems being embarrassed about Dean, they should have elevated him to an important position in response to the Pub attempts to make him look crazy.)

[Scootaloo]

127. We lack the power because we keep ceding it.

One thing I hear over and over around here and elsewhere in the liberal-sphere is the notion that moderation and compromise are always the correct answer. Liberals are always willing to sell out some of their positions to TRY to get some other positions taken. eventually we end up selling ourselves into a corner. Our "leaders" are mostly just men and women who can sell conservative positions to liberals. And half the time they get away with this because of the braindead mentality of "OH DYUR THEY'RE DEMOCRATS THEY MUST BE GOOD LIBERALS!"

So long as we keep giving up and selling out, this is how it's going to be. It doesn't matter that the Republicans are beating themselves in the face with hammers all damn day long; they're sticking to their guns (literally) and so their agenda still gets pushed through.

It's time for liberals to ditch this culture of compromise. Take radical positions and stick by them. YES, socialized medicine. Yes sturdy safety nets. Yes comprehensive national public education - enough with letting Texas set the curriculum in Vermont for fuck's sake. Yes to aggressive environmental protection.

And it's saddening to realize that only in the US could these actually be considered "radical" positions.

[Armstead]

136. I agree with what you said

The GOP -- no compromises. They always win and get what they want, even when they lose electorally.

Democrats (Many not all) -- No backbone and/or principles. Never get what they really want, even when we win electorally.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

4. Would Obama be more popular? No! We liberals will always find something else to raise the bar...

Last edited Mon Jan 27, 2014, 01:20 PM - Edit history (1)

...he'll never fit into this neat little box that we have crafted for him.

On the right (and some of the left, too!) will always hate him because he's black. It has always been apparent coming from the right. My eyes were opened in 2007 when I saw the racial hatred directed at Obama from the political left. It's very real no matter how much people try and deny it.

As for Clinton, I'm not sure. At the time he was president, I would assert that him being more liberal on some social issues may have been detrimental. However, on some notable issues: the Three Strikes Rule, communications deregulation act, welfare reform, NAFTA, etc., I think him being more liberal would have placed him alongside FDR as one of the greatest presidents we ever had. Had it not been for his personal behavior with Ms. Lewinsky, I truly believe that George "Dumbya" Bush would not have been president. Al Gore would have had at least 4 years to move this country forward in a more progressive fashion.

What scares me about this country is how quickly Americans lose patience with our leaders. That Bush, Jr. left this country's economy in shambles, but Americans expected Obama to clean up everything in 2 years (2010 is when Republicans took the House); or we liberals expected him to move faster on social issues of import failing to understand the degree of Republican obstruction or betrayal by conservative Democrats.

And what scares me MORE is America's willingness to gravitate to the REAL "phonies," as the OP describes: The Chris Christie's of the world. That we have Democrats believing this "moderate" shit about Chris Christie and voting for this guy over the Democratic Party's nominee is quite disturbing to me. That we have some in liberal media circles praising Chris Christie because he shook hands with Obama and therefore "is a good guy" or that we shouldn't be threatened by him, is very, very scary to me.

Forget about Obama and Clinton being liberal. For me, none of that matters if Democrats lose control of the Senate in 2014. It means nothing if we can't make some inroads in the House and across the country in state legislatures and judgeships.

You guys always complain about Obama (and Bill Clinton) not being progressive enough and not getting all the liberal/progressive policies that you want. If you sit by and in your anger, allow the Republicans to wrest control in the U.S. Senate, gain in the House, and solidify their dominance in state legislatures and governorships, nothing will change. You change things by getting more progressives elected to state houses and governorships. You change things in a more progressive direction by getting the most progressive Democrat available to run against moderate Democrats in the House. Same for the Senate.

But sitting around on a message board and complaining about why Obama or Clinton or whoever isn't liberal enough; or, why they are "phony" doesn't do anything to change anything.

[FSogol]

6. +100! "failing to understand the degree of Republican obstruction"

"But sitting around on a message board and complaining about why Obama or Clinton or whoever isn't liberal enough; or, why they are "phony" doesn't do anything to change anything."

A-men.

[Armstead]

13. God forbid we should actually discuss anything on a discussion board

Obama forever.

Gosh I sure hope the Democrats beat the Republicans.

That what you want?

[FSogol]

18. So, why are you in this thread trying to stifle discussion?

I said nothing against discussion.

[Armstead]

97. "complaining on a message board isn't doing anything"

sounds like you're agreeing with the post saying that there is no reason to communicate dissatisfaction on a message board.

Not stifling anything. Just saying that if one disagrees, why not tell me why I'm wrong in real terms in stead of asd-homonym attacks on the fact that I'm complaining?

[LanternWaste]

94. I don't think that disagreement with your premise is the equivalent of denying discussion

I don't think that disagreement with your premise is the equivalent of preventing or denying discussion.

[Armstead]

98. Disagreement with my premise is fine. It's just the "you shouldn't complain..."

I have no problem debating the differences of substance that the poster made.

But it rankles me when it leads to "you're saying something I don't like so you shouldn't be complaining...and if you complain on a message board that automatically means you're doing nothing about it."

That's a whole lot different than saying

"Your complaints are wrong because...." followed by actual points of difference with the content of the post.

[sabrina 1]

36. Well then he has a chance now to take the bull by the horns regarding spying on the American people.

The RNC has now decided they think the spying should stop. NOW he should take this opportunity and go back to where he stood during the campaign, he had a long list of specifics regarding what needed to be done about the NSA, take them at their word since they are no longer obstructing him, and implement the changes he supported during the campaign.

We are sick of that excuse, in case you haven't noticed. If every time we elect a Democrat and they are powerless because 'the Republicans won't let them do anything', then why bother electing Democrats?

No one is forcing him to continue Bush's horrendous NCLB 'education' policies or to keep Arne Duncan who is bound and determined to privatize the public schools eg. He is fully supportive of Duncan's destructive policies towards the Public Schools.

[Maedhros]

55. Yes - even when Democrats controlled the House, Senate and Presidency,

"Republican obstructionism" kept Obama from achieving Liberal objectives. Where was the "Democratic obstructionism" preventing Bush from achieving Neo Con objectives? <crickets chirping>

This notion of Presidential helplessness is convenient cover for an Administration that is either unwilling or afraid to pursue a Liberal agenda.

[Phlem]

82. Exactly!

"This notion of Presidential helplessness is convenient cover for an Administration that is either unwilling or afraid to pursue a Liberal agenda." I've been saying this for years.

But now he's got his pen and a phone to get around a do nothing congress.

So basically he found his magic wand,...after 5 fucking years.

I'm pretty sure he's going to use it for the TTP.

Yeay!

-p

[Scuba]

102. Bingo.

[Capt. Obvious]

9. "(and some of the left, too!) will always hate him because he's black."

is where I stopped reading.

[SidDithers]

14. The truth hurts, eh?...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

37. The truth never hurts. But baseless lies do. They hurt this country. So who do you know

'on the Left' who 'hates the President because he is Black'. Specifics please. Who, specifically do you have in mind?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

45. I am a black woman who saw racism in the liberal community with my own two eyes!!

Do not diminish or dismiss MY experiences. Not as a woman. Not as a black person.

There IS racism in the Democratic Party and in the ranks of liberalism whether you choose to believe it or not.

[sabrina 1]

69. There is racism everywhere, but you are claiming that when people disagree with this President

on policies, it is BECAUSE they are racists. That is an entirely different claim which was made by you. Where are these people who disagree with the President on policy issues who are only doing so, on the Left as you stated, iow, they don't REALLY disagree with him, they are doing so ONLY because they are racists. That was your claim. That is NOT the same thing as 'there are racists in the Dem party', is it?

And don't you diminish my personal experiences which you know nothing about and have zero to do with this discussion.

[Armstead]

74. i agree

[1StrongBlackMan]

103. That was not the claim ...

but you are claiming that when people disagree with this President on policies, it is BECAUSE they are racists.

Her claim was:

On the right (and some of the left, too!) will always hate him because he's black. It has always been apparent coming from the right. My eyes were opened in 2007 when I saw the racial hatred directed at Obama from the political left. It's very real no matter how much people try and deny it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

122. She's a fucking liar! That is it. She knows I said no such thing.

[sabrina 1]

128. Talk to your friend Sid. Do you agree with him?? If so, then my premise is correct. I did not

see you respond to him, so I'll have to wait. HE interpreted your 'meaning' and I responded to his interpretation of your post. Now if he was LYING about what you meant, so far you haven't said so. A correction would be appreciated. 'She's a fucking liar'. Nice, but I have a thick skin having dealt with this kind of nastiness for over ten years now, which only says to me 'I have no argument'.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

132. This is flamebait. You're on full ignore.

[sabrina 1]

133. Just as I thought. Thank you! n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

154. And so did the jury LS

So did the jury!

[Number23]

156. Yep and yep. Give your time to those that deserve it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

117. NO I AM NOT AND SAID NO SUCH THING!!! You know it! Where did I assert that ANYONE who doesn't

agree with President Obama is a racist? That is a flat out lie and you know it.

Copy and paste my exact words here!!

All I said was that there IS racism on BOTH the political right and the political left. Even before President Obama became president. If you don't think there isn't racism in the Democratic Party, you are either lying to yourself, or suffering from cognitive dissonance. I don't have to prove anything to you or any white person. I know what I saw. I know what I have experienced. You don't get to order me around or LIE about what my experiences are.

I need you to copy and paste where I stated that ANYONE who disagrees with President Obama is a racist!

Do it here. If you can't, I will alert you because you are a fucking liar! I said nothing of the sort!!!

[dionysus]

160. come on. you always make up arguments to attribute to other people, arguments they never made. nt

[Bobbie Jo]

79. Bravo.

This level of tone deaf, arrogance deserves to be confronted on sight.

Some people need to be reminded that they have not been appointed to official spokesperson status just yet.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. You denying that it's true? That truth must really hurt something awful.

[Capt. Obvious]

21. LOL

Here's a smiley you'll understand:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

51. I don't see anything funny about laughing about racism. Nothing funny at all.

Makes you look idiotic. It's not cute. It's stupid.

[AgingAmerican]

87. Back it up

or go home.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

116. Why is it that white people always want black people to prove racism?

O.K., on the Democratic Party side:

During the 2007 primaries, there were a host of polls from industrial and manufacturing-centered states (West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky) where people were surveyed and TOLD pollsters flat out that they would not vote for Obama because he is black. There were all kinds of surveys where Democrats admitted that race played a major role in why they support Hillary Clinton.

In my own personal experiences while I was canvassing in PA and some parts of VA, I was called the N-Word, spat on (BY DEMOCRATS) for supporting Obama.

The ugliness didn't stop there. On DU, there were racially insensitive comments made about Obama. Now, I didn't keep a running tally of those insults (why would I?) but they were here. They were all over social media.

If you don't believe it, then you don't believe it. That's your problem.

But telling me to go home? Well, this isn't 1963. I can stay where I want and say what I want when I want. You don't get to tell me to go anywhere or do anything.

[AgingAmerican]

134. You were called the N word and spat upon by Democrats for supporting Obama?

Racial comments were made against Obama on DU, but you just can't remember by whom?

I just don't believe it, sorry.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

135. You don't have to believe it. You live in a world where you don't want to believe it. That's sad.

Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't mean that I'm a liar and that it didn't happen.

Full ignore. Goodbye.

[AgingAmerican]

140. Please...

Enlighten us as to what some of these racist comments against Obama on DU were, since you are unable to show us directly.

[sabrina 1]

38. Please name specifically some of these 'people on the Left' who hate the President

because he's Black'. Thanks in advance.

[Armstead]

42. Tavis Similey....oh wait....

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

46. I'm not referring to commentators. I'm talking about voters. Democratic voters during the primaries.

I saw hatred on liberal blogs, on Twitter, on FaceBook, and yes, racial prejudice and insensitivity right here on DU.

I don't need to go on T.V. to show or prove anything. And I don't have to prove anything to you or any white person. That you demand I do so is incredibly insulting.

And making jokes about something as serious as racism is uncalled for.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[sabrina 1]

61. That's odd, because Obama was elected by a huge margin over McCain. You would think that the 'haters

on the Left' would have opted for someone who better represented them.

And who is making jokes about racism? I find it appalling that anyone would USE race as an excuse for someone who himself, and this was one of the things I most admired about him, has never done so. Insulting in fact.

And which Liberal Blogs did you see this hatred on? I read most of them and any such comments, hatred, bigotry etc are bannable offenses on almost all of them. I have been reading them for years, yet have not seen this.

Are you thinking of Right Wing blogs, because there you will see plenty of bigotry and stupidity. I'm curious about the Left Wing blogs you are reading because someone should have reported those comments. Did you? They would have been banned.

This President was elected, like every other president, to do a job. Period. You appear to be confusing disagreement with some of his policies with racism. So when people slammed Bush, what was that?

You should be ashamed of yourself. You make horrendous allegations of bigotry against Democrats and then cannot back them up and dare to tell others it is THEY who should be ashamed of themselves??

And you have no idea of the ethnicity of people on this forum who have not shared it with you. Facts matter so if you are going to make allegations you should be prepared to back them up.

[GoneFishin]

66. I don't doubt or question your experience. I doubt people who pose as the "liberal left" then spew

racial prejudice on liberal blogs. Pretending to be part of a group so you can advance your message is not an unknown strategy on the internet. The racial prejudice spewing wing of the liberal left in an oxymoron in my opinion.

Insensitivity is another matter, because it takes many forms, and can be very nuanced.

[sabrina 1]

109. So who are these people? On every single Liberal Blog I've ever been on, bigoted comments are

deleted and the commenter banned. I've moderated on a large Liberal Blog and anyone who showed up, mostly right wingers, making bigoted statements were removed. So where are you seeing these comments on Liberal forums? DU bans such people also.

[GoneFishin]

139. I have not seen any. My only point is that such racists are not like any liberals I know.

Racist comments are most likely to come from trolls trying to derail the conversation.

[sabrina 1]

141. Okay, I misunderstood then, thank you. My apologies and thank you for your civil response.

[GoneFishin]

143. No problem. We are nearly always on the same page. I was trying to be delicate and I muddled

my point in doing so.

[Armstead]

12. This is a discussion board. The purpose is to discuss.

You are engaged in a familiar stereotype of your own. That anyone who posts critical things on a message board never does anything else.

To repeat, this is a discussion board. Whatever underlying purpose it may have as a part of the democratic left, the basic purpose of any message board is to discuss.

If you think my post was wrongheaded for real reasons, please feel free to disagree and tell me why.

But don'lt retreat into that stale, status-quo loving meme that all who post critical things of out leaders on message boards don't understand the Big Picture or don't do what they can in their own lives to advance their beliefs.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

19. Oh, please with this victimhood mentality. No one is trying to shut down debate.

You sound like the conservatives whining about the liberal media.

Look, you have a right to voice your opinion. And I have the right to knock it down.

[Armstead]

22. You have every right to knock it down

Just don't retreat to the "Oh you're complaining so you must not do anything but spend your time on a message boards,."

Or its close cousin "You just don't understand the big picture."

Your approach to discussion is much closer to the conservative one.

[Capt. Obvious]

26. Don't sell him short

it could also be, "you just hate Obama because he's black"

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

47. Joke all you want. There is racism in the Democratic Party and on the political left.

Nothing you say or do will ever change my mind on that.

And you need to be careful what you say here, because you are lying if you are accusing me of pointing to specific individuals. You need to tread very lightly here.

[Capt. Obvious]

49. That's rather insensitive of you

You better tread lightly.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

52. Or, you'll do what? You're insinuating that I will accuse someone on this board of hating the

president because he is black. That is a lie!!

I said that there is racism in the Democratic Party. That is the truth!

I said that there are liberals who are racists. That is the truth!!

What you are trying to insinuate is a lie. You need to be very careful where you go from here.

[JustAnotherGen]

155. LS

I think I understand why you are saying sayonara now.

[Number23]

157. Yep. This thread has been nothing short of jaw dropping and illuminating.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. Interesting. Conservatives knock anyone who isn't "pure" like them. I'm a liberal. A proud liberal.

But I don't call President Obama or President Clinton "phony" or resort to other epitaphs because they aren't liberal enough. Would I have liked for them to be more progressive. Sure. And maybe they are but can't push for more liberal policies due to the political climate that they are forced to operate in. Regardless of the reason, I understand the facts.

I do find it interesting that you took the lame "conservative" route. It's YOU who started this thread about "phony liberals". That's precisely what they do on the right. They are also excellent at PROJECTION: accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of. Don't do that.

At least I invite ALL perspectives in the Democratic Party. I may not agree with them all. I may even hate the fact that the Progressive Caucus--the largest caucus in the Democratic Party--has no power. I hate that. But I don't go around accusing fellow Democrats of being phony. Again, that's what the wingnuts do. We should be above that here on DU.

[Armstead]

32. It is phony in the big picture

There is a major difference between being upset because a politician is not taking us in a direction we want fast enough and being upset because they are driving us in the opposite direction.

Bill Clintons massive push to deregulate the media, for example, brought us to a situation where a handful of giant media conglomerates own most of the nation;s radio and TV stations, and cable networks and cable systems and now they are taking over the Internet.

Bill Clinton's equally enthusiastic push for financial deregulation brought us 2008 and all of the related horrors. It also helped to create the "too big to fail" monopolistic scenario we are now being smothered by.

I could give many more examples.

President Obama is currently doing the exact same thing by pushing for "free trade" agreements like TPP.

This is not simply a matter of not bringing positive change fast enough. It is a matter of moving away from liberal and progressive goals in an active way.

[tblue]

44. Maybe some folks aren't as desperate as others

Maybe they think there's still time to set things right, sometime in the possible future when we elect a lot more Dems to Congress and, concurrently, one to the White House. Then we'll show 'em.

Until then, I guess, don't say nothing bad about the Dems in DC. Because who are you to demand anything? Adjust your expectations and get to work. There's time enough to fix things once we win all the right elections.

Just surmising. What I don't understand is equating voicing concern with not voting or not helping during. elections.

[Armstead]

57. We've already won the right elections and it didn't happen

That dog is hunting less and less

[Maedhros]

91. From 2008 - 2010 the Democrats held majorities in the House and Senate

as well as the White House.

Even under those remarkable circumstances, the Republicans were still able to get their way on pretty much everything. The flagship legislation from that time (ACA) was crafted to assuage Republican concerns and to ignore Liberal demands.

The Democratic Party makes many pretty promises ("Give us subpoena power!&quot right up until it's time to fulfill them, then they backpedal ("Impeachment is off the table!&quot .

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

50. Again, nothing in Obama's two books, nothing in his voting record, nothing in his ENTIRE speech

catalog made me believe for one second that he is a card-carrying member of the liberal ideological persuasion.

You and many other liberals who are angry at the president for not being liberal focused on a few issues on which you agreed with him and totally ignored others. That's your fault. Not his. Yours! I don't agree with the TPP, spying on Americans, and a host of other issues/decisions this president has made. However, I was under no illusions that he was not a liberal. I knew he wasn't. That's why I supported Kucinich.

And in 1996, I didn't vote for Clinton. I voted for Nader. Why? Because I did my homework. I knew Bill wasn't a liberal; therefore, I didn't get mad when we didn't get liberal policy positions.

Calling someone phony or fake is ridiculous when you didn't pay attention to the candidate's ENTIRE message...not just a few issues on which you agreed and ran with. You have to take some responsibility for your vote.

[Armstead]

59. Let's just say I disagree withn your interpretation of their message and strategy

And the fact that there weren't real choices also factored in....(Which is what my original question was ultimately about.)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

111. Fine. Disagree all you want. We'll leave it at that.

[loyalsister]

95. Oddly enough

The complaints of idealists are a result of Obama's idealism. "There is not a liberal America and a Conservative America- there's the United States of America" was his opening line. His belief in a United States demands pragmatism because part of his idealism is to have respect for people you disagree with. In his speech about race, he gave white people who have racist attitudes the benefit of the doubt (straight out of MLK's playbook).
As for racism from the left, I think the expectation that he would be more liberal is largely based on stereotypes and ideas about "Blacks knowing what's good for them."

I think he must be heartbroken on some level because his idealism has been crushed. I will be very interested to see what he has to say about his presidency after he leaves office.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

112. I think he was very naive to believe that the Republicans (and some Democrats) wanted to work with

him. That is my biggest complaint. It will taint his legacy, as least for me, it will.

[Distant Quasar]

108. Yes! It's all about betrayal

Last edited Mon Jan 27, 2014, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)

I can handle failure. I can handle unpleasant compromises. I can handle delayed gratification. I understand that I'm not going to agree with a president every time. I don't ask perfection of my leaders, Obama included.

What I can't handle is active betrayal on a massive scale of what I consider core ethical principles. Obama's determined pursuit of the TPP is such a betrayal. Not to mention his surveillance policies, his amoral drone war, his decision to tolerate blatant Wall Street criminality... etc. These are areas where Obama, as president, has huge discretion. He wasn't forced into these policies. He chose them.

And don't even get me started on Clinton.

[LuvNewcastle]

64. Glad you aren't resorting to any "epitaphs."

You shouldn't do that as long as Obama and Clinton are still breathing.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

124. I don't understand your post...and neither do you. :)

[sabrina 1]

43. Well then let's discuss what you brought to the discussion. Please name the

people on the Left who 'hate the President because he's Black'. This, according to you, explains opposition to some of the President's policies. So if you can name these people, perhaps we can do something about it.

[sabrina 1]

129. 'Fucking liar'. That's not an argument. See Sid's interpretation of your meaning and then get back

to me. I didn't see you calling him a 'fucking liar' so I'll assume you agree with him until you do.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

131. Post my exact words that I either implied or explicitly stated that ANYONE who disagreed with Obama

is a racist.

Post the exact language. If you can't do that--which you can't--you are a liar!

This is not about what Sid said or about his interpretation.

This is not about interpretation.

Post my exact words. Not an interpretation.

You can't do that. Instead you lied!

I could alert your ass and I would but that would be a waste of my time. Your posts are pure ignorance.

Welcome to IGNORE.

I'm done with this flamebaiting thread as well.

[sabrina 1]

137. You lost me at 'fucking liar'. Speaking of flamebait.

Your post was interpreted by Sid. If you don't want to correct that interpretation, that's your choice and mine is to make up my own mind based on your angry responses.

I didn't read much after "fucking liar".

I have no one on ignore, but I can ignore angry, epithet filled comments without any problem.

[MrScorpio]

39. Best comment in this thread, by far

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

[Demeter]

67. It's not the Lack of Liberalism, but the Lying about it that bugs me.

I don't like being lied to, in my face or otherwise, when I'm paying his salary.

[Jamaal510]

126. ^^Thread win right here ^^

[Number23]

158. LiberalStalwart left DU over this thread. But the support she's gotten from EVERY black poster

within this thread should make her rethink that.

And I wish I was surprised by a single poster sliming her including BLATANTLY misrepresenting what she wrote but then I'd be lying.

[Jamaal510]

159. Wow that's too bad.

LS was one of the handful of posters I liked on here, and she seemed to know more about our political process than many other posters here. Oh well...

[L0oniX]

5. BOG: Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Vote Dem ...no matter what.

[bobduca]

24. "LET IT SINK" or "SWARM"

which directive will the collective receive?

[JoePhilly]

58. How'd that primary of Obama work out in 2012?

Endless complaining hasn't work well for the disgruntled left.

And it doesn't look like they'll figure that out before 2016.

[Armstead]

60. Liberals/Progressives played ball in 2012....and of course you have to criticize them for that too

Some Democrats who are resistant to change whine about "liberals" and others on the left side for not being supportive enough of the mainstream Demopcratic Party or the politicians they serve up.

The left decided not to act as "spoilers" is 2012, and so did not put up any notable challenge to Obama. They supported Obama. The left basically played ball.

So naturally the status-quo defenders have to criticize the left for that too.

[JoePhilly]

70. There were lots of them here on DU screaming for a primary.

They were not playing ball as you claim.

At the time, I suggested they give up on that (as it was a pretty dumb idea) and instead focus on developing candidates for 2016.

So where are we now?

Pretty much the same folks on DU who wanted a primary of Obama in 2012, now endlessly complaining about Hillary in 2016.

From what I'm hearing, they're going to give up, stay home, not vote at the national level, or maybe just vote 3rd party.

My point is that those around here who are so upset about the "status-quo", seem to do more complaining than anything else.

[Armstead]

73. Thats one of the things DU is for...complaining and venting and arguing....

Despite the complaining in 2012, I think you'd find most did their bit to re-elect Obama and make sure we didn't have a President Mitt.

That's not mutually exclusive from wanting better or from complaining.

[JoePhilly]

77. Seems to be the one of the primary things DU is "for" then.

Obama was never going to end DADT. He'd always defend DOMA. Never be pro-gay marriage.

Was not going to prevent a 2nd great depression, and a double dip was imminent.

UE was going to continue to go up up up.

Was never going to end the Iraq war. Never draw down in Afghanistan.

Was definitely going to cut SS and Medicare.

ACA was going to be a terrible disaster.

The MIC was going to make sure their puppet Obama start wars in Libya, and Eqypt, and a really big one in Syria and Iran too.

Endless misguided outrages ... over and over.

And so it will continue.

[pampango]

81. That's a pretty good summary. Thanks, JoePhilly. n/t

[Armstead]

86. Complaining is the great American pastime, but.....

I think there is justifiable reason for complaint in this case...


I doubt Obama would have shifted his positions on gays if there hadn't been a lot of complaining about his prior stances....I suspect (this hope not) that he decided to throw progressives a bone with that to keep support.

The economy is not really recovering. Just looking better for the investor class, with a few trickle down benefits for some others.. Our society is being rotted to the core by the continuing siphoning of wealthy upward to a minority. That continues at an alarming pace.

Afghanistan and iraq, I'll give him that.

He has perpetuated the GOP CONservative lies about SS and Medicare. He still talks the austerity game, instead of exposing it for what it is. (An effort to gut the safety net.)

ACA has not been a raging success. Whether a disaster or not, Obama effectively embedded private insurance as the driver of the system and undercut the drive for true reform with public alternatives.

[JoePhilly]

105. So Putin made Obama supprt the gays?

Or ... as a candidate, Obama recognized the danger of going "all in" ... and held the line at "civil unions", which was as far left he (or anyone else could go and still get elected). Meanwhile, he (a) started changing how the Federal government dealt with gay employees, and (b) increased pressure on a REAL solution to DADT, not the weak, and temporary executive order route. Importantly, many forget that the DADT needed Republicans, and Obama's deal to delay ending the Bush tax cuts initially occurred at the same time. As for throwing the progressives a "bone" ... I have to laugh when any progressive who wanted DADT to end, and wanted it badly, saw it as a critical issue, now diminishes its importance by calling it a "bone" thrown to progressives as if it didn't really matter.

DADT was very important, until Obama did ended it, then it becomes a meaningless "bone". That's a fairly common outcome for DU outrage topics.

You can claim that the economy has not been improving but that is nonsense. When the President took office, the economy was in FREE FALL. Is it now? Not even close. UE was on its way UP to 10.2%. The idea that the only people who have been part of the recovery is the rich is ridiculous. BTW ... under Obama, the tax rate on the rich has increased to a level higher than at any point since prior to Reagan. But hey, obviously Obama should have reversed 30 years of economic wealth transfer in 5 years.

On SS and Medicare. I recall back in Jan 2010 when much of DU was SURE Obama was going to announce cuts to those programs ... not little cuts, major cuts. Didn't happen. And it hasn't come close to happening in any of the 15 or so DU freak outs on this topic. The GOP hates those programs, which means they are ALWAYS on the table. The President continues to DARE the GOP to try and grab that brass ring. He's basically asked them the question ... "Ok, you want cuts ... what will you give me for them." Its a trap. And the GOP knows it. They sniff around the edges, but won't touch it. If Obama wanted to cut those programs the PERFECT time to do it was during the economic collapse in 2009. He could have EASILY said that we needed to make those cuts to help stop the collapse. And Americans would have agreed to it. But that didn't happen. And its not going to happen.

On DU, the same folks who have been angry and vocal about these other topics, have been just as angry, and sure of the failure of the ACA. When the web site was glitchy, they were SURE that was it for the ACA. As for Obama undercutting the "drive for true reform" ... yea, it was going GREAT before the ACA. BS. What the ACA does that so many of you seem to miss is (a) allow states to create their own exchanges in which they can include their own Public Option plans, and (b) thanks to GOP governors, red states are all getting a federal exchange, which down the road, will add its own Public Option. Here again, complaining isn't going to move that ball forward, but the ACA will.

[Armstead]

121. I'm fine with most of what you wrote in this

There are some honest disagreements with my premises. Fine. I can (and often have) discussed subjects like that on the merits.

It's just the "shut up and stop complaining part" that gets my goat. Keeping things on the merits of the subjects being discussed seems to be to be a better way to go about debating (or arguing).

[L0oniX]

85. Message to left: We don't need your votes.

Thanks ...we got your message.

[JoePhilly]

107. What I actually said is ...

the disgruntled left tends to be good at complaining, but bad at creating viable candidates, probably because of all the time it wastes complaining.

[sabrina 1]

142. Well, maybe there was a reason for the complaints? And yes, we are getting the message

very loud and very clear 'We Don't Need Your Votes'. The 'disgruntled Left' has formed a coalition of Liberal Orgs including the Unions, BEFORE the last election because there are an awful lot of 'disgruntled lefties' for some reason these days. They played ball up to now, as someone above said, but this coalition of large and powerful organizations who donated a whole lot of money for years to the Dem Party but are very, very unhappy with the message they've all been getting 'we don't need you' AFTER you put us into power and AFTER you donate all your money'.

You will probably be very happy to know that the 'disgruntled Left' no longer intends to just be 'disgruntled' they intend to do something about it.

So thank you again, the Left THOUGHT they had a party, but you are doing your part to convince them that they do not. To dismiss genuine concerns by the very people who elected them, over and over again, can only have one result. It takes time for people to give up the idea that their lifelong commitment to a party was a waste of time. But that time has come for millions of Democrats.

Recent polls have shown that fewer people than ever are now identifying with either party. Only approx. 32% identify as Democrats and even among that number, many are 'disgruntled' as you say. Only 29% identify as Repubs now. That leaves a huge number of Independents.

You can pat yourself on the back for helping to push the 'disgruntled left' to stop being fools. So don't bother complaining if Dems lose because the 'disgruntled left' will remind you that you are partly responsible for that. Times are changing and if the Dem Party continues to dismiss the voters' concerns, then the voters will dismiss THEM. It's happened before in history when it became obvious that a political party no longer cared about the people who put them in power.

So either the Dems provide candidates that people can vote FOR for a change, rather than pushing candidates they end up voting for because there is no one else, or voters will choose their own candidates.

[JoePhilly]

145. You seem confused ...

I'd be very happy if your constant complaining turned into better candidates. So far, it hasn't.

Its interesting that your big threat is Democrats losing to Republicans because people like me, pushed you out. If your constant complaining turned into good candidates, they'd win, and I'd be happy.

See, you guys don't threaten to create better candidates, you simply threaten to help the Democrats lose. To stomp your feet and stop being a registered Democrat.

You should be threatening to create these better candidates.

But that is much harder to do than complain.

Back when many of you were screaming for a primary of Obama, I suggested you skip that silly idea and get busy developing an alternative to Hillary in 2016.

And what have you guys been doing ... nothing but complaining.

[sabrina 1]

146. I'd be happy if your constant whining about Democrats turned into better candidates.

It's not my opinion that the message to Democratic voters that they are not needed EXCEPT at election time has turned many away from the party. I'm just passing along that information so you understand that whatever the reason for the constant bashing of Dem voters by some people in the party, has had an effect. Maybe that is the purpose of it, if so then 'mission accomplished' I suppose.

Please link to any post of mind 'screaming for a primary of Obama'.

Lol, what we have NOT been doing is driving people away from the Democratic Party. We've been trying to persuade people NOT to pay attention to the whiners but to take this party out of their hands once and for all.

[JoePhilly]

147. So take the party then ... please.

But you won't take it by spending your time complaining.

The only way you are going to "take the party" is by spending time developing better candidates, and not by endlessly complaining about the candidates we already have.

I've always said, support the candidate you want most in the primary, support the winner of the primary in the general election.

Now, if you want to take the party back, you're going to need to get some candidates, some real candidates.

Without those, you aren't taking any party anywhere.

[sabrina 1]

148. Well we supported Buono in NJ, you know, the Dem Candidate.

But her own Party supported the Republican. Is that what you're talking about re complaining? We HAD a good, progressive candidate in NJ but Dems were in love with Christie and she could not get any help from her own party. I most definitely will continue to complain when our own party supports Republicans. What are YOU doing to stop them from doing this again, because it isn't the first time??

Keep on complaining about Democratic voters, but it makes it much harder for us to convince them to stay in the party when all they hear is how rotten their ideas are from those who spend their time on the Internet bashing Progressives.

[JoePhilly]

149. And unfortunately, she lost.

She was never going to beat Christie, but she's not a bad candidate.

And for all your complaining, if I recall, you won't be doing anything to unseat the Democratic mayors who endorsed Christie. Anything more than complain I mean. Right?

I'll let the voters of NJ decide how they want to deal with those mayors. And what I suspect is that they'll recognize why those mayors endorsed Christie (current scandals acting as direct evidence as to why), and focus on the actual issues in their towns.

Who else ya got? Or we hoping she'll run for President now?

[sabrina 1]

151. No, she didn't 'lose' she was a victim of the Third Way who have managed to tell the lie

over and over again that the Progressive Dem 'can't win' and then they make sure the Progressive doesn't win. Thanks for proving my point AND going so far as to use their talking point for progressive democratic candidates 's/he can't win'.

NJ is a BLUE STATE and Buono COULD have won if she had not been left out in the cold and if the voters had not been lied to and told 'she can't win and Christie is just great, so bi-partisan, so moderate, so willing to pose with Obama etc'

But the voters have now learned a tragic lesson. THEY WERE LIED TO and everyone I know in NJ is determined to get rid of the pretend Democratic mayors who fought AGAINST the Democratic candidate.

See the harm you and all those who whine about and bash Progressive Candidates has done?

It's hard enough to win an election when your party is on your side. But when your party is on the Republican side it's impossible.

Keep on bashing Progressive Dems if that's what you want to do, but NJ has taught voters a very big lesson and it will be a long time before any Third Wayer can do what they did last time to a Progressive Dem candidate.

Those mayors are going to be challenged and hopefully the Third Way won't be pouring money into their campaigns again but it will be a bit easier now for the Progressives in NJ to point out the corporate infiltrators in their party there.

I'll be busy working for Progressives to defeat the Third Wayers every where I find them.

You just keep on whining on the internet about Progressive voters if that's your thing, but fewer and fewer are going to be listening to you thankfully now that the country has seen the results of the take over by the Third Way of this party.

The Party is becoming MORE LIBERAL polls are showing now. Third Way candidates are going to find it more and more difficult to get support against Progressives. Too bad so much harm was done before this became obvious.

[JoePhilly]

152. You are pretty hilarious.

Very few of those mayors will be challenged.

You keep saying that I'm whining. I get the sense you don't know what that word means.

So I'll be as clear as I possibly can be.

I'm mocking the perpetually disgruntled.

They run around with their hair on fire, from outrage to outrage, unable to prioritize, or focus for very long.

One minute they are totally blocked, ready to give up, because they are stymied by the 3rd way or the even scarier "TPTB" ... the next minute they are so powerful that they have forced the President to do something he didn't want to do.

As I said before, if the perpetually disgruntled somehow develop better candidates, I'll be happy to see it. My expectation, however, is that they'll spend their time complaining about Hillary, while doing little to develop real alternatives.

And as a result, the folks who are constantly complaining about Obama, will spend from 2016 to at least 2020, complaining about President Hillary Clinton.

[sabrina 1]

153. I have to run, got more important things to do than sit around whining about Progressive Democratic

voters. So I'll leave that to you while I try to convince some of them that it is THEIR party and to ignore the attacks from a few disgruntled internet denizens.

See you later

[KoKo]

7. I suspect many of us Dems are asking ourselves this question lately...

If they had remained true to their liberal instincts, could they have been successful? Or were they allowed to take their brand of Duplicitous Corporate Liberalism to the top because it was phony underneath?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

15. To my knowledge, neither of them considered nor called themselves "liberals". And if we had

paid attention to their respective policy platforms, we would have seen this.

You can't blame them or call them "phony" or fake because we didn't do our due dilligence.

If you read either of Obama's books, reviewed at his record in the IL State Senate, the U.S. Senate or read any of his speeches or readings, you would have seen and known that Obama was never a liberal. If you didn't, that's your fault. Not his.

Same with Clinton. He wasn't a liberal. He ran as a folksy, middle of the road, Southern blue state guy. There was some populist messages and imagery thrown around for good measure, but I don't ever recall Bill Clinton running as a liberal, pretending to be a liberal, or delivering a message that was supposed to be liberal.

[Armstead]

25. The sales piutch was liberal..

"I'll fight for you until the last dog dies." That phrase of Clinton's certainly had a populist tone, especially when combined with many of his liberal overtones.

Obama didn't campaign saying "Once I'm in office I'm going to push for more trade agreements like NAFTA, and I'm going to promote ones that are even bigger and worse."

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

29. My friend, you simply didn't learn about his ENTIRE political philosophy. You picked out a few issue

and decided for yourself that he is a liberal. You projected onto HIM what you wanted him to be. You didn't do your due dilligence to figure out what side of the fence he stood on. He talked about invading Afghanistan. He talked about charter schools. He was never really clear on NAFTA--he equivocated. He also equivocated on the issue of single payer and individual mandates.

Look, I was a Kucinich fan. It was only until it was Hillary vs. Obama that I reluctantly decided to go with Obama. I thought he was the better candidate.

Anyway, you believe what you want. It's your prerogative. But you can't blame President Obama and Clinton for not being liberal enough if you didn't pay attention to their ENTIRE platform (not just Iraq, etc.).

[Armstead]

34. My stabnce was similar to yours

I always shared Kucinich's views on the issues. I went with Obama because I preferred him to Hillary. But I always recognizwed that he wss not as clearcut as I wished.

That doesn't change the fact of my OP, which was simply to ask if someone with the talents of Obama and Clinton and the positions of someone like Kucinich or other truly progressive Democrats could succeed.

[Boomerproud]

90. True. Nothing pissed Bill Clinton off more than being called the L-word.

He ran away from it like it was toxic, then he had the nerve to be angry when he felt libs didn't "have his back".

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. Of course! I'd happily attend a $10,000 a plate fundraiser if only they were more liberal. n/t

[loyalsister]

11. Or

Is there a reason we have we not had a President Kucinich, Nader, Grayson... ?

[Armstead]

16. You appear to miss the point of the OP

[loyalsister]

96. I don't think so

Pragmatism and representing a population that is unfortunately more conservative than what is reflected here are unfortunate facts.
The political skill of any politician is to convince as many people as possible that they reflect their values. That will include people who disagree with each other. The result is various compromises which will disappoint pretty much everyone at some point.

[Armstead]

101. One of the things i always liked about Obama was his pragmatism and willingness tro compromise

I believe that';s how you reconcile differences.

But I don't define compromise as starting at the demands of the opponent you are supposedly negotiating with.

Or actively supporting policies that contradict one's stated goals and values.

Why is he so ardently pushing for policies like secret agreements to push corporate "free trade", when so many in his own party are obviously opposed to it, and so many in the GOP are for it?

[loyalsister]

104. oops

It's a mistake to think that political negotiation on a national scale is anything at all like what happens when you buy a used car.

[Armstead]

106. The basic principle is the same

You want something the other party wants something.

You haggle over things like outcome, cost, etc. You try to move them in your direction, they try to move you in their direction.

The outcome is the same if one party stands firm and the other waffles.

"I'll sell you this car for $10,000 and give you a warranty of 6 months."

"Well I really want to pay $5,000 and have a one year warranty. But let's negotiate. I'll give you $9500 if you give me a seven month warranty."

[loyalsister]

110. And all the while

considering how badly millions of people you care about do or don't want you to make the deal, and how it will effect them? Plus weighing all unintended consequences and considering what may happen without that purchase.......... Really?

[Armstead]

123. Really

It obviously gets more complicated the more complicated the thing being negotiated over is.

But the basic principle is the same. You don't start a successful negotiating by conceding most of your demands at the start.

(Of course I realize Republicans never negotiate in good faith. But IMO that's all the more reason for standing ground against them.)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

23. Yes, I'll answer. I was a Kucinich fan. I supported him before finally moving over to Obama.

But there is a reason why he is not president. In fact, there are many reasons why he and other liberals are not president. The country doesn't reflect our opinions WHERE we can win. In other words, not in the American South (where I'm originally from), not in the Midwest. And as it appears, not even in some parts of the Northeast where Republicans like Chris Christie are being ushered into office by DEMOCRATS!! Yes, that's right!

This country is evolving on some issues and moving leftward. I am thrilled about that as a liberal. But, for the most part, it's going to take time for a complete shift.

But the DUers whining about Obama and Clinton want their liberal cookie NOW, damnit! And if they don't get it now and Obama and Clinton were just more liberal...

....oh, whatever!!

[Armstead]

28. There's a big difference between moderation/ compromise and driving in the wrong direction

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

30. Well, that too is a matter of opinion.

[loyalsister]

93. Exactly my point

I hope to see a significant shift leftward. Unfortunately, many of the gen xers (my peers) who grew up in the Reagan yrs adopted the materialistic and religious values that have dominated American culture since the 80s. I think they were raised by misguided baby boomers, creating a significant population of conservatives who have had the money and motivation to seek public office.
I don't buy into the gen xers are lazy do nothings, but when it comes to political activity, I don't see too many of them showing up. When I have asked, the responses I have gotten are that they don't think they can have an influence, they want to avoid involvement because they don't want their conservative peers to know (to avoid conflict), or some other excuse.
The good news is the millennials are more liberal and they are beginning to have some influence. The question is, how long before they can provide enough counterweight to drive us in a more liberal direction.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

114. You are so right! Oh, my God. The brainwashing, anti-government, hyper-individualism has

destroyed what was good about this country. Reagan Democrats are still around. These are the kind of "Democrats" who will support someone like John McCain or Chris Christie. They will be fooled by Bush, Jr. And Reagan's "Welfare Queen," racial policies will be attractive to these kinds of Democrats.

Then we have the younger generation of "me-ism" voters who have been taught that individual success = money and power at any and all expense. Forget about building communities. Forget about those who are less fortunate; they are on their own. Out of this movement came the Jonah Goldbergs, the Tucker Calsons, and the Michelle Malkins of the world. They got theirs. If you don't have yours, screw you! There are some young Democrats who also buy into some of this. They have a very paternalistic attitude about the poor; it is this "we know what's best for you" type of mentality. I hate it, too. It's just as bad as what exists on the far right.

[MannyGoldstein]

31. Obama more so, Clinton no.

Clinton ran and ruled as a Conservadem when that's what most Americans wanted.

Obama ran as a traditional Democrat, but then... well, here we are and here he is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Both are political opportunists whose primary aim is to win office.

They see the issues only as opportunities or obstacles to their aims.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

53. Political Science 101: That is the aim of EVERY politician.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. Yep. The rest is just advertising. They take whatever position is convenient.

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians. Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn't be wise." Mark Twain

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. the political consensus from the last three to four decades has excluded liberals and progressives

from the mainstream of respectable opinion on the national stage if they are the sort who might actually push a liberal/progressive economic agenda. Even way back in 1984 - Walter Mondale was no longer the old Hubert Humphrey protégé populist New Dealer that he once rose to office as. No liberal actively committed to advancing a broad liberal and progressive economic and foreign policy agenda has even come close to winning the Democratic Party nomination since George McGovern in 1972.

[Armstead]

41. I'd agree except to say that a lot of that was manufactured concensus

The 70's were a mess on a lot of levels, and the Dems definitely needed to rehab from their participation. (The GOP had a lot to do with it too, but they were smarter politically in tarring liberals for the problems.)

But unfortunately instead of coming up with a modernized Liberal Agenda, they hopped into bed with the same Corporate overlords as the GOP....and thus began the so-called "centrist" drift.

However, I think a lot of the "concensus" that resulted was simply very smart "messaging" by conservatives and the conservative republican establishment.

The Democrats gave up on the chanced to actively articulate a liberal populist agenda. They were like the hitchhiker on the Corporate/Conservative bus, even though the bus was going in the oppiosite direction of the real interests (asnd wants) of the rank and file.

I keep hoping the Democratic Party will finally jump off that bus. And I thiunk enough of the population want to see progressive populist change that they could be successful politically by doing so.

But so far....

[RedstDem]

48. if clintons and obama were liberals

they'd have been treated to the "JFK/RFK" treatment...

[Sancho]

62. Where are the true liberals? I don't see very many anymore...

but I was a product of the 60's. We fought for the right to vote, filled the streets to get out of Vietnam, helped burn bras and draft cards, and joined the peace corps. Say what you want, but I was a big supporter of Jimmy Carter and I was very happy to see him get elected. I will be voting for the Democratic candidate wether it's Hillary or not - but if we elect a Democratic candidate with a large majority and congress, then they are free to be more liberal.

Those who protest that Obama and Hillary are not "liberal" enough are right, but if you are one of those who doesn't do anything about it then look in a mirror.

I have no doubt that Obama and Hillary would both love to put forward a more liberal agenda, but they can't because there aren't enough solid votes to support them. As politicians, they know that they have to win the election to get anything done...

Soooo....if you want any Democratic candidate to be more liberal, then get out there and support them so we can win the House, Senate, and state offices too.

Sorry if this is a rant, but I do whatever I can, when I can.

[Armstead]

71. There are many true liberals...it's a very mainstream philosophy

I've done what I can to support true liberal alternatives...and then supported the "better than the GOP" candidates when that became the only choice.

Personally, I don't believe the liberal instinct really faded away.

I think most people -- at least a majority subtracting the outright crooks and the misguided grass roots wingnuts -- still ascribe to the basic principles and many specific policies of liberalism.

Instead the label was successfully demonized by the GOP and was abandoned and sold out by the Democrats.

In my opinion it boils down to pushing to restore true liberalism -- not a corporate ass-kissing brand of centrism that pushes abominations like corporate "free trade," total deregulation, etc.

I would put people like Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren (so far), Bernie Sanders and others of that ilk as liberals to be emulated. They are working within the system to make the system better -- not to support its abusive excesses,

[Sancho]

76. And the question is...do Brown, Warren, and Sanders have the ability to win a Presidential election?

I don't have anything against true liberals, but I think that there is less activism than there was at times in the past...OWS was a start.

Again, you might see Obama become more liberal if he had more support....

[Armstead]

83. He's had plenty of support for becoming more liberal -- but he bats it away

Whether Warren, Sanders or brown have the "charisma factor" I don't know. That was one of the factors that led to my OP. The Clinton and Obama are obviously politically brilliant, and I was wondering whether they would have succeeded is they had been more clearcut liberal (regardless of what term you want to use.)

I do know -- as a neighbor of Vermont -- that Sanders is a very good politician in the nuts-and-bolts aspect. Vermont has plenty of people who are hardassed working people and business types, and Sanders has remained popular enough to win overwhelmingly and the GOP only is able to post sacrificial lambs against him.

[DCBob]

78. There is no doubt in my mind that President Obama would have pushed more liberal policies if..

there werent such strong headwinds from the RW and from economic issues. The options to go left simply werent there.

[Armstead]

84. I disagree.

Difficult but not impossible.

The GOP will always be there to undermine any attempts at progress and reform. But that's politics. They get their way because we surrender before the fight even starts way too often.

[DCBob]

130. I dont think you understand how negotiations work in Washington.

There are all sorts of things going on behind the scenes that determine the eventual outcome. That's where most of the fighting occurs. Often its simply a matter of counting votes. Sometimes.. often times.. the votes just aren't there no matter how much one fights. For most of the Obama presidency.. we simply haven't had the votes to overcome RW political "terrorism". Those lunatics have been willing to crash the economy to get their way.. Democrats, for the most part, don't believe in such tactics. Which is why Republicans have often appeared to win and Dems caved.. although.. I think in most cases they didn't really get much.

[stupidicus]

80. any so-called lib/lefty not familiar or that disagrees with

the good cop/bad cop situation this country is afflicted with is either ignorant or has succumbed to the fear of rightwingnuttery in the form of the bad cop. All the good cop has to do is "feel your pain" and express some supportive thoughts of the empathy kind and the goods are sold.

Thinking about it objectively, what was the expected result of the rise of the "Third Way/DLC" triangulation and therefore dependence on the same corporate/plutarchy/oligarchy/fascist -- whatever/however you wanna label it -- dollars, but the watering down of their championhood of the causes many of us still hold dear and that are all the things the modern "liberal" in DC is criticized for? It's easy to blame this on the voters, but with money playing such a huge role in our elections, their choices are basically limited to those who can raise it http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/22/barack-obama/obama-campaign-financed-large-donors-too/ and that always involves some kinda "payback".

That's your explanation for the continuing rise in inequality, and the chained cpi advocate and now champion of ending inequality has no intentions of actually ending it, just maybe scaling it back to acceptable levels now that it is having a measurable and undeniable negative impact on the capitalism engine in the form of a lack of fuel known as demand. And I'm sure, much as was the case back before the New Deal, that his corporate/etc pals will likely inevitably go along with it before the spectre of social disorder crystallizes into a hard reality. I see the recent efforts of the CoC, the repub changes to their electioneering, to oppose/sideline the Pee Partiers as much as possible as a sign that this round of wealth accumulation on the scale it has been is about over. Whether they are gonna be successful in killing the monster they created is a horse of a different color. The only certainty is that they can't attack BHO or any other dems for their role in that inequality as he/they can theirs, lest they reveal the role their money and influence has played in it with both parties as a matter of gov policies, for all the country to see. There is no "good cop" in that scenario, but the need for one to keep the left placated as much as possible is surely needed, which is why the repugs almost never attack the dems over such -- because the tag-teaming would then be plainly evident. The most recent example http://www.thenation.com/blog/178072/who-backs-tpp-and-nafta-steroids-alec# Stange bedfellows and all that, no?

The rise in rightwingnut extremism in recent years has been a deliberate effort on their part to stoke the fears and to lessen the tears of those on the left when they have to settle for rightwing-lite BS. Unfortunately for them and their good cop pals, the country is trending leftward in their political povs, and waking up to the fact that the ideological dividing line for our leaders in DC has been moved rightward, and is therefore in defiance of the majority will of the people.

BHO and HC have enjoyed their success as part of the Third Way charade. As to whether they'd have enjoyed a similar level of success as a real liberal, well, I'd bet that they'd never have done better than say, a Dennis Kucinich.

[ecstatic]

88. Wrong premise. They are liberals.

Liberals have a wide range of opinions on what is acceptable economic policy. Unfortunately, some of those opinions, despite good intentions, are wrong.

[Armstead]

89. Well true but....

Actually, the classic definition of as liberal in the US is the opposite of what it historically means in many other parts of the world, where liberal is what we call conservative.

And in the US there is "neo-liberalism" which is the same as conservative/liberalism in the rest of the world.

So the definitions get a bit messy. I am using it in the way that has become most familiar in the US since the 1930's.

I would say that when push comes to shove, Obama and the Clintons are neo-liberals, which is another way of saying they are economically conservative, or at least beholden to Big Money.

[ecstatic]

92. OK, that's helpful. Thanks nt

[treestar]

99. Flamebait. They are liberals.

[frwrfpos]

100. k and r

Good read

[RainDog]

113. Yes. Americans are more liberal than our politicians

http://www.democracyjournal.org/arguments/2013/09/politicians-think-american-voters-are-more-conservative-than-they-really-are.php

When we compare what legislators believe their constituents want to their constituents’ actual views, we discover that politicians hold remarkably inaccurate perceptions. Pick an American state legislator at random, and chances are that he or she will have massive misperceptions about district views on big-ticket issues, typically missing the mark by 15 percentage points.

What is more, the mistakes legislators make tend to fall in one direction, giving U.S. politics a rightward tilt compared to what most voters say they want. As the following figures show, legislators usually believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are. Our attitude measurements are most accurate on the questions about same sex marriage and universal health insurance – and in both instances the legislators’ guesses about their constituents’ views were 15-20 percent more conservative, on average, than the true public support for same-sex marriage or universal health care present in their districts.

Our study also found that politicians don’t learn in the normal course of events. After November 2012, we posed the same questions again to some candidates. Even after conducting campaigns and seeing the results, politicians did not arrive at more accurate perceptions of constituent views—not even those who had spent more time talking to voters. Much remains to be learned about why U.S. legislators think constituents are more conservative than they truly are, but researchers have found that politically active citizens tend to be wealthier and more conservative than others. Politicians who want to represent all the people in their districts need to keep this in mind.

Our findings also suggest that progressive groups might be able to use a simple lobbying strategy—just let legislators know the truth about what their constituents think and want! Most of the time, legislators will discover that their constituents are more liberal than they suppose. Would that lead to policy change? It is an open question, but some research suggests that public opinion can influence what politicians do. Perhaps helping representatives perceive their constituents correctly could pave the way for public policies closer to what Americans really want.

[moondust]

138. Probably not.

The social/political/economic center shifted to the right during the 80s. I'm not sure a true liberal could have been elected in the early 90s. Then came 1994. Ugh.

[Octafish]

144. Financially?

No.

Politically?

Yes.

The smart money backs winners and those who return on their investment. Ask Larry Summers and Tim Geithner who obviously cojoined public service with private connections. Some of the crew working feverishly to, eh, strengthen the middle class also think so: Jacob Lew and Penny Pritzker.

DOW Up 153-percent since 2009. Wages up 2-percent.



The lagging line is our sad hourly earnings. They have barely budged since the market bottomed in 2009, while the Dow has skyrocketed 153 percent. Between November 2012 and November 2013, the latest data available, hourly wages for nonsupervisory workers rose just 2.1 percent, just barely ahead of inflation.

SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/stock-market-best-year-1997_n_4524267.html

And I feel guilty for even mentioning President Obama campaigned on a New Deal for the 21st Century, Apollo Project for energy, and quality education for all, let alone health care. But, a Party can dream, can't it?