The New Progressive Party...

[Kittycat]

All this discussion about tearing the party apart, really got me thinking in theoretical terms, and I thought it might be a good discussion point - IF we can keep the drive-by posters and trolls at bay to actually have a sincere conversation about the state of the party.

Now, in Hypothetical terms...
Just 'what if' (for the hillary people) Obama does win the popular vote, and the Supers teeter to HRC. What do you think will happen to the party? Do you honestly think everyone will fall in line?

And to both camps, and those reading along...

Should we fracture off completely, what are your thoughts on the formation of a new Progressive Party? I'm not talking about greenies or indies, or the like. But essentially - the progressive movement that is moving forward separate of the DLC, and the old way of politics. The movement of real change - in all areas. Taking from JE, BO - and Dean, sort of morphing in to a new union of sorts. Giving it back to the people in a way, much as Obama has spoken of - and including the highlights of Edwards where we can combine the two major ideas of people working together to rebuild, while looking out for those in need. Then couple that with the 50state plan to get more than just our "base" on board with the thinking.

Please, let's really discuss this - I think it's an important issue facing our party right now, and one that can easily be reversed if the scenario given was flipped.

[Windy]

1. I'm all for the formation of a new truly Progressive party if that happens.

I will not be able to support the democratic party if it allows strongarmed superdelegates to thwart the will of the people.

Not only will this Progressive party draw diseffected democrats, you will independents and diseffected republicans possibly joining in.


If the superdelegates chose our nominee and that nominee is not now the people have chosen, or if its a tie and the superdelgates and aren't divided out proportionally, I will not be voting in the general as a democrat. I'll write in the person I support or I will sit home.

[onehandle]

2. Goodbye. nt

[jgraz]

3. IBLT

Mmmm....BLT...

[Bread and Circus]

4. The more I think about this, the closer to the end we are, the more real...

it all becomes.

Ultimately, I don't like party politics and I don't consider myself a Democrat. However, the rules of the party need to apply to the party. I don't believe MI and Florida should be included in a way to sway the race. They could be seated but only if symbolically. The only fair way to have them affect the race would be to do them over. Otherwise, it would amount to free delegates for Clinton. I'd be all for a do-over and if Clinton wins, she wins.

That aside, I think if the super delegates throw this to Clinton that's just something we have to accept. The rules are the rules and you can't change them if you don't like them. Hell, they could throw the race to Obama too.

In any event a lot of people will feel left out but I don't think this is the time to "split" in protest.

However, I do feel it would be a great idea for a progressive movement to split from the DLC portion of the Democratic Party. But this should be done after the election is decided so that everyone has fair warning and to give time for a real movement to be built, not just a protest.

What Nader did was a hit and run, with distrastrous results. However, Gore had a chance to talk to him. If you read the book "crashing the party" there was a point Nader was willing to play nice. His voice was ignored. When the door was shut on him Ralph should have let it go and let Gore get in. But after that moment, he should have put the DLC and the capitulators on notice, and build a new coalition going forward. Then, if the message resonated, it would have the power to build not the power just to spoil.

That's my take.

[Kittycat]

5. To your points...

On point one - I agree wholeheartedly on the MI/FL issue. I hear that MI is considering a new caucus. I'm 110% for that. I think it gives the voters that stayed home (assuming their votes wouldn't count) a chance to come out. And it gives both candidates an opportunity to speak/meet with the people of each state, answer questions, address concerns, etc.

On point two... I do get what you're saying, and added that it could be flipped. I'll be honest - if Clinton won the PV & PDs, and SDs fell to Obama - as happy as I would be outward for the win, inward it would feel dirty. You know? I just don't think it's right, and I've never been a fan of delegates or electoral colleges - not in today's society. I do feel it had it's place, once upon a time.

On point three... I have a feeling we're going down this route anyway. True progressives on one side, DLC on the other. Even if we function within the party - it will be interesting to see how it plays out. With the way the DLC works, they'll have power to manipulate the party so much, particularly if Dean is replaced.

Final point... Nader... Where do I being. He's like that crazy uncle that you only see at Thanksgiving - only for him, it's every 4 years. Nader lost his voice, when he didn't follow through. He created his own mess, and I really wish he would just stop showing up at the dinner table every few years.

[unkachuck]

6. 'The New Progressive Party...'

....it's the only way I believe we'll ever get our country back....

....we have amazingly little to show for years of supporting the corporate Dems....if we had a viable Progressive Party to support, it would not only provide us 'someplace else to go' but it would help drag the entire country even further to the Left....

....there's huge split in the Dem Party between progressives and corporatists that will never be reconciled....we can remain with the Dems and be second-class ignored members or strike out on our own....

....the country is begging for progressive ideas and solutions to our problems....it's only the corporations and their two political parties that keep this from happening....

[Kittycat]

12. I couldn't agree more

The problem comes in that we NEED a major movement that's visual to everyone - a platform if you will - to launch it. If we can't stand up and be heard within our own party, I see a break as inevitable.

[TexasObserver]

7. We have a progressive party - the Democratic party

If you want a progressive party that is more than two dozen people meeting in a basement, focus on taking this one back from the Clintonistas. We are fighting for the future of this party and the country. We have a party that stands for progressive ideals, but it has been marginalized by 8 years of Clintons giving away our issues for their political gain, not ours. Since them, the party has continued to play the weak underling.

We have to have someone in the White House who will lead the country, who will bring in super majorities, and he will turn us in a direction different than the Clintons, who are, frankly, COLLABORATORS.

Anyone who talks during the primaries of bolting after the primaries loses all standing to urge others to unite behind their candidate.

[readmoreoften]

8. I don't personally think Obama should be running in the Progressive Party.

He's a little too far to the right for that. But I'm definitely joining another party in 2012. Neither Clinton nor Obama are change.

[Kittycat]

13. Obama or not, I do need to add...

He's very progressive, but I do feel he's been somewhat restrained by functioning within the marginal constraints of the party. I also believe that what constitutes being progressive is opening up the walls that confine us to allow other in - pulling them to the left. I firmly believe that people can function under a different core set of beliefs within their person/household, but uphold the choice, freedoms and beliefs of others. Where I might be christian - I have the deepest respect for all religions, and would never want any religion to be shunned or treated unfairly. And just because the core base of my religion speaks to "sins", I don't necessarily feel that it should apply outside the constraints of my religion (and in some cases, don't agree with some of those constraints myself). I believe in equal rights and protections for ALL, not just hetero. I believe in civil unions, but view 'marriage' as an option that the church defines which shouldn't be pushed on the public as a whole, etc, etc.

I would love to see the barriers torn down, and opportunity to rise above all the BS. Let us work together to rebuild the country, develop new technologies, lift the poor out of desperation, insure our citizens, and revamp our laws to be more realistic. These should be the basic principles of civilization. Unfortunately, money - greed - exclusion - 'labels' - etc are all standing in our way.

[nonconformist]

9. A new Progressive Party...

would NEVER contain Obama.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Not necessarily a new party, but a clearly defined progressive

wing that can wield power in counterbalance to the DLC. If there were such a thing it could pull back many of the indies and greens that once were dems, before the DLC betrayals.

That would keep me in the party.

But short of that, if we hand it over to the so-called centrists for yet another loss, I'm afraid I'm gone, after 35 years of being a loyal democrat.

EDIT: If my vote and voice is not going to count any, I can at least put it somewhere that I can live with, in an organization that shares my principles.

[Jamastiene]

11. I think the seeds of that idea are certainly germinating.

How long it will take to come to fruition, I don't know. It IS long overdue, though.