Rahm, the Left, and Reality...

[vaberella]

I had this rather long email on what I wanted to touch on, however now I think I will shorten it. Okay so it's not so short. It's just my thoughts on this entire thing going on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I notice this section of the site and other discussion boards on the site are littered with Rahm posts. Which is to be expected. I am not arguing that. However, what I've noticed, is not to say three factions, but three different sets of comments. 1) Those who hated Rahm and are glad he's gone with strong happy over tones who are saying maybe this will push Obama to the center left because he seemed to have taken a right turn with Rahm. Going as far as to imply that Rahm had something to do with making policy and why we had such "lacking" (in their view) policy bills from the Admin who "failed" to provide sweeping changes. 2) You have the second group who liked him, and felt he was misunderstood. And was unnecessarily blamed. 3) You have the set who are kind of ambivalent and really don't care either way and or slightly defend the other two opinions.

Why am I posting this..mainly to respond to the first one and to state, and I want to be clear. Rahm was not the problem in anything dealing with Obama and will never be the problem no matter how much people put the blame on him. I am defending Rahm, but I want people to be able to recognize that the real problem we're having has been and will always be Congress. Further more, not only Congress but also ourselves are to blame and I will specific in what I mean.

First off why Rahm is not the problem. We really have a policy issue on this board. Most people in general have an issue with some of the policies that have passed into law. Health care reform and financial reform and the lack of DADT being repealed----these are all policy related issues. These issues have never been and will in no way be related to Rahm. For those who thought it was related because of an "aid" who wanted to remain anonymous, stated that Rahm had said this or that----it means nothing. If one was to look at what was done at the end of the day it always seems that Obama goes with his own opinion in the end, which runs contrary to Rahm's views and exclamations. So to say that Rahm is to blame for something is absurd.

Then people divert blame to Obama. In certain regards I do believe Obama's feet "must be held to the fire"---in regards to the military, off shore drilling, allowing Bush polices to be extended and what not. But when it comes to policy and/or in regards to certain people not becoming appointees---Obama is blameless. I say this because of people like Dawn Johnsen---many here said "Obama didn't fight hard enough." Well know, there is not much Obama can do in this situation since the Senate has been floundering, obstructing, and so on. This leads me into my other point.

Again Rahm is not to blame for policies. Rahm may have had some sort of say in the Health reform bill or Financial reform, but when these bills first started they were fairly good. Take for instance the Health reform act, many on here were okay with it, despite the lack of single payer (there were many people who were against the fact they had no seat on discussion or anything else--I respect that---and debate that in some cases). However, many others, such as myself really liked the public option. It was not there---and it was not Rahm's fault---although I remember comments about Rahm "killing the public option." Let's be serious people. The option was dead in the water not because of Rahm or on the failure of Obama, but because the Senate wouldn't have it. Did we forget the Conservadems?! Landrieu and I believe even Lincoln said, before the bill went to the table, or any of the health care reform bills went to the table--"No vote, if the public option is in the bill." <----There in lies our problem.

The problem was never really Rahm or Obama, it's Congress and definitely us. Let me start with us and how it ties into Congress. We vote these people into office to represent our wants and needs. They are not in office for their own agenda. We know, as we watch politics---and we're a bit more aware than others---although generally the disgruntled nature of our nation suggests that they are aware---Politicians are out for themselves. They have an agenda going on. Meg Whitman's 120 million + dollar campaign is enough to tell us this. So when we give shit candidates a push and they win we get shit candidates in office.

Secondly, and this is definitely where I lay huge blame not on the DNC but us, is in regards to Meek. Many on this board have said..."You want Crist to win?" "Crist is better than Rubio." or "Meek will give us Rubio...why are you pushing Crist?" <---We push Crist as the one to vote. Remember we are here to support the Dem candidate. However, I have noticed something. I've noticed there is an underling level of not so much complacent people but there is a group of people who are "settlers."

I'm not speaking in the sense of policy. Why? Because of the political environment we're living in "low-hanging fruit" is something that is always part and parcel with growth of society. Start off small, to prove it can be done and move forward to bigger things. Of course in sometimes we go straight for it, but not very often.

However, in many cases of Dems running I think many people are "settlers." We have a progressive Dem in Florida. There was not a national push, there was no media push. And his name is barely recognizable. However, on this site where I figure we'd be pushing Meek more...we have people actually pushing Crist, b/c he's supposedly better than Rubio. He is not. He's just as bad and he's doing what he's doing to keep his seat. Yet so many of us prefer him to Rubio. Yet, once he gets in office he will do exactly what he's done in the past.

We have a progressive here. Someone who could do something and we've let him, or at least many of us, let him fall by the wayside. And I think that's what the problem is.

I was speaking to another poster and he said, 'I believe I may be older than you and I have seen that many politicians have moved progressively moved to the right.' ie the bar that stated center was moving more right. And he may be right. And it goes back to my initial problem with Obama's handicap. We gave him shitty back up. We don't have really progressive people running for office. And we vote for really shit people to be his back up.

I have to say, that I think Obama sincerely cares about America and the American people. I really don't think there was a President before him, maybe other than Kennedy that genuinely cared about ALL the American people. Yes, ALL. I sincerely believe he wants to repeal DADT and DOMA. I sincerely believe he believes in women's rights since he was raised by women, strong women and he has strong women in his immediate family. I also sincerely believe he cares about minorities of all demoinations---being that half is family, he himself, and the fact he's an adoptee of the Crow nation---tells me the man is a mixture of EVERYTHING and EVERYONE America has to offer.

So what does all that mean. I do believe that if Obama had the progressive democratic and even the progressive republican backing FDR or some other leaders Obama is compared to in the past, we would see major progressive changes. Yeah, you want single payer---get Georgia, Texas, and Alabama to put in Dem Senators who are PROGRESSIVES. Don't you think, if we had more progressive Dems (or all the Conservadems were Progressive Dems) and Snowe or Collins were Progressive REpubs who believed in human rights and that the Government can do some good we wouldn't have a single payer or a public option? I mean seriously think about it. If ALL the Conservadems were Progressive Dems and Collins and Snowe were Progressives as well---albeit conservative---you really believe that a public option wouldn't be on board? I think it would be on board. Yet, I get the snide comments, "The WH never really wanted it, because they didn't fight for it." <---What? As though I wasn't there for the ABC special, or so many speeches Obama had. There was no votes because had Conservadems shutting it down before the ink dried. <---This is the problem....who we elect into Congress. Many Dems in Pennsylvania changed the course, they said Sestak is the guy we want because he is more Progressive. We'll see, won't we. However when campaigns go to shit by the Dem who is running we have to hold them responsible. Obama does not bare the full brunt of it.

In effect. Although I see so many people tend to project Obama into their elected officials. Because they assume, well he's a Dem then he must share in Obama's views and we'll get things done. No, it doesn't work that way. Bayh is not in line with Obama, and which means that some of Obama's views which matches the lefts and progressives---is not matched by Bayh. So when Obmaa wants a policy to be pushed that is in line with lefts and progressives---expect Bayh to say, "Fuck no."

This is again, is where we do share the blame. We are putting in these people who aren't doing what we want them to do. When shit goes down and is awful so many blame Obama and the policy was watered down by the Senate. But the Senate and House goes scott free. We don't really hold them accountable. I do believe in "holding Obama's feet to the fire" ----> But in regards to this let's be serious.

When I hear these statements...

1. "Obama said he'd close Gitmo and he hasn't." ---> Who's obstructing? Yeah, check out Congress. Even Obama's fellow Dems turned on him. Remember the Jon Stewart clip where Obama signs the closing of Gitmo and all the guys behind him jet? Yeah.

2. "Health care reform act didn't go far enough, do enough, or protect the people." ---> Who watered it down? Republicans and they voted against it anyway? Obama passed it because the status quo was unacceptable and I have to agree. Too long it lasted. But it was watered down by whom and why? <---This is the problem.

3. "Financial reform was watered down, and didn't go far enough." ---> Who did that? Yup, once again it's the people who we put in power to write and vote on policy.

Yet so many of these were automatically put on Obama and in some cases Rahm. Obama was not a panacea. He's medicine to help the immune system we have get stronger. However, he's medicine that has an immune system that is helping the virus get worse. The immune system gets stronger because of the medicine and vise versa---they kind of help each other to beat the problem. However, we have a problem that works against the medicine and in effect fuck up the body even worse.


And from what I can see...when I see petty things like blaming Rahm----or left bloggers getting upset over name calling. Dude, we have a problem. Left bloggers are not the problem, Obama being President is not the problem, Rahm wasn't much of the problem. The problem for me is and will always be Congress.

I remember many comparing Obama to FDR. Again, I have to ask---if Obama had FDR's people don't you guys think that we'd have all the progressive ideas and liberals we have pushed in the US? Do you honestly believe that DADT and DOMA would not have been repealed by now? Do you honestly think that we wouldn't be out of the war sooner?!

Obama has stood by those beliefs and he's being obstructed by both the Senate----including DEM ones and by the military. He can't ramrod the Senate, he just can't. This is isn't the 1930s where you can probably threaten someone with bodily harm here without it being on internet within seconds. Obama is contending with poor Democratic backups which we hired for him. He's also dealing with Republicans who hate him for his race and/or his ideology. And he's dealing with the MSM who wants him really gone because they're right wing hacks.

However we have people falling to pettiness. People going nuts of over Rahm and fighting on whether he was good or bad. We have left bloggers upset with WH cause my feelings were hurt. Dudes it's childish. We have things to do right now. We have a problem we need to fix.

We have a President that is handicapped because our attentions are diverted. It's diverted by MSM falsehoods and gossip. It's diverted by bloggers who are more worried about small things than the big picture. It's diverted by all these other nonsenses and keeping us from really doing what we came to do.

I could sit there and call this a conspiracy by the right---or part of one. Get the left and progressives attentions diverted to what the petty stuff. Like insults or believed insults, get them to worry more about what isn't done than to appreciate what has been done. <----I'm not saying forget what isn't done or Obama failed to do---those have to be remembered and pushed---but at least give some props when good stuff does happen---which I think is forgotten. Get them so riled on Obama himself and also pushing the memes---Obama didn't do this or that...that we forget that our Congressmen and women----good ones, the progressive ones are losing seats or could lose their seats. Our attentions are so diverted to stupid shit that we really forget the important stuff.

Why do I say this? A poster by the name of WI_DEM has been posting for the last 2-3 months the Feingold problem. How Feingold's seat was in trouble. It's fitting since s/he lives there. And no progressives come to his rescue (and I'm not speaking financially) but where we're speaking about it on a national level until like a week or two weeks. I remember I posted on one of WI_DEM's thread posts that ONLY had 20 comments (by the same people I might add) and 6 or7 recs or so----where he talks about Feingold losing his seat----when it should have had 100+ and people getting motivated. Now people are worried after they went pass the WH supposed bashing of "the left". Do you see what I mean?!

We're "settlers" and aren't focused on what matters. We allow ourselves to get riled on one thing and then we get slapped in the face with urgency at the last minute that we have progressives losing seats.

Making the entire process more difficult for Obama. A progressive loses a seat to a Republican is more tragic than if Lincoln won her seat. And the fact that we didn't push---on a more national level any progressive candidates or people even if they are indie in states like Lincoln's is a tragedy in and of itself. Poor Meek---again someone who didn't get the national and even local recognition to put up a good fight, but should still at least have our support; has for all intents and purposes been working without it while so many of us push Crist.

Just my thoughts. In summary I think we need to focus our attentions on the big picture and what's important. That we have a threat where people want to go as far as to make the pill illegal. And we need to forget these petty complaints and whinges for this bigger initiative---something much bigger than we are. And we need to find and push and support our progressives. Because it's not really Obama we need to worry about in regards to policy---because I do believe he's on our side. We need to worry about Congress who's ruining it for us all and who are really the people to the right of the board.

Just some thoughts. We need to get out there and vote and stay focused!! Please.

[ThatPoetGuy]

1. "the real problem we're having has been and will always be Congress."

That's sort of where your argument falls apart. Do you know what Rahm was doing in 2006 and 2008? He was recruiting Republicans to run as Democrats, then pouring DLC money into their campaigns. It was one of the most powerful Democratic PAC's, and Rahm used it to turn Congress into what it is. He supported Blue Dogs and he left progressives high and dry. We wouldn't have the pro-corporate, pro-war congress we have today, if Rahm hadn't created it. No one among the Republicans deserves as much blame.

[vaberella]

2. Let's run through your statement.

Conservadems in office:

Shaheen of New Hampshire: has been a Democrat since her entire political run and was chosen as Senator in 2009. So that doesn't fall in line with what you've suggested.

Udall of Colorado: has been in politics and running as a Dem since 1999---sworn into Senate in 2009.

Lincoln of Arkansas: Has been in politics since 93 and been a Dem since her political career. Congresswoman from 2000, I believe.

Carper of Delaware: been in politics since 77 and has always been a dem. Came into the senate in 2000.

Landrieu of Louisiana: Been running since 97 as a Dem Senator.

Warner of Virgina: Been running as Dem and is Dem since 97----and as Senator.

Nelson of Nebraska: Been running for political office since 91, I believe and has had Senate seat since 2000.


Nelson of Florida: Been in politics as a Dem since 72 and has been in the senate since 2000.

Bayh of Indiana: Been in politics since 89 as a Dem and has been Senator since 1998.

Lieberman of Connecticut: been in office since 89 he's been Senator and an Independent---who tends to lean Dem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously you didn't get the full gist of argument and you totally oversimplifed it and assumed that my point was weak. Well my focus was the Senate, while I won't deny that the House has it's problem---the Senate plays the more fundamental role since the Senators are like the deciding factor and while the House may pass something the Senators don't want to pass anything effective. Remember it was the House that passed a relatively strong public option. It was the Senate that passed none. And mainly by the candidates above who DO NOT meet your claim. Most of whom are before Rahm's influence.

I think you speak of the House primarily...which again I have said aren't really the main problem. My focus was always the Senators and I made the Conservadems as the ultimate target. So again, let me be clear. We have been settling in many cases we have not pushed for new and more progressive representatives in Congress, particularly the Senators or just in seats generally ie Gubernatorial positions. I like for instance what's going on in Louisiana Congress---the people of a district 2 in Louisiana are leaning Dem and the Dem candidate is beating Cao. I think that is a reflection of what I'm looking for.

You automatically put Rahm to blame but the people really holding Obama back are not said people I'm talking about since they held office Senate seats before was involved in 2006 and 2008. So once again---this petty thing of blaming Rahm is ridiculous and not really what is important.

If we want Obama to be effective we have to be pushing people who are going to stand by the progressive ideal. The people above in the Conservadems are far, in many cases, from progressives and they fail to have the progressive agenda and here is no Republican progressive agenda. We don't have the republicans of so many years ago. So when people say Obama is not doing anything, the reality is that Congress is not doing much and don't have the back of what really is a very progressive Dem as president. And we don't provide him with said back up in our votes.

[Exilednight]

3. I take issue with .........

"We have a progressive here. Someone who could do something and we've let him, or at least many of us, let him fall by the wayside. And I think that's what the problem is."

It was Rahm who shut down and gagged the base of the party. And it was Obama's own advisers who enabled him to do so.

Not only did the White House fail to crank up its own campaign machinery on behalf of health care, it also worked to silence other liberal groups. In a little-publicized effort, top administration officials met each week at the Capital Hilton with members of a coalition called the Common Purpose Project, which included leading activist groups like Change to Win, Rock the Vote and MoveOn. In August, when members of the coalition planned to run ads targeting conservative Democrats who opposed health care reform, Rahm Emanuel showed up in person to put a stop to the campaign. According to several participants, Emanuel yelled at the assembled activists, calling them "fucking retards" and telling them he wasn't going to let them derail his legislative winning streak. "We're 13-0 going into health care!" he screamed. "We're not going to be 13-1!"

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64874?RS_show_page=2

[vaberella]

4. First off...you've completely missed the point of my post.

I believe that line you quoted of me is in regards to Meek in Florida. I was not referring to Rahm. Secondly, when it comes to health care---once again Rahm doesn't decree policy. And when it comes to the health care debate I will have to disagree with the statement made above. And as I said in my post that if people said Rahm did this or that it could be said that Obama did not follow lock step to this idea. For a good duration of the Health care debate and even towards the end Obama pushed a public option. But when he was threatened with a NO vote by conservadems (who were responding to their constituents---so I think regardless of negative adverts they would vote no) over the public option did they not go through with it.

Rahm's role is not that significant, not as much as people seem to be making it. Further more the point of my post is that we have to look beyond Rahm and this discussion is turning into a debate about Rahm. We have Congress as the people to contend with. We have ineffective and very narrowed people in Congress. This continuous push to target blame on individuals in the admin who don't direct policy when we have policy issues at hand is what is irritating.

No one is holding the feet of Congressmen and women---Republican and Conservadem alike to the water. Even here, you focus the point of your post on Rahm and defending why you don't either like or dislike his methods. When we really should be looking at the Dems who were voting against it---regardless of the campaign or not by liberal groups. This is the ultimate problem. Regardless of the liberal group we had these people who were going against the grain and basically against the will of the american people at art large to satisfy what point. I also doubt that Rahm, if the liberal groups wanted too, would be able to truly control them. He can vent and shout all he wanted---but if those liberal groups wanted to push the issue they would and would have laughed in Rahm's face. Obviously on some level they must have agreed that what he was suggesting was correct. In any event, the problem I'm having goes directly to the fools who made the decision that went against the grain and I find hurts the initiative of the President and basically what we would like.

These Congress men and women who are not meeting their status as democrats and in some cases as progressives. That has been the whole point of my post. To get progressives in office and push for them, vehemently. Like I had said in my post---Meek. Rahm was never the issue b/c in the end the issue is still at hand.

[Exilednight]

5. This post is what Obama would call a "teachable moment".

"No one is holding the feet of Congressmen and women---Republican and Conservadem alike to the water."

Liberal groups tried to hold their feet to the water, but Rahm put his foot down on their throats.

"He can vent and shout all he wanted---but if those liberal groups wanted to push the issue they would and would have laughed in Rahm's face. Obviously on some level they must have agreed that what he was suggesting was correct."

That's not quite true. Liberal groups, like any other lobbying group, needs access to the White House. It comes down to a balancing act and the internal politics of the DLC controlling the DNC. These groups have other issues on the table. Was HCR important? Yes. But so are issues like the environment, ending Iraq and Afghanistan, closing gitmo, and those are just the large issues. So now they have to make a decision, push for one really big agenda, or compromise with the CoS and keep their access to the West Wing open just so their voice can be heard. Organizing for America has one of the largest political e-mail listings in this country (13.5 million people), but Rahm, as SoC controls access to that list. The lists are broken down into groups by policy concerns. One group is HCR, another is Iraq, and so on and so forth.

In the end, yes it is people within the administration who tie the hands of those of us pushing for the big change.

[vaberella]

6. What you're telling me is that Liberal Groups are not independent?!

They are controlled by Rahm. You've got to be kidding me. It's not Rahm who donates to these organizations...they raise money for the candidates. You can't sell this to me as a viable argument. Seriously you can't. That's like so many people saying Warren not getting the full position (before it came out that she didn't want it) was the WH's way to lesson her power and she won't have as much power and influence. As though stating that Warren was in some stupid that she would take a position without having significant influence in changes.

Look, they are independent from the DNC and are liberal indpendent groups. And now you're trying to sell to me the WH or RAhm is controlling them. And by your reading more of your statements...these people would have been able to have more had been able to do more damage to the White House if they DIDN'T follow Rahm's in put because it would have shown Rahm for what he really is and definitely have hurt the WH, if I believed this as being true. Again this argument won't sell to me as is. These groups would be able to fight for the cause and show some integrity for their beliefs---and not feel threatened by Rahm...since they would have more power to wield if they wanted. They could call Rahm's bluff and win. It's the same sort of reaction the WH's complaints about leftist bloggers went poorly---that would not have went down.

So yeah...I think putting this entirely on Rahm is a bit far fetched.

[Exilednight]

9. They're not controlled by Rahm, but the resources they need are ..........

controlled by Rahm.

Rahm, as CoS, controlled the access to Organizing for America e-mail lists and he controls access to the president.

And just to be clear, Organizing for America is now run by the DNC. Plouffe folded Organizing for America into the DNC.

I do not want this question to come across as snarky, but do you have a background with the relationship in working with the DNC and large political organizations? And do you understand the dynamics at work between the two and within the DNC and DLC?

[vaberella]

14. To your last two questions No.

Because really...I figured that would not be connected because I find that would cause serious problems if they wanted to keep their political integrity. Which it seems it has.

In any event, that is not the focus of my post. Rahm is not the focus because the diversion. We're still hooked on the past with Rahm and debating him and what He was presumed to have done. I don't really give a rat's ass about that to be honest. My focus is on the fact that we can do things even if the DNC and other's like Rahm are halting things. If the 13 Dems who were not appointed by Rahm or put in place by Rahm and who were there before Rahm had his 2006/2008 rally of putting Repubs in Dem suits in power---were not around we'd have some seriously progressive pushing people. If Snowe and Collins cared about the future of America and we had people in Maine who wanted to upstart those two elitists and wanted to make change but had their seats even as Repubs---then we would have sweeping change if Rahm is there or not.

I don't understand why this is so hard to get and why this is the central point of my post. If Rahm is there it doesn't mean anything if the entire Dem group was progressive and we had a few progressive Repubs or Dems in Maine. I don't see why this is so hard to understand of my post. Instead it's come to a Rahm did this and Rahm did that---and Rahm controls everything and this is the problem.

Rahm leaves and there is another vote on the defense bill, you do realize that REpubs will filibuster it 100% and we won't be able to move ahead. Are we going to sit there and blame RAhm?! This is my problem. He's a diversion and everyone is sinking for it and we're letting the important stuff slip away.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[vaberella]

17. Thanks for letting me know.

I figured it sounded weird...since well..wouldn't it cause a self-interest problem?

[Exilednight]

20. Anb obviously you're on the outside looking in. The internal politics is much .............

more complicated than most people could ever even fathom.

Organizing for America had the largest contact list of voters ever assembled. It was more than double than that of its closest runner-up.

After the election the OFA organization was folded into the DNC, and the DNC was salivating at the mouth when the saw how big the list actually was.

[w4rma]

7. Screw Rahm. And hopefully he'll lose the election for mayor of Chicago, too. (nt)

[PassingFair]

11. Chicago can have him if they WANT him. I'm just glad....

that he'll be out of the oval office and no longer
whispering obscenities in Obama's ear.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/155116/rahm%E2%80%99s-departure-will-help-reset-obama-white-house

[vaberella]

15. Rahm is not the focus of my post. Bloody hell. n/t

[TBF]

8. Congress is not a problem when you have a majority - which you do.

I'm not a fan of Rahm's and I'm happy to see him heading home (sorry people of Chicago), but I also don't think that will change much with Obama. He's a moderate and we on the left are not going to be able to change that.

When I post on this board, as a more leftist voice, it is not to fault Obama overall (though I will comment on specific things like the FBI raiding anti-war activists homes). Overall he's doing his best with the cards he's been dealt, I see that. But I also feel that the evil of Capitalism is the elephant in the room that we need to address, so I come to talk about that. Of course I vote dem, that is a minor point and in general of course I support the administration versus republicans. But I also advocate for a time when we can get beyond this horribly unequal economic system and adopt something more people-friendly.

[vaberella]

12. Congress is a problem when you have a majority by name only.

Again in my post I name Conservadems who hald and obstruct as badly as Republicans. There are 13 of them. That is a danger to any progress we want. Secondly, it's a problem when you don't have a real majority which owuld be 60+ seats. What does that mean. If Republicans filibuster which they all do, you need 60 votes. End of story, that is a fact that is ignored by many here. They think well if I have a majority I'm good. This has been proven false by the laws of congress. So no, Obama doesn't have a proper majority or a set of people who really want to do good by the nation. And hence my statement. So yes, Congress is a bloody problem.

This faulting of Obama may not be reflective of your posts but it is reflective of many posts and many people on DU. Actually most on this board do fault the President. That is undeniable. They do. I don't know if you come to the Presidential site or even visit the GD section. He's always to blame for everything. Even in the thing that happened where Landrieu wanted to halt Obama's nominees in congress----someone said the WH was complacent about it because they really wanted it. So in effect, Obama wanted his Democratic Senators to obstruct his judicial nominees?! Does that make any sense to you? Any sense. So yes, this board has helped in some unwarranted criticism while forgetting the real problem at hand which is getting Congress progressive.

Capitalism can work for the people. I think Capitalism works fine in England and in Europe, and they still manage strong social services for the people. I think what the problem is we don't have proper social services for the people and we haven't yet managed to eliminate weak and obsolete forms of work that would help raise the status of living in the US. I actually praise Obama for starting that. He's pushing green energy which is important. Because the coal industry and so many other industries like steel and what not are just obsolete. Meaning that people shouldn't be toiling underground and digging into the earth risking their lives. All those people should be given free passes into working for companies and organizations promoting green energy. There would be major turn over. France is notorious for having almost all people EXTREMELY worried about energy conversation and green energy.

[dave29]

18. We have 60 votes in the Senate?

:shrug:

oh wait, I guess that's a super-majority.

How super of them to come up with that idea

[Bluenorthwest]

10. The people promoting Crist here piss me off. Agreed.

The rest of your stuff, needs a comment or two. I have been all alone in many threads supporting Meek and opposing Crist. All alone. I've been actually mocked for standing for Meek. On DU.
Rahm was in the wrong job and his mouth fucked him. That is how it is. The new guy Rouse is a good choice, better fit, and he is an expert on the Senate functions, rules, persons, etc. Because the Congress is a problem, and the Senate is the real problem, Rouse will be better than RE. Also because he is not as strong a personality, that is he is not there to promote himself. I'd hire Rahm but not for that job. If I lived in Chicago, I might back him for Mayor, even. I do not dislike him, but I think he was poorly placed and undersupervised.
Now. About threads where you fell not enough DUers are commenting. I'm going to be blunt with you. I skip many threads because of a set of posters who make personalized snark and rude comments, who are always present in certain threads, speaking of shit and diapers, rarely addressing the topic, always attacking the poster. It gets old. It is pointless. It is divisive. It is the same few posters. But if I come onto a thread, about Russ or anyone, and see that group of thrid rate wise acres, I do not bother to attend the thread. In fact, such threads represent the issue or candidate very poorly. To me, a 'pro Obama' thread on DU is a thread in which those who think they 'support' him more make snark at those they think support him less. I'm wearing a Barack Tee shrit right now. I promote Meek, my own Peter DeFazio, Ron Wyden. And I get called names for the trouble. Because I also stand for my own family and my own principles.
So when a poster or posters takes a thread about Russ, and uses that as a platform for their own snark agenda, those posters are not supporting Russ. Same on threads about Obama. Put it all aside for a moment and hear this- I see the ardent Obama crowd as mean, angry, and to be avoided. To me, that set of posters does great injustice to the President and his goals. I know they think they are Super Stars of 'support'. That is not the case. Driving people away from your guy or issue is just stupid. Persuade or stand aside. I often wonder what Obama would think about the threads that 'support' him by shouting 'shit, I'm going to let the house burn down, American will get Palin as President, like they deserve, now go change your pampers'. I have noticed that Barack himself is not prone to that manner of speech, nor to that personal attack mode of politics. To me, support of a politician involves reflecting the ways and manners of that politician.
So if you want threads full of comments, perhaps the problem is with the self appointed peanut gallery who make the Jr High joke book look fresh and exciting by comparison. I tell you this, the idea of going to an OFA office to volunteer with the 'aint shit pampers you deserve Palin' crowd is depressing as hell. A worse afternoon is hard to imagine. So flies, honey, vinegar, objectives.
But Meek is an area of full agreement. I wish more of the ardents would speak out about Meek.

[vaberella]

13. I will respond. You got backlash for supporting Meek?

Let me rephrase that. I hate the fact you got fuckin' backlash for supporting the Dem candidate. I support him as well and I'm tired of the backlash.

Rahm's mouth is notorious. But I have to make something clear...and it seems something lost in my post when I mention Rahm. I'm not trying to defend Rahm. I just don't see him as important. I don't see him as valuable to the entire dialogue and the problems we're having to get a progressive agenda passed. I think he causes contentious feelings between many and that's valid. But over all he's unimportant in the overall grand scheme of things. I think we have to get passed Rahm, any hurt feelings people have and realize the reason so many of us are unhappy because we are "settlers" and aren't getting our reps---who are key in policy making to push the policies we want pushed.

This is why I strongly believe in voting and getting the word out in our communities for the people want to win. It's like this...Let's say we had two people running for senate in Arkansas----actually 4 people. 2 Dems and 1 independent. If the Independent has better views and valuable to the progressive community we need to push them. In New York, the independence party nominates much of the time the Democratic nominee, say in the case of Cuomo as Governor. We see Independent's as Dems most of the time in Congress. So I think we on DU need to push that. However if it's three straight Dem and one of them is an incumbent but one of them has more progressive views we need to push the progressive one or find a candidate that is progressive.

We see that is what happened in Pennsylvania, many felt that Sestak was the more progressive between him and Spector. And they might be right. But I've seen so many here who have said we should have kept Spector, we're going to lose this. And then push the blame on Obama. This is my problem. We need to really rally behind the Dem candidate unless that person is a serious failure---and at that point we need to advocate for a new liberal congress man or woman in future. Like for instance in the case of Arkansas.

I find this Rahm crap an utter diversion. This is what I've been saying from the get go which seems lost to many posters here. I don't care about Rahm----I think he's a diversion. I don't care about the WH's thoughts on leftist bloggers---I share some views on them and on right wing bloggers----because these people with too great a sensitivity that it matters to them and they're not seeing the bigger picture.

The election and getting the right representative is what's important. Where are the leftist bloggers dissecting the candidates we have. Instead they focus on Obama who is not writing policy because he defers that job to who it belongs to Congress. Our bloggers and as we are, don't seem to care about that discussion. I have not seen a poster post any diagnosis of our Dem candidates on DU. Because they spend more time criticizing the words of the WH about them. This is why I say these are all diversions.

This thing with Rahm is a diversion. We need to focus and that's what I hoped to get across, but so many on here want to focus on Rahm it boggles my mind. Not to mention the rest of your post.

I realize those people may be annoying but that's not what I'm calling for. My post is not a pro or against Obama. I'm not knocking anyone from ardently criticizing Obama and some actions he takes. Those are valid and I don't discredit that. I seriously had issues when the oil spill happened and I do still take issue with it. I hold Obama responsible for not stopping those drills from the get go, not for the spill itself because I do realize we're a nation dependent on that shit in order to live. So even if I understand why he did it, that doesn't mean I have to like it. And I respect those critics.

However, this is not about a pro Obama thread or pro Rahm thread. I want to see the posts about the candidates when these election days happen. I want to see DU saying that this one has more progressive ideas and we need him in office because he can really give the push we need for our President to get things done. I mean I want to see a more unified effort like that. However, what I'm seeing instead is that we seem to be diverted by issues of pettiness. People complaining the WH is attacking the left and bloggers. Guys...really. People talking about Rahm like he caused all the problems in the WH when the man has no real hand on policy making which was seen when the Republicans continuously filibuster. We need to get past these things. Hence my mini rant above.

[displacedvermoter]

19. Here in New York we have a Democratic candidate for

Governor who was just endorsed by the former state GOP chair, and that Dem candidate has made bashing unions, working with
upstate developers with ties to the GOP, and geenerally moving as far to the right as possible major campaign issues. My "Liberal" Democratic congressman who used to be a rock 'n roll star is now voting for the Patriot Act extension, war funding, and still can't form an opinion on what happens if Social Security benefit cuts come to a vote.

I will be voting for these "democratic" candidates because the people running against them are insane. But always voting for the Democratic candidate is no longer a slam dunk, or even an exciting or especially pleasant thing to do.

And it was Rahm Emmanual and many of the triangulaters of the Clinton Admin. who helped drive the party so far to the right that the Dem candidate in New York of all places thinks it is wise policy to bash teachers and firemen, and rail against progressives in his own party to the extent he expects to work better with Republicans when elected "than some Democrats."

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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