This article is so much claptrap I could hardly stand it.
Did Karl write it?

I hope Borosage is correct. Ultimately all pendulums swing back; thus the sway cast to the rightwing may well fade. The question is what forces will act to impede the natural movement to the left and undermine policies of greater relevance and sustenance to American society? Therein lies the rub, a/k/a inertia.

Don't get complacent. One big attack, higher oil prices, personal attacks against the next Democratic president, or a new war (Iran) could remake the political landscape in an instant.

We need to keep building our movement. We need to continue the process of educating and motivating the masses. Most importantly we need to change the infrastructure that favors the Republicans - such as the monopoly controlled media, highest bidder elections, limited debates, and most importantly, we need to keep the internet an open system of communication.

Blessed are the optimists for, without them, who would buy all the hot air that is daily sold in America? Who would believe that it is possible to foist democracy on foreign countries by violence? or the idea that what is nowadays called "news", is actually the news? You just gotta believe or run the risk of disappointing Tinkerbelle.

Someone has to remind Mr. Borosage that our democracy has been stolen. That the public weal no longer matters. That the label "representatives" no longer implies "of the people" in Washington. That the reversal of these developments might require a bloody revolution. History does, after all, present us with quite a few precedents.

I would love to be a believer. I am glad that there are people like Mr. Borosage. But I never bought the idea of raising the dead and that, unfortunately, includes our dearly departed republic. I devoutly wish to be wrong.

Finally, not one use of the word "war." We must continue to un-frame the Rove propaganda - no war means no "war powers" for President Loonitary Executive, which pretty much leaves him with Laura, the dog and... future prosecutions.

This piece is disingenuous, to say the least.

The fact that Clinton, Obama and (to a lesser extent Edwards) were invited to a so-called progressive conference at all, shows the weakness, lack of clarity and corruption of the liberal-left.

None of these candidates supports national health insurance.

All of them support an on-going US military presence in Iraq, even under their various "withdrawl" plans.

All are in the pocket of the Israeli/AIPAC lobby.

Clinton is publicly a DLCer, Obama dances with them and Edwards has adopted their small reforms approach to governance.

Clinton is firmly in the pocket of the health insurance/big pharma lobby.

All support so-called free-trade and global neo-liberal and neo-conservative economics (which are almost the same thing.)

None support a minimum wage that is a living wage.

None support repeal of the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act.

None support the reversal of the deregulation of banks, utilities, savings and loans, communications, the SEC, trucking and transportation, etc. begun in the Reagan Era and supported and advanced by every administration since.

All retain the "option" to pre-emptively strike Iran and to use nuclear weapons in a first strike if they feel like it.

Here is a question for Borosage:

Would the DLC invite Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Bill Richardson (who at least has called for a total military withdrawl from Iraq, including all troops and mercenaries)to their convention?

two quotes come to mind. the first, recalled from my student days in boston, was radio news reporter danny schecter's sign-off line: "if you don't like the news, go make some of your own."

the second is from gandhi (apologies if i don't get it exactly right): "it doesn't matter what you do, but it is extremely important that you do it."

i believe we're at a tipping point, where more and more people are waking up from our bizarre national passivity. america's reality is this: nobody's going to invade, occupy and democratize us. we have to be the means of our own deliverance from evil.

RE: WHAT IS "NEEDED" TO BUILD A MOVEMENT? LINKS BETWEEN A PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT AND POST-INDUSTRIAL LABOR.

Nathan Andover June 22nd, 2007 2:30 pm
"We need to keep building our movement. We need to continue the process of educating and motivating the masses. Most importantly we need to change the infrastructure that favors the Republicans..."

Many progressives have written explaining the Republican losses in the last election. 'Turn left' and 'backlash against/disaffiliation from the right' would seem to be two sides of the same coin. Unfortunately, they're not - recoil from the right may mean distrust and recoil, not support for progressive positions to the left of the present Democratic offerings.

So what is needed to move the electorate in a durable progressive direction - I do not agree that it is "most importantly" a question of media access to "educat[e] and motivat[e] the masses." The "masses" are not just propagandized - in their day-to-day existence, the absence of organizations to articulate their views has a profoundly depoliticizing effect. The big absence is organized labor. Better news won't change that.

The decay of traditional big labor isn't the only aspect of the problem - and the typically right wing journalist David Broder is certainly not the last word on this question – but he got it right one time when he observed how the right wing direction of the U.S. to the decay of organized labor.

What is "needed" are alternative organizations to represent post-industrial labor, and progressive links to such organizations. It's not enough to educate from afar through media. Direct contact and working relationships will trump 'media' - left or right wing - every time. The question is how to go about forming those relationships.

Labor organizations themselves have their own forms of community outreach - that is my 'solution,' such as it is.

CONT.

RE: WHAT IS 'NEEDED' TO FORM A DURABLE PROGRESSIVE ELECTORATE? ORGANIZATIONAL LINKS BETWEEN PROGRESSIVE ACTIVISTS AND DEPOLITICIZED, POST-INDUSTRIAL LABOR

Increasingly right wing journalist David Broder got it right, once:

washingtonpost.com
The Price Of Labor's Decline
By David S. Broder

Thursday, September 9, 2004; Page A27
"...there is a larger story about workers and organized labor that has gone largely unnoticed this year. I was reminded of it by a conversation on the train coming back from New York. My seatmate, a fellow reporter, was asking questions about the changes I had seen in Congress since I started covering Capitol Hill almost 50 years ago. And when we got around to discussing lobbyists, he seemed genuinely surprised when I said that back then — and for decades afterward — the most influential lobbyists did not represent business or trade associations but labor unions.
"Labor unions!" he said, reflecting the understandable surprise of a savvy reporter who knows only the congressional power alignments of the past decade.
It made me realize how rarely observers like me make the link between the decline of progressive politics and with it the near-demise of liberal legislation, and the steady weakening of organized labor.
The economic effects of that trend are well documented….
The loss of labor's political leverage is, if anything, even more striking. As I told my seatmate, when labor lobbied powerfully on Capitol Hill, it did not confine itself to bread-and-butter issues for its own members. It was at the forefront of battles for aid to education, civil rights, housing programs and a host of other social causes important to the whole community. And because it was muscular, it was heard and heeded.
Today, the shrunken Democratic caucuses in the House and Senate are probably closer to labor — financially and politically — than they were in the 1970s. But an enfeebled union movement is unable to sway more than a handful of Republicans..."
davidbroder@washpost.com
© 2004 The Washington Post Company

tj,

I believe your point is this... a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but calling these effeminate gangsters "progressives" is simply a misnomer.

Why not a bit of "Truth in Advertising"...simply call them all Republicans.

RE: CAF INVITED DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES TO SPEAK? JEEZ, WHY WOULD ANY "PROGRESSIVE" GROUP DO THAT?

tj June 22nd, 2007 2:54 pm
"The fact that [Democrat presidential candidates] were invited to a so-called progressive conference at all, shows the weakness, lack of clarity and corruption of the liberal-left."

That is the only correct analysis, comrade! A true revolutionary party will renounce all connections with capitalist lackeys and dissemblers. We should dispense our truth only to each other in basements, closets, and other very secret places.

Those who fraternize with the enemy in vain hopes of influencing them - ha! ha! ha! - are pitiable dupes or counter-revolutionary agents.

RE: MEETING RE CAPITALIST TENDENCIES OF FD32: LIBERALS AND NON-REVOLUTIONARY-"PROGRESSIVES" ARE HENCEFORTH TO BE CALLED "GIRLY-BOYS"

fd32 June 22nd, 2007 3:33 pm

Comrade fd32, it has come to the attention of the ministry of truth that you have referred to capitalist running dog right wing republican puke faux progressives as "effeminate gangsters."

In the future, you will ridicule all progressives who do not belong to the true masculine revolutionary faith as "girly-boys." Although the right wing journalist Ann Coulter coined the term - to ridicule these same so-called "progressives" - occasionally we have to take a chapter from their book.

I know you will understand this. Or else.

baska,

please, whatever you're smoking, I beg you, send me some.

fd32 June 22nd, 2007 4:01 pm
"whatever you're smoking, I beg you, send me some."

Nah, you've got the big stash, Mr. big strong revolutionary - only Brand Revolution does it. All the other "progressives" are Republican girly-boys.

Just remember: other "progressives" are the enemy; Ann Coulter is the competition.

i'm w/you tj. i didn't even read this crap. i saw "take back america...hilary/obama/edwards...ej dionne" and knew the comments would be more enlightening and entertaining (that means you, baska.)

time to take back america from take back america.

fd32: One has to retain at least some optimism to endure! However, your cynicism is appreciated since it's expressed so eloquently!

You need to read "IRON HEEL" by Jack London to understand that our government isn't just going to walk away and hand over the reins of power just because of an election. Bush doesn't even have any power to hand over. You can change this government, but you can't change its people. Only corporations can do that.
Hoa binh

There are no progressives in the U.S. of A.

Fools, anyone that still believes we have politicians that actually represent us better have a good look at the facts first.

The people overwhelmingly voted to end the Iraq occupation. Instead we got an increased level of troops.

The people overwhelmingly want universal health care. The politicians get health care that we provide them yet won't allow us the same.

The people want a living minimum wage. They throw crumbs. You try living on $6 an hour.

The people want conservation and a raising of the MPG a vehicle can get to 50MPG. We get $4 gas.

Since the 2000 joke of an election we still don't have a uniform, verifiable system of voting or sensible election reform. Why do we still have the Electoral College? Why do we vote on Tuesday? Why not Saturday? How hard can it be to count votes properly?

Do you think this is an accident? The elite (and that's what they think they are) don't want our voices heard. Democracy to them is to be avoided at all costs. What we now have are two parties that are the "dog" and the "pony" of the Dog and Pony Show and anyone that thinks they represent us I'd like to talk to. I have a timeshare in Baghdad I'd like to sell them.

There are no governments anymore. Just mega-corporations that put on a show for the masses they exploit and give us the illusion that we still have a voice. Fools that we are. And to think that any Third Party or "progressive" from the existing parties will save the day is a pipe dream. How are they going to do it? How will they get their message out? Through what medium? Certainly not the major networks, or newspapers, or radio. The corporations already own them. The Internet can't do it alone. So, even if you have the solutions and the candidates, just how are you going to reach the masses? With what? Dumper stickers?

Let me inform you how the change will come. After man has exhausted all the resources, world economies collapse, all the wars fought, and we've completely destroyed the environment, after this next great extinction, (which we are at the start of) if anything can crawl out of the toxic barren wasteland we will leave in our wake, maybe, if anything can evolve in what's left, whatever that is can try to repair the damage. But what any one, or any group does now is like trying to stop a freight train by standing in the middle of the tracks with your hands out.

Make peace with whatever maker you believe in because unless we get some divine intervention or aliens from another planet land and gives us the ability to reverse the hell we've unleashed on this planet we're just fooling ourselves.

This article is B.S. These "Democrat" Presidential candidates are NOT embracing progressive values any more than the "Democrat" Congress is. Just look at what the Democratic majority in Congress has done: NOTHING! They raised the minimum wage, but that bill was always attached to tax breaks for big business, leading to higher deficits the rest of us have to pay. Even the so-called "progressive" Democrats have done nothing. John Conyers made all this noise in 2006 like he would be issuing subpeonas and investigating the president like crazy. Instead, he has subpeonad almost no one and only done one measley investigation into attorney firings, which has gone nowhere. There has still been NO investigation into the lies about Iraq or other impeachable offenses.
These dupes for the Democratic Party are going to spend time and energy working to elect a Democrat. They may win the election, but then they'll be reminded of how awful the Democrats really are. Trust me, I live in Pelosi's District. Her staff is never nice to me on the phone, and they won't even answer my questions. They just say "I don't know" and hang up.
Personally, I vote Green Party or I don't vote. Wake up America! Hillary is having fundraisers with Rupert Murdoch!

Com_n_sense, arent we the bastion of optimism.
After saying that I am afraid you may be right. Soylent Green is people.

Truthfully, I think that the Dems are completely shooting themselves in the foot.
The progressives who created all the momentum behind the last elections 2006 are abandoning them in droves. (or we are just abndoning them back)
I do hope Nader runs again.
I will never vote for hillary!

As Andrew Bacevich has written — and as I keep quoting and requoting in this forum:

"Democrats bemoan the failures of the Bush Administration, and with good cause. Yet none of the Democrats vying to replace President Bush is doing so with the promise of reviving the system of checks and balances. In this regard, the views of Republicans and Democrats align precisely. The aim of the party out of power is not to cut the presidency down to size but to seize it, not to reduce the prerogatives of the executive branch but to regain them."

And as I keep repeating, THIRD PARTY, THIRD PARTY, THIRD PARTY. Someone electable (and I do mean "electable," as distinct from "perfect like Jesus Christ," someone like Gore) better be forming some kind of third-party coalition to run against whatever Republicrat wins in 2008. Otherwise, you can kiss your cherished republic goodbye

tj,

Well said! (Original post)

After Hell-ary spoke at the gathering, half of the attendees left! Dennis Kucinich was next.

THERE is the problem! THERE is the disgusting Truth! The MAJOR and ONLY TRUE PROGRESSIVE candidate for prez (except for Gravel)is walked out on before he opens his HIGHLY PROGRESSIVE mouth!

The problem AIN'T the media, Folks. The problem is "We The People"--ourselves. As Pogo said many, many years ago in a comic strip: "I have met the enemy and it is me!"

I've flip-flopped on whether we ought to blame media or its listeners, and have come to conclude that it's sort of like blaming the victim or addict to blame the listener solely. We're all somewhat a product of our culture. Those of us highly active on the internet, exposed to international food/music/ideas, etc. are in a very different situation from those who are basically spoon-fed by Fox, and happy with it -- not knowing what they're missing, and now too uncomfortable to broaden.

My mojo was stolen by a time-traveling fat man with a Scottish accent; please call the authorities if you spot him.

Pogo said we have met the enemey and they is us while he looked at a smoking landfill.

All you "smokers"-have you noticed one of the few benefits of NAFTA is cheaper, better ganja? Unfortunately the PROGS will once again be overwhelmed by CORPORATE $$$$$$$$$$$$$.

RE: POGO QUOTE CORRECTION

Brown June 22nd, 2007 7:58 pm
"The problem AIN'T the media, Folks. The problem is "We The People"–ourselves. As Pogo said many, many years ago in a comic strip: "I have met the enemy and it is me!""

1) Correction: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1109-23.htm

2) I agree, though perhaps for different reasons - see above posts on labor.

Hey Paul B, been reading your comments for sometime, from Minnesota, and so am I but much further North. You are on the Bullseye, the mark, or whatver

I say Let's get ready for Action. The progressives need to isolate their ideas, that may well appeal to people everywhere. I'm getting more self protective, planning on taking care of myself and others. You know it will come down to that, in the end. Seems more than a bit out of Our control at prsesent. Perhaps, the Rest of the World will come to our aid. But then again, why would they? Come on World, have a heart, show your bigger than the US military, have Mercy on Us who happen to live here, who tried but failed. Get Humble, US citizens, our History speaks for itself. So sad indeed.

I agree a 100% with what you've said. I got to hand it to you, tj; you read right. But you also made me mad at myself because I thought I was pretty smart, but you beat me to it. I keep asking myself why didn't that thought occur to me? I can't forgive myself easily.

Anyway, I think they should have invited Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Bill Richardson as well as other like-minded personalities, at which time the other three guys that didn't really belong there would've put their tails between their legs and left. The loyal top servants are not easily converted. I think those phonies were attending with a view to get some intelligence as how to beat the movement.

tj,

I agree a 100% with what you've said. I got to hand it to you, tj; you read right. But you also made me mad at myself because I thought I was pretty smart, but you beat me to it. I keep asking myself why didn't that thought occur to me? I can't forgive myself easily.

Anyway, I think they should have invited Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Bill Richardson as well as other like-minded personalities, at which time the other three that didn't really belong there would've put their tails between their legs and left. The loyal top servants are not easily converted. I think those phonies were attending with a view to get some intelligence as how to beat the movement.

Has the Democratic congress done anything right? Please enlighten me.

Excuse the cynicism, but did you run Hillary out of the show and will you ultimately line up and pull the lever for her in the spirit of a united front against the Republicans--when the Democrats have either capitulated to or enabled every unspeakable NeoCon affront? And Hillary is the most NeoCon of the lot.

Give me a break. What a joke.

I was going to write about the basic contradiction of this article implying that Edwards, Obama, Clinton were progressives. The quote referring to Obama, Clinton and Edwards that formed the key deception in the article is: "All didn't simply show up, they competed in their embrace of the core agenda laid out above and much more."

Then I read the fifth comment by TJ:

tj June 22nd, 2007 2:54 pm

That said it all.

Thanks TJ!

I'd only add that we are witnessing an attempt by the Obama's and the Borosage's and Take Back America to co-opt the very meaning of "progressive" into the corporate-militarist regime of the Republicans and the corporate Democrats of the DLC.

What is the *actual* core agenda (beyond the vague, deceptive phrases of Borosage)?

That's easy:

The platform of the Green Party of the United States; and of Kucinich, and of Ralph Nader, and of the progressive wing of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (such as Lee, Woolsey, Watson, Lewis, McDermott, Kucinich and a few others), and of the Vermont Progressive Party--and the platforms of the emerging state progressive caucuses in the Democratic Party (SPCs). This platform and those who support it as our REAL core agenda are the progressive movement. Let us distinguish the *true progressives*, to use Cindy Sheehan's phrase, from the fake, co-opting progressives, following TJ's logic in the fifth post above. Charles Derber in "Hidden Power" makes a distinction between those who support the corporate regime and those who support a new progressive regime. That, to me, is where TJ and many commenters above are coming from. Yes, the progressive movement rocks, but it is happening in forums like this where we recognize the co-opters from the true progressives. Note the headline article where Clinton, Obama and Edwards are uncomfortable with SICKO. That says it all.

The mainstream media are touting Hilary and Obama, do you know why? Because they have no chance to win. They are ignoring an excellent candidate like Kucinich, who is truly progressive, but how can he get elected if he gets no attention in the media? We must face the fact that most Americans still get their news through big media, and they are not awake enough to see through the hype. It is worrisome that an anti-Hilary vote might elect another Republican. Especially if Bloomberg gets in the race as an independent.

The pendulum ain't swinging back until we can bring corporations kicking and screaming under control. Only YOU as lawmakers can do it.

http://www.gravel2008.us/

http://www.gp.org/

I think Hans and Franz from Saturday Night live coined the term "girly boys" while Coulter was still a spoiled little rich girl sitting on daddy's knee. I like Hans and Franz--not too crazy about Coulter.

"We witnessed the gathering of a movement that has come into a sense of its own power. Certain that the elections in 2006 mark the end of the conservative era that has dominated our politics for more than 25 years, progressives gathered confident that they were driving the political agenda and that they were on the verge, in fact, of taking back America."

What are you? Smoking crack? What a load of self-congratulatory crap. The elections of 2006 proved that most Americans are fed up. Congress has proved that most Americans don't matter. We don't count. Congress went ahead and gave Bush everything he wanted. Congress can't vote "no confidence" on Sleazy Gonzalez. Congress can't get Cheney (or Bush) to submit to any oversight. And, Congress isn't really trying to do any of the above. Progressive? The word comes from "progress," and I don't see any.

h2so4 says, "You have been sodomized by capitalism." Now there's a slogan sure NOT to sign up troops! I must say that you use a lot of very violent imagery in your posting above, while then encouraging peace: "If you can't bring yourselves to bombing something, then work toward a society that creates jobs by doing something positive and sustainable" You probably mean well but flames are practically exploding from your dialectic! If there's a body of water nearby, I'd suggest you take in a swim!

"Progressives" have to be asked this question. Who's interests do you represent?

There is an objective movement away from the Democratic Party because the Party's controlled by corporate interests.

"Progressives" should encourage this separation and help build a party that represents the independent interests of the workers in this country.

We live in a class society and you can't represent the interests of both classes.

I don't see a "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party.

Nice sentiments: the truth is the opposite. The Democratic Party is controlled by money; anyone bucking that truth is pushed to the margins of the Debate. The proof is in the pudding. Anyone who invites Hillary to a progressive conference is neither progressive or a realist. Despite historic disapproval ratings of the current Administration, Democrats capitulated to Bush on Iraq. Hillary is on record as saying she will use nukes against Iran; Hillary's Iraq withdrawl plan includes keeping 50K troops in Iraq. Hillary is married to big business and the drug industry. Wait to you see what she has in mind for universal health care run by insurance companies. Wake up!

Just today a poll was released showing a three race race between a Dem, a Repub and Bloomberg as an Independent. Even though he hasn't even committed to running for president, he polled an average of 20% against several picks from the corporate parties. 20%!!! and not even running! I am NOT a supporter of Bloomberg but this shows that the American voter IS fed up with "politics as usual" and is searching for an alternative. As I've said before on this site, 2008 will be the deciding flashpoint in the political stabitity of this country. It will be the year that the American voter will finally break away from status quo corporate politics and vote their conscience. Hopefully, we will see a strong progressive third party (Greens) or independent (Nader) emerge to lead the charge. The time is right!