If you are reading this short note, pay no attention to most of the entries above.

republican scum-sacks have taken over this thread.

"Thinking like this is what Dean is talking about. Because over 75% of the American people oppose the occupation in Iraq, that doesn't mean for a minute they support leftist or Progressive ideas and policies."

Thomas, what you're calling "leftist" policies are not leftist policies. They are mainstream policies.

People want this health care debacle fixed. They want a good paying job to support their family and maybe send a kid to college. They want a decent place to live, and don't want to live in fear. They want government to work for them too, not just corporations.

They see the policies of the current administration as creating more threats than its eliminating. The see these economic policies as threatening the future of their children and their children for generations.

"The movement of the center, the vast majority of voters that control our elections, moved left of center in 06…"

I diagree. The majority of voters are not left of center, by definition. The majority of voters is the definition of "center."

"I'd point out the just defeated illegal immigration bill. It was also supported by the leadership of the Democratic party and most of the Progressive community."

Well maybe the part of the progressive community that has a soapbox to shout from, but the progressive community that stands for the wages and benefits of Mexican-American citizens, African-American citizens, Asian-American citizens, Native American citizens, women citizens, gay citizens, and while male citizens doesn't, any more than they stand for NAFTA and the WTO.

There was a time when progressive activism stood for the working class in this country -- some now put race and ethnicity above citizenship and that's unfortunate. And indeed, it could lead to a backlash from working people counting on so-called "progressives" to advocate in their interests. What the spineless corporate cow-towing Democrats do is not relevant.

This is not just some cutesy semantic argument: the rabid right has been playing the refs since Reagan rescinded the Fairness Doctrine. We have been fooled into believing that these "25 percenters" who are rabid right wing Christo-fascist Bible-wielding maniacs are the majority. Their incessant whining about a "liberal media" puts a thumb on the balance of left and right.

We must reclaim our rightful position as the true majority of political consciousness in this nation, and I will not cede one millimeter of ground to the right on what truly represents the views of the center of America.

The more you look at the Democratic presidential candidates the more you realize they're status quo candidates. The only candidate standing up and speaking out on the military industrial complex, getting fully out of the illegal war of Iraq -- and perpetual war period for the lucrative business it is, illegal spying, torture, destruction of the Constitution, suspension of habeau corpus, corporate ownership of all the other candidates, single payer healthcare -- without insurance companies, NAFTA/CAFTA, WTO/IMF, etc., etc., is Dennis Kucinish -- and he gets no support whatsoever from any Democrat in Congress. Who are the other corporate candidates that are speaking honestly about these issues? Tell me? And some of you wonder why people like me are so disgusted with the Democrats who were elected to GET OUT of Iraq, close the secret military bases, restore our Consitutional rights -----?? I have eyes and ears and pay attention, and generally don't see any difference between the two parties anymore. I think it's a rigged system -- give the people a few crumbs to keep them quiet and the rest is status quo. Period.

Frosty bunny, ABSOLUTELY posters above are "posers".

This is precisely how the 'cons operate...when they're not rigging elections.

It took twenty years for the right wing kooks to get hold of the Republican party. Expect it to take about the same length of time. The clock didn't start ten years ago: every was fat, dumb, and happy then. The clock starts NOW that people are getting pissed off enough to get off their asses and actually run for office.

Now, before the posers shoot back and claim I'm a Democratic Party operative, may I refer you to http://yourland.blogspot.com/ where my consistent opinions about Democrats are there for all to see.

A quick count: posts favoring Democrats: zero. Posts criticizing Democrats: all of the ones not pointing out Republican lies and hypocrisy.

I'll let that speak for itself.

Dear trippin. Much Thanks. Looks like only a few of us want to face the truth instead of have a tantrum.

Like has been said above, these people who believe there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans are either delusional or liars. In any case they are out of touch with the common American. You " completely sympathize" with them which shows your compassion but maybe you shouldn't.

I believe there is a reason they are "untouched" and "unaffected" by the fact that a Republican can win. I said it above. They are either "well off, have tenure, have no health problems, live in a neighborhood with clean water and pure air, have no thoughts about growing old, getting sick or retiring, have no relatives in the US military, no fears that the next war will most certainly trigger a draft, and no concerns about the millions of people who suffer our planetary arrogance, our military hubris and our social / cultural cluelessness." That's my compassionate take. They are what we used to call bourgeois radicals. Sorry that's the only possible explanation.

Well there is one other explanation. It's what Frosty Bunny and Dover suggest. They are in fact Rovian Republican Rat F**kers - the kind who go to Florida by the busload to disrupt elections, the kind that manipulate voter's records in Ohio, etc. I mean who are some of you - except the appropriately named "thenihilist" (Sure I'll seek rationalism there!).

If Rove's Rats can do all the things they've done to date is there any reason to believe there isn't a squad of them registering on these sites (like HuffPost) with soft and fuzzy liberal sounding screen names to demoralize progressives with (here's the clue) rabid denunciations of the Democratic front runners and no alternatives except possibly throwing your vote away on some idealistic candidate with no chance of winning.

I mean wake up folks! If an 80 year-old pimply assed pervert can have a screen name like "teenbeautyloveyou69" and pick up young guys online what's to stop these jackasses from adopting a similar strategy and infesting these sites with their ... uh nihilism?

Democrats will do what social democratic partie always do: provide a minimum of progressive legislation in order to preserve existing economic relations, only in a slightly more equitable form (CEOs making only 110 or 15 times the average, rather than 100 or 1000 times the average). A doctor who supplies a dying patient with painkillers is better than the one who thinks that giving painkillers is against divine law; but there's a cure available, and the Dems aer only willing to numb the patient, not perform the operation.

It's mordantly amusing that passionate lesser-evilists here reinforce their groupthink by concluding that any progressive who rejects the Democratic Party is either having a "tantrum", or is a wealthy elitist or a Republic wingnut plant or troll. Please!

By all means keep snarling and scolding us inexplicably uncooperative folks about the urgent necessity to rearrange lifeboats on the Titanic. And reject out of hand as mad or bad the view that Democratic Party is at best a superficially kinder, gentler Tweedledee to the mean-spirited bully Tweedledum. Actually, the parties are like conjoined twins who don't get along, and the smaller and gentler Tweedledee is abused by his twin. But they're both corporatized proponents of American hegemony.

If horses, in harness and wearing blinders, could speak, they'd similarly preach the gospel of plodding forward in a straight line, oblivious to any distraction. And they'd be similarly outraged and self-righteous at the thought that any horse would reject the inevitable conclusion that such harness and blinders are the only road to political success.

Like the storied Ugly American, the Ugly Democrat just can't fathom how any sane and sensible person cannot love and admire the object of their uncompromising loyalty. Try considering why that might be instead of cultivating dismissive fantasies.

If you read this brief note, 'cons are posting in this thread, posing as progressives.

Any thread that bashes Democrats the way some of these threads have done is a tacit message to support 'cons. You want more 'cons in the White House and Congress? You want more of the treason and criminality, like we've endured the past 7 years?

Don't listen to them.

What did I just say? :?:

Little Brother, you said it well. There are those apparently who cannot conceive of a Progressive minded person being upset with their darling Democrats.
I assure Dover, Frosty Bunny & Trippin,et al, that I am not a Republican plant, a neocon in disguise or some tantrum tosser. I am the genuine article, a Disgruntled Progressive.
Our number is legion because we know your party is useless!

"You want more of the treason and criminality, like we've endured the past 7 years?"

The Dem leadership is trimming away with shears at the more obviously rotten parts of the administration, but even there they operate timidly. When we demand that they simply cut the Bushiites off through impeachment, they whine "We've only got hedge shears!" When we say "Then go get a tree saw & cut it down," they draw themselves up to full height and declare that we don't understand gardening, and then hide from us.

If we return them to power, they'll do nothing to remove Roberts & Alito, which would be a minimum for destroying the remnants of the regime.

But perhaps they're only waiting to use all the powers acquired by the Repugs against the Repugs. Tho' I'm sure that's wishful thinking.

There is no progressive solution within the terms established by the parties.

Dear Little Brother and McDee I still ask you what is your solution? If you can't support the Democrats who will you vote for? Will you not vote at all?

Is there time to generate a realistic (viable) progressive candidate? Is there time to mobilize the predominantly Republican "proletariat" into a victorious progressive movement? How many months do we have left? You completely misunderstand the statements people are making. It's not that anyone is anti-progressive. It's just that the field we've got is the field we've got and many of believe we have to throw the Republican neo cons out. Whatever it takes and whoever we can get to beat them. There is no time to build a movement that can make a difference in 2008, but there's a hell of a lot of damage the neocons can do if they get back in. Are you following this?

You do a good job of registering offence at the suggestion that you are "plants" but you still haven't answered the question. If not the Democrats, who will get the neocons out? By the way a lot of us our far more than disgruntled. Some of us are horrified. Others are terrified. But we are still confronted by the reality of a formidable neo-conservative movement that has done real damage to the Republic and to People's lives. And even though many of us are less than thrilled by the Democratic field, we're appalled at the prospect of allowing the neo-cons to spend any more time in the White House tearing things up. It's that simple.

So what I asked you to answer you still haven't answered. What about those people? What about that government? Take the worst two candidates (in your mind) and put them in the race. Clinton vs. Giuliani. Are you seriously saying there is no difference between them or the parties they'd lead? Are you saying Giuliani is acceptable? Would you simply … not vote?

So maybe you are not on the Republican payroll but don't be so patronizing in your dismissal of the accusation. You are on the same side as them right? You want to defeat the Democrats, right? So what's the difference? And why should we care?

PS How can the Democrats remove Roberts and Alito?

Overconfidence? They're hanging by a thread with progressives and the conservatives are never going to like them. Don't they know that?

Perhaps a big part of the problem is that many here @ CD don't have a clue as to what being a PROGRESSIVE even means!

PROGRESSIVES have historically advocated the advancement of social justice, civil rights, workers' rights, government-funded environmental programs, the creation of national parks and wildlife refuges, and were early supporters of anti-trust laws and the regulation/dismantling of corporate monoplies.

I don't see a chance of a snowball in hell that a Repug presidency will support any programs that support these values. If you want more of the same, vote Refucklican. You'll get what you want, good and hard!

Walt, it's nice to see someone making sense here.

Walt,

With all due respect, I used to agree with most everything you beleive. You are clearly a good guy. However, don't fall into logical fallacies here. It is a false dichotomy to say because I am "anti-democrat" that I am a republican. In fact that's downright offensive. And while I empathize with your point of view, I have to say we "anti-Democrats" (with a capital D) are in the vast majority. Congress has a lower approval rating than Shrub. How pathetic is that?

Furthermore, you cannot change a party from the inside. Historically all movements have been absorbed by the two party system. As was the case with fiscal responsibility and Ross Perot. The whole idea that one has to lament at voting for a Democrat is absurb. You say people are down on Kucinich because they have preordained he won't win, but what about Cobb or the Democrat's favorite scapegoat Ralph Nader. You are guilty of the same offense against them as we are with Kucinich. The only difference is we don't have any illusions about what Kucinich's function is within the Democratic Party.

Judging by your convictions, you're beliefs are more aligned with the Green Party than the Democratic Party. We all need to stop holding on to a giant barrel of bad apples just because one or two looks promising. Get it?

I really doubt anyone here would really vote Republican because the Dems are lame. They're just being realistic about the level of change they bring is incredibly disappointing.

Yes the world would be a different place if Gore won. The big issue is that he didn't and Pandora's box has been opened and they have far more pounds of cure to levy over onces of prevention that may have been there if Gore was given his rightful title.

I think some of the Dems rhetoric is there for winning the next election and they may be mistaken in the fact that the population is sick of rhetoric and looking for someone to keep it real.

All this being said, a Dem pres and congress would at least eliminate the veto factor, giving the Dem majority in congress much more weight and the senate a Dem tie breaker VP.

No, the clouds won't part onto a brighter new tomorrow come Jan. 08, and my disdain for the Dems is quite high, but a Rep pres would give us more of the same of what we have now, and a Dem would at least be a change. Yes they're still on the corporate gravy train, and yes everything Nader says is true and if we could get the majority of the Blues to switch to Green, that would be the ideal. If only the world were so simple.

As far as Iraq goes, it's an absolute disaster. When we leave it will become absolute Hell and the Dems know this and know they'll inherit this fiasco. It's really no win. Stay and keep the inevitable at bay a little longer, or pull out and watch it blow ASAP. Of course the Dems are cowards at not framing the argument to blame the actual perpetrators but either way it's a hot potato that someone will want to blame for it.

As far as pushing Hilary as she's the most likely to lose, I see the argument, and it may be true, but the Reps have a lot of troubles on their side. The Christian right will shy away from pro-choice Giuliani. I'd be really surprised if the country was ready for our 1st mormon pres with Romney, and I'm not sure how much momentum the other candidates will generate before the election.

So what I want is Kucinich.

If I was a betting man, I would go for 1 of the big 3 Hilary/Obama/Edwards, which would be much worse but realistic.

And what I'd dread, keeping me in and the U.S. in the 7th circle of hell would be another republican.

The world may never be like it was in the 90s again, and I can name 100s of things I am livid about that happened either directly or indirectly because of Bill Clinton, but to compare this decade to the last one where the rest of the world thought favorably about the US and it's president, and the general condition of the country and the world compared to now, I'll take the 90s.

......and that was with a rep congress.