Liberals Take Back Their Swagger
For much of the 2008 primary season, the Democratic left has been uneasy. At the liberal Take Back America conference two years ago, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was booed for her opposition to a "date certain" troop withdrawal from Iraq. A year ago, her reception was similarly negative.
But on Monday, hundreds of progressive activists gathered in a ballroom at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington did not blanch when Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, declared: "It doesn't matter who wins the Democratic nomination."
It was a victory declaration of sorts from the host organization of what has become a premier national gathering for liberals. After years of cajoling and pulling and booing their leaders, progressives will head into the general election with a Democrat who has adopted their agenda on energy, trade, health care and the Iraq war, Borosage said.
"They didn't start with that agenda, but they ended up there," he said. "Part of it is because of the leadership of John Edwards, part of it because of the mobilization of progressives in this room, and part of it because of the needs of the country."
Progressives may be feeling good - even cocky - these days, but speaker after speaker also reminded those gathered for the three-day conference of a lesson learned from the 2006 election. The sharpest criticism was directed at the Democratic-controlled Congress for failing to follow the left-leaning agenda Democratic liberals believe helped remove Republicans from control of Capitol Hill.
"We have to be willing to challenge legislators, no matter what party they are from and no matter who holds the majority," Borosage said.
They must move forward "as an independent progressive movement, not as an arm of the Democratic Party," he said, demanding that the next president do what is promised during the campaign.
As part of the effort to hold candidates accountable, the Campaign for America's Future will announce a major initiative Tuesday in which several groups, including the AFL-CIO, will spend more than $350 million this year to register and mobilize progressives.
The lingering sense of skepticism is reflected in voters such as Judy Shelton, 58, an activist from Berkeley, Calif., who said she did not agree with Borosage's assessment of the Democratic presidential candidates.
"The agendas are different depending on where you are on the progressive spectrum," Shelton said, adding that even for a liberal conference, she is "out there."
She is now supporting Barack Obama but has gotten there through a "lefty migration" from Dennis J. Kucinich to Edwards and now to the Illinois senator.
"He is not far enough over there for me," Shelton said of Obama. She suspects he is "more left than he is posing himself to be, but I don't want that to get out."
The Take Back America conference began seven years ago as a meeting of several dozen activists looking for a way to challenge the Republican domination of U.S. politics. It has since grown to a gathering of more than 2,000 people from more than 40 states.
Attendees described the state of the movement Monday as organized and committed, as optimistic about putting a Democrat in the White House but also less willing to believe promises and more skeptical of the candidates who make them.
"In 2006, we thought the incoming Democratic majority had a mandate to end the war in Iraq. Isn't that what you all thought?" asked Donna Edwards, who beat Rep. Albert Wynn in the Democratic primary last month for Maryland's 4th Congressional District. "In some ways, some of us forgot what happened in 2006, because then it became the politics of the usual" back in Washington.
The hard line promoted by Borosage and others resembled the discipline that has long characterized the conservative movement's relationship with the Republican Party: Help it and support it, but make sure it plays the game by your rules. If it doesn't, hold it accountable.
"There will be organized pressure on day one," said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future. "We have learned our lesson. In 1992, everybody was overjoyed about Bill Clinton, until people realized his big agenda item before health care was NAFTA. We hope we can shape the agenda of the new administration through citizen pressure."
Hickey said both Hillary Clinton and Obama were invited to speak at the conference, but "as of now, I do not expect either of them to be here."
Obama is campaigning this week in Pennsylvania and North Carolina.
Clinton was in Washington on Monday, giving a speech on Iraq at The George Washington University.
Given the chilly reception she received over the issue during the last two conferences, the organizers were not openly questioning her decision to choose a more controlled environment.
"Listen, we think they both should have come, but we understand that they are both in a busy time in their campaigns," Hickey said.
© 2007 Capitol News Company, LLC
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
52 Comments so far
Show All"And, I must hang around a different bunch of young people, because the activist youth here in Pittsburgh are distinctly cool to all the candidates - there is too much work to do in the streets."
And they will be assured of much more work if they stay disenfranchised.
I'm cool to all the candidates too. Waiting for Godot isn't the answer.
"And, as far as your remarks that we are liars - sorry, some of us, including me and Rev Wright, aren't."
Nice try, but I stopped falling for that kind of re-framing long ago. Unless I should start addressing you as Jesus Christ, your shit stinks too and you can be caught making conflicting statements. It's as old as time itself.
Perhaps you and the good reverend should run for president and spare us all the burden of having to vote for imperfect mortals. (BTW, I like what Rev Wright said, but between you and me, I'll bet he's said conflicting things too.)
Got your point and I agree, USAn. No need for the name calling though. Such explicit honestly with your feelings makes it hard for some to listen and accept your views, dumbass;)
I too have been extreeeemely frustrated with the Dems over exactly the same issue you speak of. If only they would speak their truth instead of kowtowing to big business and running for cover every time the repukes say "boo" the "Republican Revolution" would have never gotten off the ground.
They have been so cowardly over the years that they allowed the repukes to even steal the word we use to define ourselves - "liberal." We have to use the label "Progressive" now to avoid sneers and jeers. Fucking cowards.
DEMOCRATS. . .THE NEW REPUBLICANS. Just listen to them. strong military. balanced budget. get after cuba and venezuela. bail out the banks. let the telecoms off the hook (pun intended), etc etc feels like the 50's all over again.
Just a little reminder here, about Hillary's horrific voting record....
Better bet the Rethugs are already plotting McCain/Clinton 08!
Doesn't matter . . . ??
Hillary Clinton is DLC - she's part of the DLC leadership which is corporate-sponsored and which was brought to life to move the party to the right.
It is the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.
We also have 40-45 Senators/USHR members - "blue dogs" --
who meet regularly with Bush and the GOP to go over the agenda and discuss votes.
Doesn't matter --- !!! ????
Obama showed that when the goin gets rough he won't hide and he does it in such a civil presidential manner....I would have blown up and lost it.
Obama is the best chance we will get for some sane leadership in a long time... and this could be the Last long time.
ARA Charleston March 18th, 2008 4:21 pm seems to think that all candidates are the same when it comes to "corporate bullshit". But that is not true.
Even in his speech yesterday Obama reiterated his recognition of what is wrong with America...and it is the corporate influence. Obama has taken zip money from corporate lobbyists. Clinton has taken as much as McCain.
I think it is time for integrity, transparency and statesmanship to steer the ship.
Go Obama!
I am being called a fool here for giving Obama support.
The war protesters I know, Progressives who are actually active and do more than blog here are getting behind Obama.
Several folks here make up fantasies about how Obama will keep the War goin and do nothing for the little guy.
Then they say they will vote for someone who won't even be counted.
OK, Im the Fool.
They say they can't vote for the lesser of two evils but are willing to help the most evil one win by voting for a no count candidate.
They think their hands will be clean by doing this...
Goody for your clean hands..... but you show no grip of reality at all that we are in a winner take all two party system that loves it when cynical folks like you think you always know more than the vast majority and cast your vote that will not count except help the much greater, not the lesser evil win.
Go for it because I am one of the few who know you won't change your idea that you are changing the system by voting for a no chance .... Show me once in History where voting for a candidate who will be lucky to get any votes counted will change the system.
Oh I forgot I am the Fool.
'jameer' hit the nail on the head......too many Progressives insist on living in a dream world where their PERFECT CANDIDATE sweeps into office and miraculously creates a WORKERS/CITIZENS' UTOPIA in Amerika.....in case most of you haven't realized it, the Far Right has been EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL in branding any kind of socio/economic fairness in this country with the Socialist/Communist stamp.....which unfortunately, the average voter buys hook, line and sinker!! It may take an extreme upheaval in the economic health of the U.S. to bring them to their senses......unfortunately, it will then be too late because they will find they have no power left to bring about the needed changes!!!
So stop dissing Obama....you may have noticed that the truly Progressive candidates get single digits in percentage of votes when they are on the ballot....you've got to find a way to educate voters if you ever expect to get any real power!!! We should back Obama, then hold his feet to the fire to get the changes we need when he wins!!!
jehosepha and others,
I am not arguing for some kind open honesty to the idiotic point of reporting sightings of UFO's
What I have been trying to get through all your thick skulls, to zero effect (so I will the the ALL CAPS trick) is that:
The conservatives have been WINNING BIG since 1980, because they OPENLY and HONESTLY and CONVINCINGLY argued their IDEOLOGY by appealing to GREED and SELFISHNESS - stirring up resentment of Big Government robbing them through "SOCIALISTIC" TAXES, using HYPERBOLE, RACISM and EXXAGERATION (black welfare queens, communists-now Muslims want to kill YOU), as needed. And have you EVER heard a conservative WAFFLE or EQUIVOCATE?
So, if the Democrats to win, they must LIKEWISE argue their IDEOLOGY by likewise OPENLY and HONESTLY argue to the US people that is their CAPITALIST BOSSES and their WAR MACHINE who are the ones ROBBING THEM, sometimes of THEIR LIVES. When the conservatives and their wholly owned media try to smear you - renounce them as just friends of the BOSS who busted you father's union and keeps you barely surviving on $8.00 per hour. Use HYPERBOLE and EXXAGERATION as needed - and NEVER WAFFLE, EQUIVOCATE, or BACK DOWN!
Also let us not forget that McBactillary voted to go to war in Iraq. I am 1oo% certain that she will not be a good president; after all she wants power so much that she is willing to harm the party she says to love by running such negative campaign against Mr. Obama. Beside how smart can she be if she was so easily deceived by BushCo? As a president she will be easily deceived as well.
Almost forgot - let's remember who is to blame for the USA going trillions in debt for financing mass murder halfway across the world.
I see much criticism of Democrats on here. While I think some are not progressive enough (i.e. Nancy Pelosi - she should be voted out of office for not allowing the Impeachment proceedings to go forward), we need to remember that there was not both a Democrat President and Congress for more than 40 years. Most of the problems the USA is facing can be traced back to Republicans and Christian Fundamentalists takeover of the USA Government. I do think that many Democrats want to end the war in Iraq and stop outsourcing of jobs and Impeach every neo-con in the USA, but there simply is not enough Progressive politicians to make this happen.
By far, neo-cons and Christian Fundamentalists are more dangerous than a Democrat can ever be. Neo-cons and Christian Fundamentalists should not govern ANY aspect of the USA Government after 2008. After all, it was through these people that the USA is now occupying Iraq and Afghanistan - killing any and all who walk on the streets of Baghdad and Kabul. It was the Neo-con/Republican/Christian fundamentalist idea to go to these two countries. Remember what happened when the Republican contolled White House and Congress wanted to go to Iraq and Democrats and progressives objected? they were called un-patriotic and not real Americans. Remember what happened to such groups the Royal Family of France, wealthy Cubans, and the European Jews as a direct consequence for the choices THEY made so long ago? You get the picture...
Mr. Borosage said that "we will have a democratic candidate that support progressive ideas" Please can he tell me, who that? I will reiterate my position for Mr. B with an E; I will not vote for McHillary. If by any manipulation Senator Barack Obama were to loose the nomination, I will then vote green. I can not stomach McCain or Nader either. KUCINICH run as an independent if McHillary is the democratic candidate PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A liberal is a man or a woman or a child who looks forward to a better day, a more tranquil night, and a bright, infinite future. ~Leonard Bernstein, The New York Times, 30 October 1988
Hillary has run a racist campaign and it is starting to work. I will no more vote for her than I would have for George Wallace when he was a "Democrat".
Firstly, It is not necesary to this discussion to level incorrect charges at a man like Bob Borosage. He is certainly not a corporatist democrat, he is simply one of many, many folks who cannot think outside the box.
I posted many opinions, prior to this conference's beginning, attempting to ask these folks to please consider alternatives to supporting a party ( you know) that refused to support progressive ideology. You know the response, or lack thereof.
I see much in the way of scepticism and lack of support for the Democrats in this race yet I see no solutions being offered, no other paths being considered. I would urge all so-called progressives, liberals, moderates, leftists whatever, all good American citizens concerned with the direction this nation has taken to consider helping the growth of third party politics, whether Green or Populist or Socialist whatever.
Only when a significant number of former democrats have registered with these parties, voted for their candidates in local, state and national elections will the impact of progressive ideas and ideals become important enough to be considered mainstream. Until we take such action we will be considered an automatic vote for the Democratic Party, ignored and trivialised.
The Take Barack America Conference
The doomngloomers with the no one is
good enuf for my lily white conscience
so give up and read my hopeless cynical
go nowhere thinking guys are still here
they stink of rove.
It'll take millions more people having their private, reality-cheating, tunnel-visioned "American Dream" lives ruined by the totally corrupted System so many of them have blindly supported, before there'd be even a hope for a powerful enough mass-citizen movement forming to really change anything.
And then, many ruined USA'ers would probably just want to put it all back togther the same way again -- only with more 'cushions' for them, in the new version.
I can't bring myself to abandon hope entirely, but I fear that a lot more people will have to personally feel the same pain that their greed and insensitivity have inflicted on others, at home and abroad, before they 're going to open their eyes about how to fix their country (read: themselves.)
The idea that Obama or even the far-nobler Ralph Nader could workably change our fundamentally-skewed society in any useful time, isn't realistic. There are too many interwoven contradictions in how USA'ers perceive reality, to allow anything but a mass-painful meltdown before virture can (might) return.
Nor do I mean this in the standard, idiotic "jesus-is-coming" sense.
USA'ers are at least as all-around delusional as the Germans were in the 1930's, and as we all know their meltdown came -- and they had to start from scratch -- ironically, with the once-nobler USA's help. Not that irony has any enduring historical value: in the end only decency does.
Everyone set your timer at work for 11 am. That will remind you when you stop working for yourself each day and start working for "the man", because from 8 am to 11 am are three hours per day that add up to 15 hours per week which is the amount of work you do for take home pay, with the other 25 hours to benefit "the man".
This is "free market capitalism", the status quo that gives "the man" freedom to enslave you. All Demoks wholeheartedly support the slavery. If you're confused just look at the amount of economic activity that supports people and the amount that supports capital at the expense of people and you'll quickly arrive at the 15 hour figure for people and 25 hour figure for capital, that is work that cannot be shown to serve people except for a tiny handful of elites.
It doesn't matter who wins the Democratic nomination. Progressives will head into the general election with a Democrat who has adopted their agenda on energy, trade, health care and the Iraq war"
AT LEAST UNTIL THEY ARE ELECTED...DONT FORGET 2006
Obama and Hillary are not progressives. Obama offers us the greatest opportunity for regret. (I won't even mention Hillary because if she gets the nomination, it will make more sense that Bush was reselected twice).
'Be careful what you wish for.' Kurt Vonnegut
so it goes
There are no progressives on the Democratic ticket.
Big Business loves this election, because everyone on the ticket is pro big business.
Their health plans are structured to ensure massive profits for insurance and managed health companies, with no promise of reasonable costs (or comparable to the rest of the world).
These are no friends of labor, and no friends of the earth. Alternative energy only if it means large profits for established energy giants.
I fear for my kids no matter who is elected.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read their voting records, once they got into office! Is anyone listening???
I too have been thinking about Lincoln and his politics and his record. Politics can be a dirty game and prevarications are part of that. But anyone who heard Obama's speech today should feel the truth that he lives by. I was a strong supporter of Kucinich in 2004 and am far to the left of most of the Democratic party but I have been supporting Obama since he ran in the primary for U.S. Senator and was one of the first supporters for his presidental run. Why? Because although I do not quite agree with his stand on Israel or his rather wishy-washy attitude on trade, I know that he is as honest as a politician can be and is a brilliant, compassionate, and strong man who is and always will be, a progressive.
"It doesn't matter who wins the Democratic nomination."
No it surely doesn't. The one genuinely progressive candidate (Kucinich) was mocked and ignored until being forced from the race to defend his Congressional seat against a corporate hack. The other somewhat progressive candidate (Edwards) was castigated as phony and a hypocrite for having a big house and getting expensive haircuts (how much are Hillary's hairdos? how big is Obama's mansion on Tony Rezko's land?). What remains is a meaningless choice between a blatant corporate-imperialist shill who cares only about her own power and a surreptitious corporate-imperialist shill spewing vague platitudes about "hope" and seducing millions of naive "progressives" who hate shill #1 so much that they love shill #2.
"He is not far enough over there for me," Shelton said of Obama. She suspects he is "more left than he is posing himself to be, but I don't want that to get out."
Give me a break. Such sentiment (and I suspect it is very common) indicates how weak, how debased, how utterly clueless most "progressives" truly are. Rather than enduring the struggle of building a lasting, truly independent progressive party and sticking with it for election after election, they place blind faith in a mainstream, corporate candidate merely because he's more palatable than his corporate opponent. Until naive attitudes like this dissipate, left liberalism will never be a significant force in American politics.
"Stop, for the sake of the country, pursuing nonsensical and unobtainable windmills titled "Kucinich," "McKinney," "Nader," and start functioning in the real world. In that world, our opportunity for progressive legislation now, rests with the Obama administration, as it rested with FDR in 1932. I am, as are many others, sick to death of these goddamned litmus tests."
See above. More blind faith in a corporate Democrat. Look friend, Obama is not FDR. Not even close. FDR was a pro-capitalist Democrat, but he knew he could lead a massive political and ideological realignment in America and he seized the opportunity. He did so for both personal aggrandizement and a sincere belief that the country needed a new ideological paradigm. Obama is a self-serving hack who is unwilling to consider that such a realignment could happen again. He believes in and recites the same Reaganesque talking points, safely ensconced in the same GOP paradigm that every Democratic candidate for the last 25 years has regurgitated. If "the opportunity for progressive legislation rests with an Obama administration", then just concede defeat right now and stop wasting your breath.
You are sick of goddamn litmus tests? I'm sick of defeatist, milquetoast "progressives" capitulating to the corporate-imperialist establishment every election, trotting out the same worn out platitudes and invocations of lesser evilism. Vote for whomever you want, my friend, but don't scold me for voting my conscience, for following my moral beliefs and not blind faith married to naked partisan expediency.
"So, if (more like when) Obama decides to continue the Iraq occupation indefinitely, and calls anyone opposing it "divisive" a "perfectionist" and hindering this "new reality", should we all fall in line behind him?"
If on the extremely outside chance Obama is elected President (not likely, McCain has already been crowned), and he does just that, yes, you will hear many, many "progressives" urging us to fall in line behind his policy in Iraq for the sake of unity and because the big bad Republicans are so much worse. Hmmm, blind obedience to the leader and his policy for the sake of the party? What does that sound like? NOT democracy.
"We have got to make the change. Even FDR didn't do the things he did just because he was a good guy. He was forced to do it. Don't give up, and for sure don't await the Messiah to bring you to the pearly gates. Be but a lamp unto yourself, and get crackin'."
I agree completely, my friend. That is why I am supporting the building of a truly progressive and truly independent SECOND Party (as opposed to the two factions of the Corporate Party that now exist). The best person to spark this is Ralph Nader.
"You guys are fools who keep voting for these old cons, even if you do supposedly hate the neo-cons. The Democrats are simply collaborators, and not opposition. Many of us are just sick of your 'lesser of two evil' nonsense. You see differences all the time yet can't see the sameness. You are politically blind and have held this country back for eons."
A little harsh, safiyyah; but by and large correct. Many, many "progressives" are as seduced by power and victory as conservatives. They also have been beaten down so often that the project all their hopes and aspirations onto anyone at hand. Obama exploits this masterfully. He is not to the left of Hillary on any issue of substance (and don't give me any nonsense about his opposing the Iraq War when he was a state senator in a safely Democratic district and had no influence over the process) and is to her right on health care, social security and the minimum wage. No matter, he is a fresh face, with inspirational rhetoric and, most importantly, NOT HER! Thus, he is a tabula rasa upon which the left can project anything it wants.
Pardon me but I think it is quite the naive understanding of politics to expect that any politician can be completely open and honest to the public with their views and beliefs.
It is the nature of politics to be strategic with the truth. This can be seen even when politics is taken down to the most basic level - between two people. Can anyone say that they are completely honest at all times even with those with whom they are closest?
A politician in a democracy is a leader of the entire people - and he or she must serve and navigate the wide and varied wishes of those people. Only a dictator does not have these considerations and can act as he or she pleases (even then only to an extent).
Only those who are not running for public office can risk the truth more openly, such as MLK.
Some examples to ponder...
Many of the Founding Fathers pandered to the religious proclivities of public in their day otherwise they would have not long remained politically viability.
Lincoln appeased the proslavery half of the country by many of his words and actions. Hence the controversy today over whether he was really against slavery. He was. Lincoln understood he was not a dictator but the leader of a democratic nation and that he had to be the leader for the entire nation despite his own wishes and beliefs. He had to respond to the whole nation otherwise he would have been done before he started. He wanted a gradual, peaceful transition to the end of slavery but even his middle road approach did not appease the South.
Even Kucinich, who was honest enough (incredibly) to admit that he saw a UFO, lied when he said he had a real shot at the White House. He couldn't possibly have believed this, otherwise he was truly delusional and unfit for any office.
Carter is a great example of someone who did not fully appreciate the necessities of politics - hence his ineffective and unrealized presidency.
As long as there is politics there will be prevarications. The trick is to know when they have crossed the line and the words coming out of their mouths have become completely meaningless.
It doesn't matter a whole lot which one gets elected, that is of course if they don't show too many of their own warts and expose the warts of the other in this drawn-out campaing. As always, there will be no knight in shining armor to win the day for us. No one person is going to do it. What it takes is to keep plugging away at building a movement, a progressive movement, that grows large enough, vocal enough, dare I say scary enough, that will push the agenda over the tops of those who are elected. They will run to the front of the parade for sure, and then act like they did what we want because of them. Keep pushing whoever is the candidate to get on board a single-payer, doctor/patient run health care agenda, a get out of Iraq now and help fund the international community to rebuild (without the US other than the money), redirect funding to green energy, end the corporate stanglehold on our elections and national policies, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
We have got to make the change. Even FDR didn't do the things he did just because he was a good guy. He was forced to do it. Don't give up, and for sure don't await the Messiah to bring you to the pearly gates. Be but a lamp unto yourself, and get crackin'.
Hopefully progressives have overcome their propensity for fratricidal sniping which the old joke, "Why can't you form a firing squad out of liberals? Because they would form into a circle and shoot at each other," explicates well. It remains to be seen if that will come to pass.
And, I must hang around a different bunch of young people, because the activist youth here in Pittsburgh are distinctly cool to all the candidates - there is too much work to do in the streets.
And, as far as your remarks that we are liars - sorry, some of us, including me and Rev Wright, aren't.
So, if (more like when) Obama decides to continue the Iraq occupation indefinitely, and calls anyone opposing it "divisive" a "perfectionist" and hindering this "new reality", should we all fall in line behind him?
"It doesn't matter which Democrat wins" sounds to me like they have decided on Hillary and are trying to appease us for their having picked her against our wishes.
Well at least it's a big crack in the ice between progressivism and the Democratic Party, and the bigger it grows, no doubt the better the results. Let those who sold out to the devil join him in hell, Madame Speaker.
I think Mike Corbeil put it well: "Iow, be voters who know how to lead and apply the both knowledge and ability; unless just a bunch of sheep. Elected leaders are human and sometimes need to be led, and it sure looks like this is going to be the case again."
USAn,
Yeah, Obama speaks from both sides of his mouth. Got a minute? Everyone speaks from both sides of their mouth! Sucks, don't it? But, that's the world as it is.
The reason I've switched from waiting for perfection to going for what's in front of me, as imperfect as it is, is because for the first time in many years, I'm hearing young people say that they have hope. Things happen when people have hope. With hope, people get off their asses and do what can't be done.
I agree, Mike Corbeil, people need to be led, and that includes (especially) our elected "leaders." I'm all for going for hope with my eyes wide open, and I'm all for helping the young people build a new reality, instead of demanding perfection where none is to be had.
And this Obamamnia is getting so bad that CD is refusing to publish articles by independent congressional candidate and antiwar leader Cindy Sheehan.
Anyone who doesn't see that Obama is grooming the US populace for a long-term brutal occupation of Iraq, crushing of Palestine, and possible bombing of Iran is blind.
EARTHIAN: Good posting.
Iammyself,
You completely missed my point.
And, if you are old enough to recall, in 1979, Ronald Raygun was considered an unelectable right-wing wacko by even the MSM. But, that didn't cause Reagan to start talking like Carter, he stuck to his red-and poor black welfare queen-baiting ways, and it eventually worked for him.
You also are caught up in cult of personality. You first make a convincing case for the ideology, and frame discourse on issues in therms of that ideology; THEN you field candidates that support the ideology.
In the case of the conservatives, it was the sacrificial campaigns of Goldwater that got resurgent conservatism started - this forced Carter had to move rightward of even Nixon on some issues. This sets the stage for the ultimate victory of the conservative movement of Reagan that remains totally dominant to this day.
As far as Ohio and Texas, if you mean the uncovering of Obama's (like all politicians) talking out of both sides of his mouth at once, over NAFTA, the criminal Iraq occupation, and roosting chickens, don't YOU want to be aware of these things?
What if the Democrats get their stupid candidate back into office once again? It's not like getting Jimmy and Slick in solved any damn problem about this country, is it?
You guys are fools who keep voting for these old cons, even if you do supposedly hate the neo-cons. The Democrats are simply collaborators, and not opposition. Many of us are just sick of your 'lesser of two evil' nonsense. You see differences all the time yet can't see the sameness. You are politically blind and have held this country back for eons.
Commissar Jameer, I REFUSE to take orders from you! I will vote for the candidate who best represents my views and my aspirations for the future of the country. For all that has devolved over the past few years, this is STILL a country where no crypto-Stalinist such as yourself has the right to dictate to any other American citizen how he or she must vote. I resent your political bigotry and your arrogant attempt to intimidate people into voting for the candidate of YOUR choice.
Not that I'm pleased about it, but I believe to have to agree with jameer and others who emphasise the importance of supporting Obama. The only problem all these people have been having as far as my personal view is concerned, and about Obama (FORGET BILLARY altogether!), is that NONE argue convincingly, while Dave Lindorff has, including twice; once in Feb. and then again this month. He has illustrated knowing how to state the side-with-Obama argument [correctly]; I've read no one else doing or achieving this [persuasively], only negligently.
After all, many of us who have been against both Billary (NEVER!) and Obama have been focused on Obama's hellish siding with the hellbent Israeli govt and, therefore, its hellbent crimes against Palestinian and Lebanese populations; and his promise to maintain the criminally established U.S. embassy and military bases, so U.S. forces, in Iraq, which means continuing the war, instead of really working to end it. And these are only two of more examples of [real] concerns over [real] issues that need to be justly resolved and ASAP.
Only Dave Lindorff helped me to consider people supporting Obama for U.S. president in the or this [other] "light".
Jameer didn't do too badly with his or her above post, but still not as convincing as Lindorff has been.
What's [appreciable] in Lindorff's articles, and which hasn't appeared in any others I've read promoting Obama for president, is that he treats his readers HONESTLY; doesn't hide the truths, doesn't disregard the serious concerns people have had for supporting neither Billary nor Obama. And it's [important] to never commit such disregard, for when we do, then we come across as either condescending, or else speaking half truths or half-truths, like having some little diabolical plan possibly in mind.
Anyway, Lindorff made up for everyone else's [failures], lacunes; imo anyway.
You'll have a LOT of work to do if and when Obama is elected president, and "Americans" will hopefully be energetic about this; unless Obama's not really saying what his real views are on Israel-Palestine and the U.S. embassy and military bases in Iraq, f.e., are. I don't know why he would choose to do that, for, and afaik, all of his supporters want these issues justly resolved, as they [need] to be. I suppose that it is possible that he's figured that it's strategically better for him to not disclose his real views, but the possibility is surely very remote; for, after all, he surely wasn't fibbing in his incomprehensible siding with the Israeli govt from hell, f.e. After all, that was quite a while back, not during the primary campaigns, though; and not so far back that it's impertinent today, while he of course could change, for we can change from one day to the next, even.
I expect he's saying what his real views or positions are, and that his supporters are therefore going to need to be very energetic about getting him to abide by U.S. and international laws, if and when he's elected president (Billary, NEVER!). If they don't do this and he doesn't miraculously wake up on his own, then it will have made basically NO difference who will have been elected president. So it's up to the voters to elect him and to then make sure to energetically work on getting him to abide by LAW and [moral] ethics.
Oh well, whenever we vote for anyone, we should remain standing by the person and I mean standing in the constructive criticism sense, when this is what's needed. When it's only straightforward support to be given, then give it; while when constructive criticism for trying to correct the elected individual's course, then give this.
Iow, be voters who know how to lead and apply the both knowledge and ability; unless just a bunch of sheep. Elected leaders are human and sometimes need to be led, and it sure looks like this is going to be the case again.
jameer wrote: Stop, for the sake of the country, pursuing nonsensical and unobtainable windmills titled "Kucinich," "McKinney," "Nader," and start functioning in the real world..... So, either get on the real electoral bandwagon, or go fishing.
I've heard this rhetoric before......You are either with us or against us - GWB, Nov 6, 2001.
No thanks, no more. There is another way and it is neither the corporate-owned Republicans nor the Democrats.
"For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone could think that keeping one's ideology secret and mimicing the ideology of one's opponent could ever be winning strategy - for the politician, but more importantly, for the ideology!"
USAn,
Well, consider this: Negative campaigning by Clinton largely worked in Ohio and Texas. If Democratic voters are still rather unenlightened, what makes anyone think American voters as a whole are going to be any more enlightened?
Dennis Kucinich was my first choice by far. However, Kucinich didn't stand a chance because for the vast majority of American voters, he was unelectable, regardless of whether his ideology was out in the open and he spoke the truth. I think it stinks that more people wouldn't prefer the unvarnished truth, but that is what we have.
If Obama can win through fraud and deceit and move us to the left it's ok by me. At least it's not outright theft.
Flaw number one with this article is that the author actually believes what the Democratic candidates are saying.
Instead, the track record of the last twenty years is ....
-- when the nomination is decided, the progressive agenda of the candidate will be dropped like a hot potato and the campaign will turn hard to the right.
-- if elected, the candidate will forget everything said during the election. Instead, the transistion teams will be the ones deciding what the agenda will be. Big contributors will be in the room. Progressive activists will not be allowed in on the discussion.
--------
I still love this myth that the Democrat will be much more liberal once elected. That's just insane. First off, right now is the time it pays Obama the most to sound progressive and liberal. When he needs the base of the party to vote for him. So, if he won't sound progressive and liberal now, its insane to believe he will later.
And second, for Obama to do what's suggested would be a slap in the face of all the corporations and Wall St money that's funded his campaign. Does anyone really believe a modern politician is going to give the finger to the people who just put him in office? Especially when he'll be hitting up the same people to fund mid-term elections and his own re-election campaign?
This is really amazing. This is what the Democrats have sunk to. They actually want people to vote for a candidate believing that the candidate is something very different from both what the candidate says and what his big contributors want him to be. Faith-based voting.
After every election, we get to here the people who wasted their vote on the Democrats whining and complaining that the Dems are constantly supporting conservative notions and the interests of their big contributors. After the last election, it was about the war and impeachment. Even though the Dems clearly signalled their positions on both, it seems millions voted Dem purely on faith that the Dems would be much more progressive than anything they said. Then these voters seemed shocked when the Dems don't live up to their fantasies. Now this same line of BS is constantly being touted as the reason to vote for Obama. What's amazing is that anyone would fall for it.
What a steaming pile of bullshit. "It doesn't matter who wins the Democratic nomination." EXACTLY. Because they're still a corporate powerhouse.
And Obama a progressive in disguise? Please.
I really thought this conference was a good thing, until reading this article.
I'm voting for either Nader or McKinney, whichever can get into the debates (and if neither can, McKinney gets my vote).
You're right, good work at spotting a rat.
Borosage, whoever he is, trying to frame Clinton as a progressive is laughable and to say she has a left leaning agenda is laughable. It certainly does make a difference who gets nominated.
But I may part ways with many of you, I do support Obama. He takes a pretty corporatist line now - for example, he supports the basic idea of NAFTA, whatever tweeks he says it's due for; but he didn't invent it.
He does sound too militarist for me right now but not as much as Clinton or McCain, and I bet, just a gut feeling, that if he gets to be President he will recognize the folly of occupying Iraq and the folly of threatening Iran; and will have the drive to change what's going on.
Can't we all cut out this childish nonsense? We don't need conferences--we need active mobilisation to see that Barack Obama gets the nomination and then that he gets the White House. Stop, for the sake of the country, pursuing nonsensical and unobtainable windmills titled "Kucinich," "McKinney," "Nader," and start functioning in the real world. In that world, our opportunity for progressive legislation now, rests with the Obama administration, as it rested with FDR in 1932. I am, as are many others, sick to death of these goddamned litmus tests.
The Democrats in Congress were dealing with political realities that were not in their favor, in spite of the electoral results. The missing component was a progressive Democrat in the White House, not a veto-happy half-wit like George. So, either get on the real electoral bandwagon, or go fishing.
She suspects he is "more left than he is posing himself to be, but I don't want that to get out."
For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone could think that keeping one's ideology secret and mimicing the ideology of one's opponent could ever be winning strategy - for the politician, but more importantly, for the ideology!
It represents some kind of special form of madness! One promotes an ideology by arguing for that ideology. Anything else is high fraud!
Progressive-left politics can stand on it's own two feet perfectly fine, tahnk-you.
So, it is either:
Case 1 - Obama is stratgically selling himself as a "moderate" and is really going to move far left upon entering office - in this case he is a phony and a fraud; or
Case 2 - Obama is really portraying his views accurately.
I think Case 2 is the more likely one.
Did the conservative movement, from Goldwater onward, ever represent themselves as anything but conservatives, didn't they run for office, and win, by arguing for, and convincing people of, their ideology???
Robert Borosage said:
". . . progressives will head into the general election with a Democrat who has adopted their agenda on energy, trade, health care and the Iraq war"
This is false. Borosage is attempting to co-opt the name "progressive" for Clinton and/or Obama, who are corporate, militarist Democrats. Borosage is a corporate Democrat hiding in progressive garb.
Clinton and Obama won't redirect money from the Pentagon towards a retooled, sustainable US economy, but will continue policies that are too little and too late.
They won't create a new regime of balanced trade (such as that proposed by Keynes at Bretton Woods in 1944), but will continue to create predatory, capitalist corporate globalization.
They won't create federal medical insurance for every American, but will maintain the corporate system of illness care.
They won't end the so-called "Iraq war" because there is no war. There is an occupation that Clinton and Obama will continue, according to their own statements.
"It doesn't matter who wins the Democratic nomination."
Of course it doesn't.. unless it were Kucinich or McKinney. Can't have any truly concerned public servants on the ballot, otherwise there wouldn't be any room available for the corporate puppets.
Perhaps its time for someone to ask about the Clinton camp about the legacy of "Its the economy, stupid".