The same reason conservative activists gave Bush a pass. Activist groups are all about money and 15 minutes of fame. How many of them bothered to support Nader or Mckinney? Name one single progressive activist or group. Very few if any. Why expect most of them to change their behavior? The day conservative activists throw their support to the Libertarian, Constitution, and Tea Parties is the day progressive activists will throw their support to the Green and Socialist Parties. Until then, it's just two party duopoly business as usual.

Great update on this problem and excellent point about the issues. imo, the issues always come first, before any loyalty, except in extreme voting situations, ie, Nader voters in FL 2000. For the most part, the only way to sanity and respect is to continually protest what is not right. You can hold your nose at the voting booth if you need to, but not in the public arena. Otherwise, you're just playing into the hands of filthy triangulators like Rahm Emmauel.

I believe Obama is for Obama before anything else. Who care's what any politician's 'personality' is. It's what they do that matters. Let's never again underestimate his potential to destroy for political gain. We deserve better - the solution is ground roots activism with a takeover of the democratic party starting with everyone's participation at local levels/meetings, etc.

Damn.
With all the ruckus from clueless liberals up there on Hedges piece, I hope this doesn't slip by.
It is too important to be overlooked.

Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."

The reasons cited are the most half-assed bunch of drivel I've ever read.
The only think destroying progressivism is the sadly large number of sorry milque-toast, over-medicated depressives and defeatists calling themselves progressive activists when they are the character equivalent of cheese whiz.

It seems to me that many "progressives" are stuck on issues like climate change, gay marriage, and other non life threatening issues. Most likely because there is no leadership in the progressive movement, it's been taken over by the likes of George Soros (MOveON) and Al Gore, poised to make millions of his cap and trade scam. There are plenty of shysters on the progressive page.
One other thing that I've experienced when criticizing Obama is the race card. If you criticize him, you are a racist.

Last week, Amy Goodman interviewed Jane Hamsher on Democracy Now! In the interview, Jane talked about this issue, and explained.

Now, I, myself, have a better understanding of why so few people show up at rallies and marches here in NYC, and across the country. The leaders of various progressive causes have been threatened by the money-men, per request of Rham -- to NOT activate their members, OR, they will lose their funding.

A week ago, on Tuesday, after Obama's speech on escalation the war in Afghanistan, I attended a rally in Times Square. Very few people attended -- NYC has 8 million people.

As for the anti-war movement -- it's been missing in action since the 2004 campaign! Personally, I think it was a big mistake to suspend the anti-war movement in order to support -- "Anybody but Bush!"

To watch the Jane Hamsher interview, go to:

www.democracynow.org

Enter Jane Hamsher into the search box, and the segment will appear.

And I'll add another reason:

Because 'progressives' are finally starting to accept that BO is nothing more than the General Manager The Owners of The Place, Inc. hired to increase their bottom lines no matter the cost to the universe.

Same game I played when I was king of the grocery store - someone came in to bitch that our prices were too high. The General Manager listened, said some pretty words, then went ahead and raised prices like I told him to do.

That someone who came in to bitch quickly realized that The Owner could give a shit about 'someone,' that no matter how much he bitched to the GM, ain't nothing was gonna change...

Progressives need to ignore Obama and aim for The Owners of The Place, Inc. or keep bitching into the wind and 'hope' that 'change' will somehow magically occur...

This sycophantic behavior of "liberal activists" to the Dems is not in the least bit new. Check out "The Democrats: a Critical History" by Lance Selfa.

If our movements are ever to be effective, they MUST stay clear of the 2 factions of the corporate party.

A 1930's labor leader said: "the Democratic Party is the graveyard of social movements." It was true then; it's true now.

Go further: let rhetoric approach reality.

0bama does not follow a "moderate Clinton-Gore course," even were one to grant that such a course could have ever existed.

0bama continues to occupy Iraq.
0bama continues to occupy Afghanistan
0bama continues to occupy Pakistan

---- to name only the most active conflicts! --

0bama has attacked Syria
0bama has attacked Somalia
0bama has moved to place 7 new bases in prostrate Colombia to intimidate and, if convenient, invade Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, and other countries in the region.

0bama continues to torture.
0bama continues extraordinary rendition.
0bama has moved and spoken against transparency in government, particularly in the case of torture, including torture carried out against American citizens

0bama has extended the dread "Patriot Act," with its inhumane and anticonstitutional provisions that regress human rights centuries, back past the Magna Carta of 1215.

The left-liberal-progressive-humanist-whatever segment that fails to raise its voice against 0bama fights a learned helplessness almost completely out of touch with reality.

Look how woefully unrealistic Shaw's supposed "reasons" are:

1. Better than Bush? How? Same bailout (doubled). Same wars (escalated). No health bill (let's face it). More coal.
As of today, O scores worse than 0.

2. "Not his true views." 2 questions:
a) Why not?
b) So what?
I will abstain from wasting CD'ers' time following those out.

3. Denial. OK, this is probably a big reason. It is also a very bad one, isn't it?

4. Low expectations of 0's ability to bring change.
Irrelevant. Sure, were he trying to make change and failing, this would be significant. It would be part of a genuine rationale to rally behind him, including to support various compromises.
However, in this particular universe, 0bama works against his constituency and for his sponsors, not the reverse, and not a compromise between the two (as I who voted against him had also hoped).

That last word has come to feel unclean, but we need despair only in 0bama and his Demoplicans, not in the ability of the population to wreak change -

--- if it responds.

So, let's know it:

- The Democrats robbed and rob us all on purpose.
- The Republicans really are worse.
- The elect of both parties kill, lie, rob, and destroy callously and casually.
- Not voting and not agitating make as much sense as leaving one's livelihood open to thieves.

Folks, there are lots of things we can do. Strikes work. Boycotts work. Voting works. Noncooperation of all sorts works.

Acquiescence, however, fails.

The moment it became clear to US was even Before ELECTION; when the Bush Hog (with lipstick) began sporting a flag on his lapel!

Stop the passes for Barakus garbage and tell Rham to go to hell. We don't need him. He needs us. Where the hell does he think he would be without us, besides back in Chicago with a lot of other gangster types? If only one third of the vote that went for the Demorcatic national ticket doesn't show up at the polls in 2012, Barakus is dead in the water and will be lucky to carry his home state. Colin Powell will likely be the GOP opponent for Obama in 2012 and whip Barakus bigger than Dwight D Eisenhower beat Adlai Stevenson easily and we will probably be better off. Yes, we can vote for an anti war Republican, and we will. Now deal with it, Rham!

Remember Ike shut down the Korean War with a negotiated settlement, and cut the Pentagon budget twice. That's not so bad.

I'm sick and tired of all this the 'GOP is coming to get you" BS. It's not going to happen. The hierarchy in the GOP wants to see this country survive, and they know the neocons will bring this country down to nothing. They aren't nuts even if their base is.

AD

"Obama is now floating trial balloons about going after Social Security benefits in a midterm election year. Kent Conrad is on the floor of the Senate pushing for his “commission” right now (something the White House tried to push earlier this year, but had to back burner). If it succeeds in slashing Social Security benefits, Obama will set himself up nicely for 2012, but the cost to Democrats in 2010 could be cataclysmic."

I agree that slashing Social Security benefits would cost the Democrats in 2010, but I don't understand why slashing SS benefits would help Obama for 2012. The very prospect fills me with fear, since I'll need SS when I retire, and I think most people are in the same boat. How would this help Obama get re-elected?

I'd really appreciate an explanation from anyone who understands this.

Hamsher writes that "Obama is now floating trial balloons about going after Social Security benefits in a midterm election year."

Obama spoke about "addressing entitlements" frequently during his presidential campaign. As with much of what he said, it was designed to signal his willingness to serve Wall Street while at the same time going right over the heads of his adoring (and desperate) liberal fans.

Silence only helps the oppressor, never the oppressed.

While our mainstream 'progressive' representatives stay safe and quiet about the war, health care, corporate corruption, it served to further embolden the corporate elite.

I'm sure that the corporate elite, just like Hitler, were surprised that there is not more resistance.

www.NotOneMore.US - The Pledge for Peace and Justice

I do not know of any "progressives" who are doing any of this, and furthermore, anyone who gives obomber a pass automatically surrenders her progressive label, and goes to sit in the back of the room with the republicans, yahoos, xenophobes, and his other fans.

There is a story today here on this very site about obomber's justice dept. using and extending the bush white house idea of justice. go read it and then give up,any hope you may still have.

I think one other reason is his race. The right-wing's attacks on Obama have been largely fueled by racism, so naturally the Left feels they have to surround him and throw up shields. Obama also represents some racial progress just by getting elected. People in the black community in particular feel a need to support him and may fear reprisal for taking him to task.

There's also the fact that mainstream Democrats don't really want radical upheaval. They want gays to be allowed to marry and operate the controls on the war machine. They want to play "gotcha" with Republicans. They don't really want things like universal single-payer and a living wage or an end to Empire.

Thirdly, I think many people are simply in denial. They don't want to confront the fact that they voted for a nicer neo-con, a more polite neo-liberal, a softer Republican.

Try telling a staunch Democrat that there's no real difference between a Donkey and an Elephant.

Yes, they all want to pretend that they are so much better being donkeys than elephants, don't they? It is nauseating!

Hamsher touts Shaw's analysis, but his analysis is just nonsense.

Progressives are a small part of the U.S. voting population, maybe 10 percent or so. They have no representation because of the Dem/Repug duopoly and winner-take-all elections. Every election year, progressives are coopted to vote Democratic. And every year that they do, they're betrayed on the feeble promises offered.

Why ask progressives to do more? They're the ones who did protest. They write letters, to no avail. Nah, it's time for mainstream Dem supporters like Hamsher to get mainstream loyalist-voting Dems mobilized to oppose Obama's policies. Don't ask progressives to do the work you should be doing. We didn't vote for the guy, and he doesn't represent our views.

The real problem is the vast number of Dem voters are content to let Obama trash the country like Bush, as long as he's a Democrat.

I ask Hamsher to do the organizing because she's frequently painted as a big-shot political influencer, but all she really does is funnel monies to corporate Dems - a losing game.

-TIA

Unfortunately the roots of "progressive" absentia go back to the '70s and are not easy to unravel. This will never be overcome so long as "legitimacy" and "professionalism" rather than continuing and effective organizing are the main goals of progressives, and our "leaders" are defined as such by academic credentials, white-collar resumes and fundraising acumen.

When it all got co-opted by its own success and developed tax-exempt status, offices, and pin-striped gatekeepers, that's when it gave up its fangs. Tax-exempt status opens up some financing, but at the price of being forced to operate under very strict IRS rules, which include not being able to advocate against or for candidates. It also means that just like candidates, you can be swiftly taken over by a handful of major donors, without whom you're credentialed office staff become unemployed and, by their own honest understanding, unable to advocate. Since major donors are all players in mainstream political revenue streams and policy-dependent major profit sources that make it possible for them to be major donors, you've locked yourself into the closed loop of plutocracy. As Nader wrote about in "Crashing The Party" with regard to all the institutions he'd co-founded, or as Paul Hackett found out when he wanted to run for Senate in Ohio, when the White House Chief of Staff or head of the Senate Campaign Committee calls and tells you to stop or the tap is going to close off, you stop, or the tap closes off and you are stopped. In the end it's the lure of prominence as measured in cash and the ability to be vetted on your CV for appearances on mainstream media programs, that can be achieved by playing by the establishment's rules, that is, the feeling that being given entre into the system connotes success at your enterprise, and the casual disregard for -- more likely the willful pretense of ignorance of -- the limitations that entre engenders, that today makes progressivism unable to act in its own interest. If Rahm Emanual or Chuck Schumer called me on the phone to tell me my donor pool was in jeopardy if I don't cool off, I'd piss my pants laughing, because I don't have any donors and I'm not foolish enough to try to register any of my activities as non-profit corps. Groups like the PDA and MoveOn, which embrace the non-profit model as well as what they call the "inside-outside" strategy of formally binding movements to Democratic Party candidates, are all repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results. But there is no budging them from this attachment. They like wearing ties and being on TV more than they like being effective. If we want action, we're going to have to start acting independently in our own localities and totally free of these party-and-tax-code controlled entities.

FDR was forced to fear the electoral consequences of ignoring his progressive wing by the fact that socialism was showing powerful results in the ballot booth. That's another factor we can't replicate in 2009, and it's largely the fault of progressives that we're even further away from having that channel open. See Gitlin, Todd, and the other progressive gatekeeper turds responsible for helping the DLC/corporatist Democrats reframe Florida 2000 as spoiling rather than the overt vote theft it actually was, and not only let the criminals off the hook but splintered the new progressive electoral movement at its birth by setting progressive independents and progressive Democrats against each other rather than continuing to unify them against the evils of corporatism and corporate control of both major parties. The endorsement of Kerry by Kucinich in 2004 made it clear that no battle against militarism and corporatism would take place within the confines of the Democratic Party. Thanks for the assist, Todd et al. Now Obama is totally free to care more about Max Baucus and Mitch McConnell than about us. Our rage is totally impotent.

Progressives are also notoriously easy to buy with symbolism. The Democratic primaries in the last round were so well set-up as the contest for whether the Democrats would be promoting the first woman or black president that almost everyone not only forgot to notice that both of them had the exact same platforms that were staunchly right-wing, but many actually took the extra step of defending each of them against progressive criticism by calling every critique either racist or sexist, depending on their preference of symbolism over substance. We have ourselves to blame for being so easy. You'll note that our counterparts in the right wing of the Republican Party don't fall for that -- in fact, they recoil from it, and the opinion-forming media icons that fuel them see their ratings go through the roof. See Madow, Rachel, Afghan war escalation, for details.

This can be discussed ad nauseum, but that's a waste of time. The facts are as they are. Most of the blame, and all of the parts of the blame within our own control, lies within. Progressivism, due to its actions, inactions, and compromises over the last 40 years is now a set of opinions and beliefs that exist in the minds of the believers, but not in the streets or the ballot booths. The only answer, now as always, is local grassroots organizing and action. DIY, now.

www.commonplans.blotspot.com

what a bunch of retarded armchair idiots. obama is the country's only hope of avoiding ending up again with a stone-age pres like W in 2012. remember that at this point obama is the only glimmer of decency among actual power players in D.C. as the senate and congress are dominated by venal chamber-of-commerce demoblicrat senators and congressman. obama is being responsible by being minimalist and playing defense around keeping alive his hope for re-election (a hope with huge implications: want any more nazi scalia-alito-roberts clones as supremos?).

the wrath of progressives should be directed at getting rid of sellout demoblicrat senators and congressmen as well as at purging the party of its other bribed parasites in general. asking for obama's political suicide now just because you bought a 72" HD TV screen is imbecilic and lazy.

you guys should be harassing non-stop baucus, nelson, feinstein, liebercreep, and all the other by-bribe-only whores in the senate (and should ignore the noises coming from the ballet dancer: he is not very bright and only wants the boss to be re-elected).