There were no Progressive candidates in the election. There were Democrats and Republicans. These people ARE NOT PROGRESSIVE. They are CORPORATE.

We are in for very hard times ahead. The dollar will crash because of the actions of the Federal Reserve and hyperinflation is on its way. Obama's Austerity Committee will recommend cuts in Medicare and raise the age for Social Security. Will 'mericans riot in the street as did the French, the Spaniards and the Greeks? No way. We are ready for our future as serfs under neo feudalism.

We have two years to form new political parties. We need a worker's party, a woman's party, a party of people with a tad of melanin in their skin and a save the earth party. These parties can form coalitions and kick out the corrupt politicians in office now. It will not be easy, but the first step is to face the fact that the Democrats ARE NOT PROGRESSIVE. They are not on the side of the working people. They like hanging around with the millionaires and billionaires. (They are millionaires themselves trying to get to be billionaires.) Give up trying to push the Dems to the left. They don't want to go there.

This article is nothing but an exercise in wish-thinking and delusion. There is no silver lining in this election, just more volleyball between two evils.
In my state the only Green Party candidate got 2% of the vote. Many of those 2% apparently didn't check him out, he was blatantly unqualified.
Many other races had a "none of the above" option. This choice also averaged about two percent of the votes cast.
The general public is ignorant in political matters and generally persuaded into thinking that voting for anyone outside the two corporate parties is a "wasted vote". So things keep getting progressively worse and they wonder why.
The only solution seems to be a true progressive with a well-known name starting a third party movement. Good luck.

Of course the Blue Dogs are the first to go when there is a general shift to toss out the Democrats. They are in conservative districts or they would not be Blue Dogs, which means they would be more affected by a shift to the Republicans than Democrats in safer districts would be. That is not any kind of good thing.

What candidate of stature could reach your standards? Feingold was right on too many things to be flushed down the toilet. You can always find some 23 year-old college kid who satisfies your checklist of desirable characteristics in a candidate--but he/she won't draw many votes. But maybe that is not important to you. It's easier to stand on the sidelines, never getting the ball, and jeer at the poor fools playing the game.

Not only that. Together with zionist puppet John McCain, Feingold was responsible for altering campaign finance laws in ways that allow israel-firsters to "buy" elections and politicians all over the country. We should have dumped both of them long ago.

Ah...if only IPS had a breakfast bar....
send the link!

I disagree with the analysis of the article. The blue dogs probably lost in areas that were already somewhat conservative, hence it may be that only a blue dog could win in those places, and it is even more of a conservative shift to lose a more moderate blue dog to a republican that will be further extreme right wing.

Progressives are already representing more securely progresive areas. So basically, we are seeing republican gains in more fragile or more right wing areas.

Articles like this simply sound arrogant. Democrats need to realise that it is an uphill battle, and articles like this give the false idea that they can just kick back adn victories will be handed to them like in that Mass. race.

I think its better that democrats take a purely progressive position rather than a watered down position such as with health care bills without public options, and refuse to affix their names to watered down or damaged legislation as with the health care bill and the stimulus bill.

The idea that by trying to compromise or pass watered down legislation that they will not be attacked by the right wing as hard has been proven wrong. It just makes them look spineless.

given how well Republicans are funded and that Republicans represent the interest of the corporate elite, democrats and others who fight for workers will be more poorly funded and for whom it will be more difficult for them to be elected. It is deceptive and harmful to be overly optimistic about this as that optimism leads to too much complacency. Democrats have to fight hard, we cannot ignore that. We also need to address the problems where that the wealth elite do have more power and privelege due to their money and try to create a more fair system where all voices can be equally heard.

We must realise the republican deception machine is extremely powerful, well funded and has a strong domination of this country due to the wealth and elite that funds them. It is not a fair system and one that is intrinisclaly balanced against worker rights and worker interests to assure they always are marginalised and that the corporate elite are always able to overpower and drown out the voices of common people. There are aways that democrats can conenct to people adn they have been failing to do this, first is having the right agenda but also connecting that agenda to being populist and anti elite, and connecting the republicans to the powerful, fascist corporate elites and their lobbyists in washington.

Great response, Higgs.

Karen Dolan's missive reminds me why I don't bother wasting my time on Huff Post.

I agree Higgs. Its a good thing though to have maintained the solid block of good progressives that we have. But that's not close to enough to enact the kind of popular policies that most americans support...e.g. good jobs, decent affordable health care, decent housing and education for our kids, good nutrition available to kids whose families are too poor to afford it, addressing threats to our nation and planet due to climate change, etc.
We can't do it without Progressives on the hill, but they can't do it without us and without more of us turning out it 2012 and pushing Obama to inspire turnout in the meantime...

Exactly, and I would be a amazed to see that changing. And that Progressive Dem Caucus? You mean the one that said they would stand strong for nothing less than a real public option? Rollover. You mean the Progressive Dem Caucus who had 100 signatures on a document to impeach Bush? Rollover.

Yes, I'm happy to see Blue Dogs gone, but the big Blue Dog is still in the WH along with his Wall Street crony cabinet. I can't wait to see the progressive agenda of Obama. He will either leave it all up to Congress -- uttering expressions of outrage from time to time -- and then sign whatever they put on his desk, citing that's the best we could get, folks -- or he could move to the left, to the left, ever to the left.

Maybe we should take a poll on CD and vote on which direction we think Obama's going to take.

McConnell just came out "We do not come in peace" blather. The O-bots are eating this up. This from the Maddow blog roll. So out come the O-bots in force -- stand by your man, you're a traitor if you don't, look at his list of progressive accomplishments (citing a website with list of said "progressive" accomplishments)

I'll say it again, progress was made in NYS in the Green Party -- won ballot status through 2014. It's a start. I am still registered Independent, but thinking I might change that.

Meanwhile, in the popular media the Dem v. Repub slugfest will continue, just like an old "Punch and Judy" routine, and everyone will continue to be outraged.

I agree! And the message being touted now is that this administration must "listen" and act on the "changes" these people want because the American people have spoken and made their voice heard. So sayeth the Orange Man. And they must work in a bipartisan manner and abandon their liberal, Socialist agenda (now known as "European-style Socialism"). I must have missed something these past 2 years-- when did we get European-style Socialism?

Great stuff, Higgs --- wisdom from the god particle!

Seriously, the spirit of Karen's glass-half-full post is appreciated. Leavening bleak realism with a positive vision is healthy. But at this stage, steadfast faith in Obama is clearly naïve. His presence and speech is beguiling, but his unvaried record now clearly establishes him as a Neocon at heart. By their fruits you shall know them.

Yesterday’s post-election press conference was especially revealing. First, it’s astonishing that neither Obama nor any “journalist” present at the hour-long conference broached the topic of three wars, now going on ten years, as if these had no bearing on voter apathy --- or as if unfunded military overreach is not a key factor in the ruined domestic economy (clearly ‘in recovery’ now anyway for the investor class). But most striking was that, after two years of continual “compromise”, Obama noted in a very reasonable manner that the principal election lesson is that Democrats must > now < be willing to compromise, a sentiment echoed separately by Harry Willowy Reed that same day: “We have to work together”.

Really? After nearly two years of appeasement and conceding everything to the party of “NO” and losing your base, the lesson you learn is that you need to compromise further with sociopaths whose only publicly-stated goal is to defeat you and to never to compromise with your “Marxist” agenda? Apparently so, for on that very point, he specifically conceded that extending tax cuts for plutocrats is something he would be willing to compromise on (thus the market gods are giddy today).

So you decide. Is the man a fool, unfit to lead, or a great deceiver? And how is it possible for the liberal intelligentsia to miss this? Amazing what one can overlook when one's salary depends on poor vision.

You seem to still be thinking that Obama ever had any interest in progressive, pro-American positions. In fact Obama was groomed, financed and hired as president by "israel-first" and "financial" circles (often the same circles) who are more than happy with his performance.

You could have noticed that when an Israeli soldier from a zionist terrorist family who was made rich by Wall Street corruption so he could play politics (Rahm Emanuel) was appointed as his minder. Or when a failed financial crook (Larry Summers) from a similar background was appointed to the Economic Council of Advisors. Or when a "nice girl" with excellent family connections to the ZionCons was appointed to the Supreme Court.

As for the "bluedogs", remember that it was Rahm Emanuel who insisted on they being the "pro-war" candidates at a time when Americans were fed up with the war in Iraq.

That's ok, I can't eat gluten anyway ;-)
Listen, my question is to you cookie-sonsuming anti-pollyanna's...why not be glad that the Progressive Caucus won? I never said that's all we need. But its the least we need. How can any semblance of progressive policy be crafted, championed, peddled, argued without a good solid bunch of progressives on the Hill? Its our challenge to push Obama, to get out the vote, to create grassroots and political strategy that pushes Obama to be and FDR...tall order...but tell me your alternative? Should we stay home crying tea bag tears? Might taste good with the cookies, no? ;-) (since I am a pollyanna, please notice the affectionate humor with which I write these comments)