Has the Left Surrendered? - BillMoyers.com

[MattSh]

This post originally appeared at OurFuture.org.



Harper's magazine's March 2014 cover. (Illustration: Tim Bower)

The relationship between the left and the Democratic Party is central to Reed’s argument, which might be summarized as follows:

1. The Democratic Party has shifted dramatically to the right.

2. The left — or what remains of it — has come to identify itself with the success of the Democratic Party.

3. This has led to a rise in social issues and identity politics at the expense of the economic questions which are (or should be) central to any genuinely left-wing movement.

As if to underscore these points, new poll results show that an increasing number of Americans describe themselves as “liberal” while, simultaneously, 80 percent of Democratic voters reportedly want Hillary Clinton to run for president — despite the fact that she has yet to state her position on many critical issues of the day, from regulatory reform to tax policy to education and despite the fact that she’s closely associated with the regressive economic policies of the first Clinton administration.

These figures suggest that Mr. Reed is onto something.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/28/has-the-left-surrendered/

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. my wife and I are as left/liberal as always - but it is breathtaking to see how right-ward

things have moved politically, in general...we feel barely represented on any of our views these days...

[whathehell]

5. Yes, as Bill Maher said..

"The Democrats have moved to the Right and the Right has moved to the Mental Hospital".

Seriously, though, as a Boomer growing up in the Sixties, I too am actually frightened by how "right"

most of the Democratic party has moved. I like Obama, personally, but as Thom Hartmann and others

have said, he's arguably less liberal than Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower.

[A Simple Game]

40. I'm a liberal product of the Sixties also. No doubt about President Obama

being to the right of Eisenhower, he even admits to admiring Reagan.

I am still shocked by some on DU that call themselves liberals when I would classify some of them as far right. Agreeing with a right leaning moderate President does not make you a liberal. The Republicans just call him liberal, that doesn't mean he is.

[seattledo]

53. Citation needed!

> he even admits to admiring Reagan.

Really?

[iamthebandfanman]

62. that might be putting words into his mouth..

but he definitely respects Reagan ... because he recognizes that Reagan changed America.. which he did. he created the current political climate we are in and made the democratic party sell its soul to win elections again. (

)

But notice he says 'people were ready for it' when describing this change in our country.. and pointing to the 'excesses of the 60s and 70s' as the reasoning to it

anyone who thinks bill Clinton was a liberal president is as delusional as they come :p

[loudsue]

116. Worse: Joe Lieberman was his "mentor"...he admits to that in one of his books.

And he chose Rahm Emmanuel as his chief of staff, right out of the chute. If that isn't right leaning, nothing is.

[merrily]

133. Agree. (Obama requested Lieberman as his mentor.)

[KoKo]

198. TRUE...should have been another Signal as to where he was taking us.

[merrily]

199. I wilfully ignored or rationalized away every signal.

[merrily]

122. You did not put words in his mouth. He's expressed admiration for Reagan

several times.

[rurallib]

157. Methinks Reagan gets way too much credit

He took over a country softened up for the message of his campaign by years of a right ward turning media and a move by corporate America to solidify their presence. Most of this called for by the Powell memo. Add to it the decades of anti-union propaganda that was taking hold and voila.

Like an actor who gets credit for a great movie, Reagan had the script written for him. He had to act it out. Even then he fucked it up, but the writers saved his ass.

Now, decades after his term ended they are still rewriting his role to make it better.

[reddread]

160. and the Bush family hides in the shadows

while people excuse their treachery and cover up the payment of anti-ransom for Americans in Iran.
Reagan and GW would never have happened if it werent for perfidy and silence.

[A Simple Game]

93. Citation needed! It's called google.com, try it.

Here's a start:https://www.google.com/#q=obama+admires+reagan
We should all know who we vote for and support, it's our duty as citizens.

[seattledo]

101. So you admit to not having a source

I did the search before asking the question, and I saw no reputable sources. Thanks for verifying that you don't have one either.

[merrily]

124. People posting on a political message board should be able to say

political things that have been very well publicized in the not too distant past without getting a demand for links. That said, I posted some links for you in another reply to you.

[Iris]

135. one of the hallmarks of DU (& one reason I've stuck around do long)

is that links to evidence are often requested to back up assertions.

[merrily]

139. None of which contradicts anything that I said.

If you want to post on a political message board, you should have knowledge of certain things or be willing to google until you are up to speed. It's not the job of any poster here to provide anyone with a basic political education or have it be implied that they are bullshitting.


As I said, the posted demanded links for things that have been very well-publicized in recent years. The poster claims to have googled, but, if he or she did, he or she could not have done that very thoroughly.

[A Simple Game]

154. Wow, I get to have some comedy this morning. Reputable sources, how funny?

On the search page provided are: usnews, nytimes, yahoo, dailykos, and washingtonpost, and more, most would consider at least two of those to be reputable sources. If they aren't good enough for you, see post #62 by iamthebandfanman, he went right to the original source, is that good enough for you?

Look, it's not that big a deal if you had never heard about it; it happened and President Obama isn't ashamed of it so why are you? I mean Reagan is almost considered a liberal by republican standards now!

[sabrina 1]

104. Just google it. He was asked during the first campaign which President had influenced him

the most. It was quite a shock when a Dem candidate chose Reagan. There was a lot of flurrying around later to try to 'explain' what he meant, I'm sure someone will be along soon in this thread to do so, but when I heard the question AND then the answer, I was shocked. And no, non of the excuses and explanations I've heard since then, explain it at all.

[merrily]

121. In the 2008 primary, he and Hillary both put Reagan on their top ten

most admired Presidents in all of US history.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3263

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama_praises_reagan_his_fellow_liberals_go_nuts/


Also, President Obama gave an interview in which he described his politics as those of a moderate Republican of the 1980s. Sounds like a description of Reagan to me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/obama-socialism_n_2300998.html

All the above was very well publicized when it happened.

[bvar22]

180. Obama is soo FAR to The Right that he is ashamed to call himself a real DEMOCRAT.

Back in the 80s, I worked my ASS off fighting against Moderate Republicans
because back in the 80s I was a DEMOCRAT.
If I had approved of Republican Policy,
I would have VOTED for e Republicans.
Why should I support Republican Policy today?

I want to vote FOR somebody who would have been considered a DEMOCRAT back in the 80s.
What is so wrong with THAT?

[dionysus]

193. .

[merrily]

200. You are preaching to the choir, but sing it, sister.

Apparently, some are still oblivious.

[rhett o rick]

182. So do you think the statement is false? What is your point, "really?" nm

[Nay]

90. Hell, Obama is less liberal than Nixon. I never thought I'd see the day. nt

[merrily]

123. I take your point about Obama-and most Democratic politicians, for that matter, but

Last edited Sat Mar 1, 2014, 05:37 AM - Edit history (2)

I am not sure if Nixon was liberal or if having a Democratic Congress and a nation in rebellion over civil rights and the Vietnam War pushed Nixon into acting a lot more "liberal" than he was. He was a diehard supporter of McCarthy, a bigot, etc. Not to mention that he got so batshit crazy that, according to Ed McMahon, Johnny Carson decided it would be wrong to keep doing jokes about him.

We can say today's Democrats go further and further right without at the same time polishing the likes of Nixon, Eisenhower and Goldwater. If you look into any of them, they were awful.

[Cleita]

17. We have basically been turned into untouchables, the lowest caste in the

system even though in members we are probably the majority.

[Tarheel_Dem]

41. "even though in members we are probably the majority."

If that were even remotely true, we'd probably be saying President Kucinich right about now. Me dost think that thou over inflateth thyself.

[Cleita]

45. You will see President Kucinich or Bernie Sanders if we get campaign finance reform

and repeal citizens united but not until then. Right now we are being ruled by the minority but many polls show that the majority of the population are left leaning.

[Tarheel_Dem]

51. But it doesn't show that they would vote for "President" Kucinich or Bernie Sanders.

[merrily]

126. Yes, the majority of the population, not only the majority of Dems.

They poll left as long as

(1) they are polled on ideas that have not been labeled; and

(2) neither of the two largest political parties have yet launched a propaganda campaign against the idea.

[bvar22]

84. Obama RAN as a Liberal... or at least a Working Class Populist in 2008,

and he WON BIG.
*"will make EFCA the Law of the Land"

*"will immediately renegotiate NAFTA" giving a priority to protecting American Jobs

*will make GMO and Country of Origin Labeling MANDATORY
because
"Americans have a right to know what they are eating"

*will put on "comfortable shoes" and "walk the line" wherever workers are denied a UNION

*"will NOT sign a bill that does NOT contain a Public Option",
because THAT keeps the Insurance Companies honest,
and opens the door to Single Payer

*promised to Raise-the-Cap on FICA Deductions, so the RICH pay their fair share

*"Hold Wall Street accountable, so that what is good for Wall Street is also GOOD for Main Street".

Shit!!... that almost sounds like Jim Hightower, or even shades of FDR.
That was enough for THIS Economic Liberal, and millions like me to support him in 2008.
Of course, the "problems" arose after he took office.

In the 80s, I worked hard AGAINST the Moderate Republicans because I disagreed with Moderate Republican Policy.
Why should I support Moderate Republican Policy it NOW?

I want to vote for someone who would be seen as a DEMOCRAT in the 80s.
What is wrong with that?

[merrily]

127. Yep.

[Enthusiast]

155. PLUS A BRAZILLION!

This is lost on most people. The Voters THOUGHT they were voting for a liberal when they voted for Obama. Yes, they were mistaken. The thing to take away from this is that voters will now vote overwhelmingly liberal given the option.

[Doctor_J]

169. not mistaken, lied to

Obama's campaign was a huge pile of bullshit.

[LiberalLovinLug]

188. "...will now vote overwhelmingly liberal given the option"

"given the option" being the key phrase.

There is no way the moneyed elite will allow a true progressive to even run for office.

If the best of two evils happen, and Hillary is the next President, expect more of the same. Net Neutrality quashed and the ever insidious creep of corporatization of the internet. Expect longer waiting for DU to load, while Fox News site is quicker than lightening. (Which will be hilariously ironic with a Democrat in the White House).

[Phlem]

181. yep.

But that won't stop them from trying to re write history.



-p

[sabrina 1]

108. Thou thinketh WRONG. We ARE the majority without whom 'you guys' wouldn't come close to winning

an election. And the days of this majority being taken for granted are over. And we are getting that through to them, IF they want our money and votes, they are going to have to do certain things, such as taking cuts to SS OFF any Republican bargaining table. Already accomplished, they get the message. Several victories for the majority Liberal wing of the party ever since we got serious.

[ancianita]

117. This. Thanks.

[merrily]

128. And, despite all the energy put into falsely declaring it a failure,

Occupy helped the left enormously.

[Tarheel_Dem]

208. Just so everyone knows to take your grandiose proclamations with a HUGE grain of salt.....

sabrina 1 (42,031 posts)

71. RT is watched now by over 50 million US households. It is the ANTI-FOX network.

Which is why I have serious questions about those who are attempting to discredit and still claiming to be 'liberals'.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4363923

[sabrina 1]

216. We ARE the majority. And without Liberals, 'you guys' to quote you, could not win an election.

That's just a fact. I would have thought there was no 'you guys' here on DU. Why do you not consider yourself to be one us Progressive Dems, and why are you denying that in the Dem Party we ARE a majority?? That is so strange.

I'm always so flattered when someone spends so much time looking for my comments and then posting them again so I don't have to repeat things all the time. Do you collect and store meta-data on all Progressive Dems btw?

I can only think of a few people worth spending that kind of time on. How awesome to have such dedicated fans!

Hillary btw, agrees re RT and she also mentioned Al Jazeera. 'They're good' she said while, she told us, 'we are losing the message'. Well that is for sure!

[Tarheel_Dem]

217. But HRC didn't say that "RT is now viewed by 50 mil US households". Sabrina did!

Kinda like the time you made the proclamation that Dennis Kucinich is "hugely popular in Europe". I asked you for two years to provide me a link to that data. You finally posited that it was "online poll", and I'm still waiting for the link to this day. And if anyone still thinks that most of the bashers here are Democrats, then Chris Christie's got a big ol' bridge to sell 'em. You Better Believe It!

[merrily]

125. Your premise is false. Kucinich had electibility issues that had nothing to

do with whether he was left or right on the Democratic party spectrum. IMO, he would not have won the general, even if his politics were to the right of Hillary's.

And, Obama took pains to run to the left of Hillary in the primary. If he/Axelrod didn't think the majority of the party was left, they would not have done that.

[reddread]

161. your assertion is baseless

but I bet somebody got paid handsomely for that notion.

[Phlem]

185. Really?

How much did you get paid?



-p

[Enthusiast]

194. Merrily's assertion is right on the money.

I was a died in the wool Kucinich supporter. His positions had very wide support. But one cannot get away from the fact that he simply doesn't look or talk like a president. His appearance and mannerisms were an extreme liability. No one needs to be paid to state the obvious.

Now, being a Kucinich supporter, this liability was not a problem for me. But for the average Democratic primary voter it was the kiss of death. SURELY you can see this.

[reddread]

195. no more than I can see a black man or a woman being unelectable

If the election is about issues.
Instead its about money.
Pretty soon, its going to be about the money from the other end of the table.
All the capped teeth and hair plugs, out of date photos and phantom positions
wont help.

[reddread]

196. But John Edwards was electable? n/t

[merrily]

204. No, and he didn't win the primary, either.

He was behind, even before news of his affair hit the Inquirer.

[reddread]

219. He wasnt there to win anything n/t

[reddread]

220. that news was out in 2007

and if the Enquirer knew, his opponents knew.
He wasnt there to win.
Stalking horse.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair

[merrily]

202. The general election was my issue, not the primary.

And, for me, it was not about how Kucinich looked.

[merrily]

201. Got paid? I wish. (I missed the part where Kucinich won the Dem primary, let alone

the general election.)

[reddread]

221. you can apply with this outfit if thats your kind of work

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20131106/NEWS/311060001/Navy-seeks-new-slogan-from-global-force-creators

[treestar]

172. I know, I love how that insistence

continues - if it were true there would be no problem electing real liberals to Congress in greater numbers.

[rhett o rick]

184. Liberals, even in the majority, have an uphill battle against the corporate-centrists and

their Citizens United. I think the corporate-centrists think the 1% will treat them favorably. Maybe give em a doggy treat.

[merrily]

205. Most of the corporate centrists who run are already in the 1%.

[treestar]

227. True you have to convince people happy with their economic situation

that they and the rich should help the poor. OF course the best way to persuade them to be more liberal is to call them "corporate centrists" etc.

[rhett o rick]

229. We are in a class war and those among us that favor corporations and corporation sponsored

candidates arent going to "be more liberal" if I stop calling them what they are.

Corporatism is killing the lower classes. Corporations are literally buying influence from our elected representatives and turning them against us.

We need to recognize the danger of corporatism and stop supporting corporate sponsored representatives.

[Tarheel_Dem]

203. You'd think so wouldn't you? But that doesn't seem to be their goal. Far from it.

[merrily]

206. That insistence continues because polling reinforces it again and again.

The problem getting liberals elected is that they are selected out early in the process and not well supported if they do run.

[treestar]

228. Polling, like the ones where they vote?

Naturally the way to get them to vote for people who are more liberal is to inform them they are "corporate centrists" and so forth. That'll scare them into voting for the equivalent of Bernie Sanders in the real election in the middle of Georgia or South Carolina!

[rhett o rick]

183. Your rude emoticon so noted. Your side definitely has Citizens United on your side.

So even if liberals have a majority of the Democratic Party, we have a hard time overcoming the big money of Corp-America.

Is the rofl emoticon the signature of the BOG?

The class war is between the 1% and their lackeys and the 99%.

[INdemo]

55. Even here on DU if one suggests a candidate that is to the left and is

truly liberal, I have found that in most case that post is filled with replies indicating that it is impossible for a liberal to be elected these days. Liberals can be elected and its possible to be elected and supported by the voters financial support instead of the corporate mafia.
If I suggested DU has moved to the right (even since 2004) I wonder how many would agree or how many would argue the point?
I remember posting about John Kerry then and also remember those that said he was too far left...never mind the fact that the election of 2004 was stolen by the handy election theft of Karl and the Ohio Sec of State (what was his name ...Blackwell or something like that)

[NRaleighLiberal]

58. I can't/won't speak for anyone else, but from my experience, age often

brings on more fear and a desire for more security. Many of my friends have become more conservative with age - it is horrifying to hear some of their conversations (pretty much the whole libertarian "get off my lawn" stuff). I also think that TV has been really damaging in general - since we've pretty much turned it off years ago, when we do watch anything we are taken aback by the non-stop selling and bullshit.

[INdemo]

85. Bingo ...The younger generation too.

Example ..this whole thing didn't start in 2000 but got one hell of a boost after Bush was appointed. The Right Wingers figured out they could get away with election theft so corporate money and the Evangelical right move in to help and the war on liberals escalated with the help of the Corporate media.
So the elementary kids that are barley old enough to remember 2000 election and 9/11 are now voters.Their Faux news/CNN parents brain washed them by what was in front of them.These kids learned to hate liberals.
I see this with the young union workers I work with.. Karl Rove and the likes of people like Tom Delay transformed the party to "hate liberals" win at all costs even steal elections and appoint party leaders that will follow the orders of corporate mafia leaders like the Koch Bros. So our Democratic party today is not the Democratic party of us baby boomer's and our parents and there may be two few of us left that are truly liberal to rescue the party that was once for the working class because we may cast our votes for the ones we choose to represent us but its not our votes that put them in office its the corporate cash...then once in office its payback time until the next election and the cycle starts all over again.

[KoKo]

100. yes...we've found that, also. And finally tuned it out.....

Our roku box....access to International News..... freed us from the "Talking Heads" here in Cable World USA to have some escape. And, freedom to choose what we watch with Netflix and other online sites for Documentaries and other stuff that we get late...(after everyone else has watched)...but, we can at least choose how to check the latest hot seires and then do an episode preview or two to weed out the stuff that's worth a watch and what we think is "must watch."

But...it is kind of creepy for those of us who think we are pretty much up on everything...to not be "hooked" into the latest thing that our neighbors are. I just wonder why it's so important to be such a "follower" these days and not to be respected for the worth of "individuality."

[NRaleighLiberal]

102. Bingo again! The whole follower thing is stunning to us....

I don't do the hero thing - no pop culture, not the least bit into consumerism, toys the newest - we find our lives so fulfilled with music, nature, walks, our pets, each other, cooking a good meal.

I won't say that one way or another is right or wrong, but I know what works for my wife and I....and at the end of the day, we have one spin around this thing called life - may as well be happy!

[zeemike]

156. "This instrument can teach"

And it is teaching the nation to be followers...and it was noticed way back in 1958 by Edward R Murrow...

EDWARD R. MURROW
RTNDA Convention
Chicago
October 15, 1958

...Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER....

And this brings us to the nub of the question. In one sense it rather revolves around the phrase heard frequently along Madison Avenue: The Corporate Image. I am not precisely sure what this phrase means, but I would imagine that it reflects a desire on the part of the corporations who pay the advertising bills to have the public image, or believe that they are not merely bodies with no souls, panting in pursuit of elusive dollars. They would like us to believe that they can distinguish between the public good and the private or corporate gain. So the question is this: Are the big corporations who pay the freight for radio and television programs wise to use that time exclusively for the sale of goods and services? Is it in their own interest and that of the stockholders so to do? The sponsor of an hour's television program is not buying merely the six minutes devoted to commercial message. He is determining, within broad limits, the sum total of the impact of the entire hour. If he always, invariably, reaches for the largest possible audience, then this process of insulation, of escape from reality, will continue to be massively financed, and its apologist will continue to make winsome speeches about giving the public what it wants, or "letting the public decide."

http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/commentary/hiddenagenda/murrow.html

The whole thing should be read...it is a fascinating look back from a true visionary of a man.

[KoKo]

197. Those DARK DAYS OF J. EDGAR HOOVER.............

Recommend!

[sabrina 1]

109. Yes, that was a tactic we won't be falling for anymore. In fact if I see that from now on, THAT is

going to be the candidate I will support with donations if not in my district.

See what they did with the NJ Gubernatorial Race. It was an outrage frankly, elected DEMS endorse THE REPUBLICAN, the Party ABANDONED a perfectly good Progressive Dem giving her no assistance, no money and supported Christie instead. And when anyone objected, what did we hear? 'She doesn't have a chance, and we'd rather spend the money somewhere else. IT becomes a self-fulling prophecy as intended. Hopefully Dem voters will never let that happen again, see how supporting a Republican worked out for them.

We the voters have to be as stubborn as they are, not willing to move an inch on who we want as candidates. They CAN'T win without us, we need to use that and mean it because so far, they just take our money and votes for granted. Not any more, that needs to be the message they get and then it's up to them whether they want to win or lose.

[Nay]

151. It was the same here in VA when a very viable Dem challenged Eric Cantor.

He used his own money, about half a mil, polled 40% and ended up getting 40% of the vote, and was never able to get ONE DIME from the Dem National Committee. You'd think they would be happy to have someone to run, and would throw bags of money at him, but NOOOOO. He got the same bullshit about he'd never win.

We don't care if he would have won or not! We want national Dems to support them with bags of money, just like the Pubs do with their off-the-wall crazy candidates! That's why the crazies win! They have money and support! ARRRRRGH.

[bvar22]

186. The WORST example of this happened in the Arkansas Democratic Primary, 2010.

I was there.
The Arkansas Democratic Primary was a heart breaking eye opener for the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR. We were given a Look Behind the Curtain,
and it wasn't very pretty.

[font size=3]We did EVERYTHING right in Arkansas in 2010.
We did EXACTLY what the White House asked us to do to "give the President Progressives in Congress that would work with him."[/font]

We organized and supported Lt Governor Bill Halter, the Pro-LABOR/ Pro-Health Care challenger to DINO Obstructionist Blanche Lincoln.
Halter was:

* Polling BETTER against the Republicans in the General,

*was popular in Arkansas in his OWN right,

*had an Up & Running Political machine,

* had a track record of winning elections (Lt. Governor)

*Had the full backing of Organized LABOR and The Grass Roots activists

*was handing Blanche her Anti-LABOR ass in The Primary until the White House stepped in

Guess what happened.
Our BIGGEST enemy to bringing "change" to The Senate was NOT The "Obstructionist" Republicans.
NO!
Our BIGGEST obstruction to bringing "change" to The Senate was The Obama White House!

The White House stepped in at the last minute to save Blanche's failing primary campaign with an Oval Office Endorsement of The Witch that Wrecked the Obama Agenda,
and Bill Clinton was dispatched on a Campaign Tour for Blanche around the state bashing Organized LABOR and "Liberals" at every opportunity.

White House steps in to rescue Lincoln’s Primary Campaign in Arkansas

"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln.

* Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure.

*Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests.

*The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.

<snip>

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face.

Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/

When the supporters of Pro-LABOR Lt Gov Bill Halter asked the White House WHY they had chosen to throw their full support behind Lincoln at the last minute, rescuing her failing campaign, the answer was ridicule and insults to Organized LABOR and the Grass Roots.

Ed Schultz sums up my feeling perfectly in the following clip.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ed-schultz-if-it-wasnt-labor-barack-obama-

[font size=3]After the Arkansas Democratic Primary, many Grass Roots Activists working for a better government concluded that the current Democratic Party Leadership preferred to GIVE this Senate Seat to a Big Business Republican rather than taking the risk that a Pro-LABOR Democrat might win it.[/font]
This was greatly reinforced by the Insults & Ridicule to LABOR from the White House after their Primary "victory" over Organized LABOR & the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.

After the White House and Party Leadership had spent a truck full of money torpedoing the Primary challenge of a Pro-LABOR real Democrat to Lincoln's Senate seat, the Party support for Lincoln evaporated, and as EVERYBODY had predicted, Lincoln lost badly giving that Senate seat to a Republican virtually uncontested in the General Election.
Don't you find it "interesting" that the Party Establishment and conservative Power Brokers would spend all that money in a Democratic Primary to make sure that their candidate won, and then leave Their Winner hanging without support in the General Election?

So what did the White House gain by Stomping Down Labor and the Grass Roots?
We don't know.
The White House has never responded to our questions with an explanation, only insults and more ridicule. To date, the White House has refused to answer our questions,
or issue an apology for their taunts and ridicule of the Organized LABOR and the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.

[Nay]

191. I remember that, and as long as the national Dems do stuff like this (or

fail to send money to good-faith Democrats running in local or state races, we have NO CHANCE OF TURNING ANYTHING AROUND.

[LiberalArkie]

226. That election told me that the Democratic party today really is the

party of Reagan not the party of FDR or even Carter. The party of BIG money. But I will continue to vote "D" although the party will not get any of my money. I have found that I can not even find the will to support them in an argument with a tea party person. The party does not seem to have any values any more.

[merrily]

207. That's the approved meme.

Never overlook the possibility of paid posters. It's been published that people on various payrolls, government and private, are paid post on the internet.

Where better to spread the DLC gospel to Democrats than on the largest Democratic message board on the internet?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Some of the Left buys into the "Not as bad" rationale of the 3rd Way Centrists.

Some of us haven't.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[840high]

7. ...^

[truebrit71]

9. Yup...I'm not buying though...

...Even if they are Hall-of-fame Bullshit artists...

[Warpy]

78. Then we'd be conservative Democrats and I don't buy that for a NY second

We haven't surrendered at all. We've just been trampled by Koch funded conservatives in both parties and completely locked out of mass media.

[harun]

87. +1

[merrily]

209. I think many on the Left are beginning to examine the "lesser evil" theory versus

the "most effective evil" theory. At least, I see a lot of that kind of discussion on the internet.

[rrneck]

3. Yes.

http://www.amazon.com/Death-Liberal-Class-Chris-Hedges/dp/1568586795

Starred Review. In this tsunami of terrifying revelations, juxtaposed truths, and demonstrated facts, Hedges (War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning) argues that the traditional beacons of the liberal class—the universities, media, church, labor unions, and arts–have sacrificed themselves completely to the dominance of corporate greed and unbounded capitalism. We are all to blame and everything moral about our democracy stands to be lost—is indeed already vanishing, in Hedges's view—and those who draw attention to it are banished and booed. While every page erupts with calamities of the human spirit worthy of their own irate broadcasts and bull-horned fury, Hedges is at his best when he unpacks the density of his polemic and embraces the power of his narrative. Regardless of form, however, his most interesting theses include the parallel between the current domestic climate and the fall of Weimar Germany and the conclusion that "Everything formed by violence is senseless and useless. It exists without a future. It leaves behind nothing but death, grief, and destruction." These insights come not just as warning, but as witness. (Nov.)

[KoKo]

26. The Social Threads of our Society are Pulling Apart...Our Commonality is

Last edited Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)

unraveling. There are many reasons for that but Hedges has nailed almost all of them in his article and this book.

I even see it going on here at DU. If I go to the DU Webpage without logging in the GD Group looks like a Battle Ground. I don't see it if I immediately Log In because I have many on ignore here because of the divisiveness of some that I've had bad experience with. But, it's not helpful when I realize that DU is so fractured that many of us only see people we can get along with and therefore we are cut off from what the whole site is reflecting.

But, if those of us who like to discuss issues find there are people that we can't discuss with then we have to cut them off. That's how bad things are getting here...and it's also out there in our REAL WORLD ....the terrible divisiveness, mocking, anger, provocation and sometimes sadly even hatred of our fellow DU'ers if they aren't in total agreement with an issue.

We have to hope that this sorts itself out. Things may get worse before they get better but it's very trying time to live in and Hedges and Chomsky most often get to the heart of it.

[rrneck]

63. Yep. You can see it happen right here.

Nobody could sensibly argue that identity politics didn't bring about indispensable changes in our culture. While that work is not yet done, there are no longer water fountains separated by color and women at the significantly increased right to control their own bodies (red states lag far behind on that score). That's progress. The thing about cultural change is that the closer one gets to the goal, the less effective the means of achieving that goal become.

And all the while, the world changes around us. While progress has been made in racial, sexual, and gender equality, economic equality has bloomed to become the largest issue of our day. The challenges that face people today resemble the challenges people faced in the Gilded Age rather than the Vietnam era. While women, people of color, and LGBT's suffered we were busy fighting for economic justice in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. After WWII, identity politics brought more parity for oppressed groups while wages stagnated and the middle class has all but disappeared.

Social activism does not equal buying bandwidth from Comcast. Just as you know a certain genre of music is passe when you hear it in an elevator, when you can publicly advocate for something with no real consequences and even make money doing so, your social movement is more of a business than a social movement. And when it comes to liberal politics, when liberals turn their ideals into a product we funnel a boatload of money into the pockets of the people who are screwing us.

[KoKo]

72. We stopped supporting our Unions and our Unions got Infiltrated and Corrupted

by their own problems and the Breaking of the Air Traffic Controllers during Reagan.

So...there's many reasons for the demise of Unions and Bill Clinton's Signing NAFTA was a Huge Blow! For whatever reasons he signed it...the signing was a death knell for Unions going forward for bargaining power.

It's complicated...so much has been written...I wish I could just do the links...for verification...but, most on this thread Already Know!

[rrneck]

74. We lost the hard hats.

It worked for a while, but we can't win without them now. Too many people are more worried about paying the rent than bare bottoms on magazine covers.

[KoKo]

77. Excellent Point...when Labor loses the Average Laborer who does

Last edited Sat Mar 1, 2014, 10:51 AM - Edit history (1)

the GRUNT WORK...to the "SUITS" who go to DC and work with the Lobbyists.

And the Work went to the Southern States whose Textile/Furniture Business was Shipped Overseas under NAFTA and they declared themselves..."RIGHT TO WORK STATES"....and those Construction, Plumbers and other Service Workers were left to be seen as "Lower Class" and not worthy of Organization..and the workers themselves didn't understand was going on in the South with the transitions to manage to fight back!

Also, After Carter the "SUNBELT" was growing as RESORT COMMUNITIES.... Construction Boomed as Pre-Boomers were sniffing out Retirement Areas from other States where they'd made their money. Ohio Residents and Others had folks ready for retirement and OHIO had Huge Industry at that time...so those retirees had Guaranteed PENSIONS where they were comfortable to flood the Southeast and Florida with Retirees looking to get out of the Cold...and Times were GOOD.. So they fueled the RESORT BUILDING BOOM of the Late 80's into the 90's to 2000's for HOUSING BOOM which ended up where it is these days...

Construction Jobs along with Plumbing, Electrical, HAVAC caused workers to have to come in from Mexico and South America to meet the Demand. NONE WERE UNION!

I should write a book...getting too carried away here... But....there are so many reasons why Unions are not what they were all those years ago. AND...WORKERS GOT SCREWED with the HOUSING BOOM and BUBBLE. Both the Immigrants and those in the Southeast who were taught to hate Union Organizing. When the Bubble Burst in Housing... Immigrants were sent back to the Countries they Came From...and our OWN Skilled Labor was no longer so skilled........

edited: typos

[rrneck]

80. If you write it, I'll read it. nt

[merrily]

129. Not "we." I never stopped supporting unions. Politicians stopped.

It's no accident that most members of the Senate and even the House, both Democratic and Repubican, are multi-millionaires. Small wonder Congress has not been standing up for unions in a long time.

[Iris]

137. this ^^^

n/t

[JaneyVee]

4. A couple of points:

1-Currently, citizens that label themselves Liberal is at a 40-50 yr high, we need to get them to the polls or running for office.

2-The problem with the left currently is that everyone is looking for leaders, so we don't have leaders. Everyone wants to point fingers and complain, no one wants to jump in. As GOD-AWFUL as the Tea Party is, these fuckers had local citizens jump into state races and won numerous seats. Too bad they're all bat-shit insane but at least they said "I'm not waiting for leaders, I'm going to try to be one". Obviously they failed miserably, but the left could rip a page from this play book. You want a more progressive Govt? Jump the fuck in. Let your voice be heard. Be a leader, stop looking for leaders.

WE ARE THE CHANGE. If you want it.

Why doesn't Adolph Reed, Chris Hedges, etc. run for office? Change the systemmfrommthe inside. For fucks sake, THAT used to be the Liberal mantra!

[KoKo]

23. In my state the TeaBaggers had bags of money/strong ideological support

from the Koch Brothers/Alec, Chamber of Commerce. They could do "push polls, massive mail campaigns and buy TV/Radio Time.

The Dems that ran (I'm talking about in the Dean Revolution era) had enthusiasm and people support but not the backing of either their own Dem Party who preferred their insiders who had name recognition and the Repugs were as I said above.

We supported two Dem Candidate who worked their butts off doing Barbeques, Picnics and begging for money over the internet on our Progressive Organization Website. They went door to door...tried to find clever ways to do low cost flyers and get their message out. Both of them went up against two of my states most powerful local State Reps.

They both lost. And they campaigned hard for over a year trying to build grassroots support.

You can't come into either Party these days unless you have money to hire Professional Political Ops, Push Poll, Buy Airtime on local Radio, TV and have a powerful person in your party with connections to give you the money to run a campaign that attracts voters attention.

Believe me .....it was a bad experience for me to see what goes on locally from the Dean Years (when we Dems had our chance for the 50 State Solution) and then on down when we were abandoned by Dem Party Money and interest after the 2008 Election. I think losing ACORN support was part of it ...but the Dem Party focused on just SWING STATES (which we were in 2008) and then left us in disarray. The rise of the Tea Party without troops on our side to stop them turned us into a Republican State for 2012.

WE TRIED.... Until we get Citizens United Overturned or some other way to get the Big Money and Influence out of our Political System it's going to get worse.

Just Saying..

[dotymed]

59. IMO, we won't get money

out of politics unless (until) we Unite behind a third party and use our enormous size (80%) to elect real representatives.
I believe that Bernie Sanders can be persuaded to run for POTUS. With his populism and willingness to rock a bully pulpit
we could turn this around.

Unite is the key.

[KoKo]

95. I think America will get to the point when Third Party as Counterbalance

could Work! If we could get Charismatic Candidates who have Morals and Grounded Principles that we can search and feel are authentic.

Until that point....I don't know and I think we might "wander in wilderness" for a time before that happens. And, I hope it happens SOONER than LATER..for us older DU'ers who've been fighting this fight since we were old enough to figure out what was going on!

A LONG HARD SLOG...

[reddread]

153. the electorate is going to have to mature into post-partisan politics

easy enough to spread the rubric coined by Spock.
We can reject the illusion, the sham that MONEY is necessary.
That the corporate media-partisan propaganda endless ophiophagy
serving only a military complex has real control.
People are not being oppressed, so much as they are submitting.
When the connection is made between the financial status and concerns
of representatives and the represented MUST MATCH,
then we can get somewhere.
As it is, the whole stinking garbage pile has to be jettisoned,
and people need to stop worshiping celebrities and respecting
filthy politicians more than themselves and their community.

[daleanime]

44. Anyone jumping in had better be a saint....

because any fault they have, real or imagined, will be all over the MSM. Just look at how their trying to deal with Wendy Davis in Texas.

[KoKo]

52. That's another problem why newbie people are reluctant to run.

The mass powers of the Repug Machine to ferret out any detail and get a PR team to put out information true or half truth to trash an opponent. For any new candidate on the Dem "Left" to be able to deal with that kind Ops they must have Full Backing of the Dem Machine. And, Dem Machine hasn't always been favorable to Lefty Newbies particularly if there is a Centrist Dem Candidate who has more recognition.

[merrily]

136. They could be a saint or they could be tough, but they better know where the money

is coming from. No one in the institution is going to fund or fundraise for liberals. They'll say it's because liberals can't win, but that's bs. In 2003, whoever thought Obama could win, yet they made him Keynote Speaker in 2004. That is not an infallible sign of an anointing, but a lot of nominees have been keynote speakers.

[Gary 50]

167. Saint?

Who was our last liberal president? FDR or Jimmy Carter? Jimmy Carter was about as close to a saint as any politician in history. His presidency was a failure. With all of the powers aligned against him his chance of success was zero. The powers that be, the corporations and the one percent, wont allow another liberal to be elected and if by some fluke a liberal was elected he or she would have a snowballs chance in hell of success. The game is rigged. Remember the unrelenting attacks on the Clintons? They weren't even liberals but they were not right wing enough to please the Bircher/ tea party/ Koch brother/ Fox noise/ vast right wing conspiracy crowd so they were accused of every evil deed short of stealing and eating babies. The same with Obama. He is to the right of center politically but portrayed by the powers that be as a communist/ far left/ tax loving/ socialist/ anti-capitalist/ food stamp loving president. Reality doesn't matter. The right wing media create their own reality. Liberalism nationally is dead. The only thing which could revive it is another decade long deep depression, like the one that enabled FDR to become president. The best we can hope for is another right wing Democrat like Hillary who will give lip service to liberal aspirations but who will actually do the bidding of our corporate masters. Were f**ked. You can stop waiting for a liberal savior. He/she isn't coming.

[daleanime]

178. You and I don't disagree.....

but we are not the same.

"Waiting for a liberal savior"? So who waiting? Until we, the people, change the system and separate $ and polities nothing will change. And that won't happen without a national dialog. Why do you think occupy was stepped on so hard? It had started the conversation. The only question is will we change quick enough.

[Gary 50]

192. I agree.

And you are correct. We are not the same. We, the people, have no say whatsoever in changing the system. The only change we need is to get the money out of politics. Publicly funded elections. That will NEVER happen. Both sides are greedy pigs who love the overflowing endless humongous wads of cash they extract from their owners/donors. Selling their souls to get it is no problem. Taking the cash and not representing their benefactors is not an option. The system is totally corrupt, always has been and always will be. I'm not saying give up trying to change it. Tilting at windmills is fun. But its real hard to kill one. Sorry to be so cynical. I need a cynicaloptomy.

[swilton]

56. Sorry

I don't believe that getting people to the polls is what is needed - especially if the only candidates on the ballot are 'lesser of two evils' Blue Dogs....Blue Dog elections have resulted in the situation that Moyers describes...

I believe the word liberal has been abused and distorted to the extent that I don't recognize it any more

I have heard Hedges say that he was asked to run on the Green Party ticket but refused. He sees his role more as a social critique. I also believe he would agree with the notion that reforming from within is no longer possible.

[treestar]

65. +1 million

They keep waiting and assuming it can be done from the top.

[merrily]

130. The system has changed.

[rhett o rick]

187. It's difficult to run against the corporate power structure of the DEmocratic Party machine.

It's difficult for a liberal to fight corporate money. Ironically, Citizens United will probably give H. Clinton-Sachs the presidency.

The liberals side with the 99% while the conservatives (Democratic included) side with the big money and guess what? Big money wins.

I work hard at the local level and we are successful at getting liberals elected locally, but when you get to the level of the Senate and President, we have little effect.

Money wins elections.

[sabrina 1]

6. I don't agree that 80% of democrats 'want' Hillary for president. Those polls were Hillary V

any of the Republicans currently viewed as candidates. But when she is against another Democrat, like Warren eg, those polls change considerably.

Dems have been given one choice right now, so it's easy to get those results. What should be a concern is that 20% of Dems apparently don't want her to run even with no one else to choose from.

The Dem Party has shifted to the Right, that doesn't mean the Left has surrendered, they have been marginalized in favor of the Third Way in what was their own party, for now.

[red dog 1]

10. What poll said "80 of Democrats want Hillary for president"?

I don't recall any such poll.

You're right in saying that any such poll must have pitted her against a GOP opponent

[sabrina 1]

14. The one I saw was an NBC/CBS poll, pitting her against Repubs airc.

Since there is no other Dem being allowed in the race at this point, they should realize that it isn't Dems they need to get her elected, both parties can always pretty much count on their parties' base, it will be Independents who decide the election. And many left leaning Independents won't vote for a Corporate candidate on either side.

If there is no choice in the primaries, and that seems to the be the practice now, I know I won't be supporting any corporate candidate, or anyone who voted for the Iraq war. And I know I am not alone.

Sick to death of being told that Corporate Welfare is a 'liberal value', or cuts to SS are not really cuts, or that going around the world droning people is a liberal value, these are right wing values and I don't support Right Wing policies. If I did I would support the real thing, not the 'lite' version.

[red dog 1]

18. I, too, "won't be supporting any corporate candidate, or anyone who voted for the Iraq War"

But if Elizabeth Warren doesn't choose to run, who are we left with?

I'd support Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FLA)..if he decided to run.

[sabrina 1]

39. I would focus on Congress, which in the end is how to return power to the people.

The WH, no matter who is there, can't do anything without Congress. Putting more Progressive Dems in Congress, as many as possible, is imo, the ONLY way we can stop this swing to the right. But it's going to take a long time to replace all the corporate funded members of Congress. Starting this year.

[SomethingFishy]

42. ^^THIS^^

Plus public funding of campaigns, and an end to lobbying with money, would be giant steps in the right direction.

[daleanime]

48. And would allow other steps to be taken.

[red dog 1]

89. + 1

But HOW do we put "more progressive Dems in Congress"?

The GOP Tea Party spends hundreds of millions of dollars attacking incumbent Dems..in all 50 states.

Plus they have ALEC, karl Rove, Crossroads GPX, the Koch Brothers, Kenneth Adelman, Rupert Murdoch and his powerful media outlets, including Fox news, and on, and on...

Who do we Dems have?

George Soros?..plus 1 or 2 other billionaires?

We need a 50 state Democratic Plan to attack back!
to beat them at their own game
to take back control of Congress

Now who could organize such a "50 state plan"?

(Anyone know what Howard Dean is up to these days?)

[ancianita]

118. Replace Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, for one thing. Maybe with Eliot Spitzer.

[justabob]

110. state and local offices too

Those are arguably even more important than Congress as far as the long term goes... look at the lunacy coming out of the states at all levels. I do not disagree that we need to replace about 90% or more of Congress, but there are a lot of places minimal effort would make a huge difference..... Having candidates for EVERY race, even if they aren't *perfect*, would be pretty fabulous. Build the infrastructure as the fundies have, they DO have THAT right. There are many offices on my ballot that don't even have a D to choose from, only R or L and very very occasionally a G. Bring back the 50 state policy!!!!!!!

[sabrina 1]

112. Yes, you are right, we need to be all over the place, electing only Progressive Dems and in the

absence of any, someone like Bernie Sanders. That is very important, thanks for mentioning it.

[merrily]

210. Not many liberal Dems get a chance to run.

The time to start worrying about electing liberals this November was probably at least three years ago.

(Sorry, I try to avoid the word "progressive" as both Obama and Hillary use it with reference to themselves and their policies.)

We also have to face the reality that the party makes an effort to recruit and support only center right people, and get them funded, under the meme that their election chances are better.

[closeupready]

38. Not only did she vote for it, she dug her heels in, denying that

she had anything to apologize for. !!

[cui bono]

13. Agreed. And add to that the people calling themselves liberal aren't really liberal.

It's watering down what it really means to be a liberal. Look at the discussions on DU and the points be argued for/against by self proclaimed liberals. It's astounding. The only good thing about it is they're not scared of the label. But when centrists call themselves that it's more dangerous than having Limbaugh make it a bad word. Maybe that's the centrists' plan, to dilute it so it doesn't mean the same thing anymore so they can be fake liberals and never have to address what real liberals fight for.

[Maedhros]

21. The OP touches on this.

2. The left — or what remains of it — has come to identify itself with the success of the Democratic Party.

"Liberal" to many just means "Team Blue."

[merrily]

211. "Liberal" and Democrat are interchangeable only in the RW lexicon.

I find it difficult to have a lot of respect for an article that writes about the left disappearing and/or surrendering when the article makes no mention of the DLC takeover of the Democratic Party. What the article really discusses is the center right Democratic Party establishment, not "the left" as a whole.

[HappyMe]

15. I agree.

I don't think we have given up. We're just being drowned out by the centrist crowd.

[merrily]

132. They started selling Hillary before the 2012 Presidential election.

Even then, they were saying the nomination was hers, if she wanted it. I even heard several times that, if she chose to run, no one else would even bother running against her in the primary. Ever since, it's been treated as a foregone conclusion by every single pundit and strategist I've seen on TV. So, I would not be surprised to learn that many Democrats poll in her favor.

[Cleita]

158. The Democrats know they have to throw the unwashed masses

a few bones. The Republicans have abandoned that idea altogether. By and large it appears to me that both parties protect international big business interests rather than those of the individual citizen.

[red dog 1]

8. "We're Eisenhower Republicans here," says Bill Clinton in a devastating Reed quote,

From the OP

"We stand for lower deficits, free trade, and the bond market. Isn't that great?"


Also from the OP

(They were actually to the right of Eisenhower Republicans on a number of issues, for example,
the 1956 GOP platform celebrated the increases in union workers and Social Security beneficiaries which took place in Eisenhower's first term. It's impossible to imagine the Clinton team doing that.)

[Bigmack]

11. The Harper's piece....

... doesn't say anything we don't know/feel, but he puts it all down in an historical fashion.

His arguments are irrefutable.

[KoKo]

96. I know...I read it and thought to myself...What's New! But that Harper's

posted it means that what's Old to Us is NEW..... Maybe there's some hope in the Harpers Article that reaches folks who need to "Connect Dots." They've been questioning but they don't know how to put together how badly off our Democratic Party is at this point for the PROGRESSIVE/LEFT WING.

The rest of Dems are fine and they don't think beyond Obama and are Confident of a Hillary WIN.

But the rest of us Democrats are thinking.... WHAT IF HILLARY doesn't Run, or has an illness that strikes her somewhere between now and 2016.

WE LEFTY DEMS...really would like a Back Up and ALL Dems should be wary of putting eggs in one basket that can be crushed.

We need to BUILD our PARTY and not depend on Past President Celebrities to Carry on.. Hillary Clinton Smacks of DYNASTY... And that's Not America for the Commons.... IMHO.

We should at this point have many Dem Back Benchers to choose from. That we don't is due to the oxygen being sucked out of WHO WE ARE as a Party...compared to the Charismatic Personalities like Clintons and Obama Family who are the Dominants and the Choosers of the Next Dynasty.

How is this for the Dems different from the Repugs with the Bush Dynasty?

That's my Big Questions.......

[jsr]

224. It's a good refresher

[geek tragedy]

12. "social issues and identity politics at the expense of the economic questions"

Not this stupid shit again.

Love Bill Moyers, but he's still a white heterosexual man, and as such he really ought not to be talking about other people seeking their human fights as if they're some kind of ancillary concern or betrayal of the great cause.

this seems to be a more polite paraphrasing of Ralph Nader's "gonadal politics" sneer

Also, which party is advocating for raising the minimum wage, expanding Medicaid and other health care protections, etc?

Being realistic about the avenues for improvement is not surrender.

[sabrina 1]

43. Point out where Moyers, now boxed and labeled by you, states that human rights for anyone

is an 'ancillary concern or betrayal of the great cause'. I'll wait. Do you think we Progressive Dems don't know what is going on right now? Lol, maybe we should not say anything, come to think of it. Let them THINK their faux 'concerns' are working.

Anyhow, I'm looking forward to crossing Moyers off the remaining short list of Liberals approved of by the Third Way. There are so few left to go ....

So, please link to Moyers' transgressions regarding the latest talking points intended to marginalize those reprehensible 'lefties'.

[geek tragedy]

67. I doubt very much you've been appointed as spokesperson for

progressive Democrats in any official capacity.

I don't think Bill Moyers is a big fan of RT or Putin, so he is not under the bus.

[sabrina 1]

70. Where is the link I requested? You made claims re Moyers, and btw, how do you know that

Moyers is 'heterosexual'? I have never seen him state that.

Interesting and quite revealing assumption. Frankly it never occurred to me to even wonder, let alone proclaim as if it were of any importance, Moyers' sexual orientation.

I would appreciate your posting a link to what you asserted regarding Moyers, thank you.

[geek tragedy]

73. "how do you know that Moyers is 'heterosexual?'"

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Bill+Moyers+spouse

We're done here.

[sabrina 1]

79. Correction, YOU'RE done here. And just what is the significance of searching to find out

someone's sexual orientation? What exactly does that have to do with ANYTHING??

You made allegations against Moyers, implying they were to be found in the OP somewhere. I have searched and found nothing even slightly close to what you accused him of.

You're done because, for some reason, you were trying to discredit this man, a long time Democrat who has done nothing BUT support and promote and use his position to push for Democratic victories and values. Just why, on this forum of all places, someone would try to discredit one of the most respected Democrats, one can only wonder.

This is for those who might have been led astray by your false statements regarding Moyers.

[reddread]

166. but the truth about themselves n/t

[merrily]

131. Not that it matters, but many homosexuals of his day married and had children.

ETA: The subject line is a general comment and not intended to say that Moyers is or is not a homosexual. I could care less what his sexual orientation is.

[sabrina 1]

162. Sickening, isn't it, to actually see this kind of thing creeping onto Democratic forums now.

One's sexual orientation used against them? Unbelievable, I don't know where I am sometimes lately.

[merrily]

213. ...

I think the point was that white male heterosexuals have never had to combat the more prevalent forms of discrimination in this society; therefore someone like Moyers has no business talking about fighting for rights. I don't agree with that. We should all talk about fighting for equal rights for everyone.


I have on occasion made a point that seems similar on the surface, but is actually quite dissimilar. I usually make my point when a white male heterosexual pooh poohs or fails by a lot to grasp the struggles that non-whites, women and homosexuals have had to endure. And my point is that I am not surprised when someone like him refuses to empathize (not can't empthasize, but refuses to). But that is only when said person is being an ass about the struggles of others and has more to do with his assery than with his color, orientation or gender.

[sabrina 1]

162. Sickening, isn't it, to actually see this kind of thing creeping onto Democratic forums now.

One's sexual orientation used against them? Unbelievable, I don't know where I am sometimes lately.

[Number23]

105. I read and saw the same thing, GT

But it was not Moyers that made that comment. Richard Eskow is the author of the piece critiquing the original piece by Adolph Reed.

[geek tragedy]

106. Ah, that makes sense. I cringe whenever I see that

kind of argumentation.

[Number23]

107. Most people with a knowledge of history and who are not narow, thoughtless and selfish

do as well.

[treestar]

170. I see your point

though one consideration: those issues divide, and if everyone were economically comfortable, they might divide less. People who don't have financial worries could be less inclined to come up with scapegoats.

[geek tragedy]

176. they do that, but the solution is to end systemic racism

not for people to STFU about race.

[Doctor_J]

171. ah here comes the Moyers bashing. he's white, so his criticism of Obama

makes him a racist.

[geek tragedy]

177. 1) Moyers apparently didn't say this, so that was my error; 2) your comment

indicates you simply did not understand the content of my post

[Puzzledtraveller]

16. I agree, but noone wants to admit to or listen to the problems

arguments, etc.

[Rex]

19. The Left has always identified with the truth and reality.

And that causes problems all around for those that like to live fact free. No matter what party.

[Comrade Grumpy]

20. What left?

Being allied with Democratic Party policies doesn't make you a leftist, except in the fevered imagination of Fox News types.

That makes you a liberal or a progressive or one of those other terms that roughly translates to "not Republican."

There are labor unions, but they seem to be a dying breed, and most of them bought into the post-World War II "grand bargain," anyway. That was nice for union labor while it lasted, but the bosses have been killing that for half-century now.

Call me old school, but I associate the left with, uh, you know, socialism and stuff.

[Maedhros]

22. The American Left wants economic and social justice,

just not at the expense of cheap consumer electronics and early retirement. I mean, healthcare and a living wage are awesome and all, but have you seen the new iPhone? I need to get one so I can check my portfolio on the way to the gym!

[jtuck004]

24. This. n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

64. Yep, Classic Red here too...

But being old I guess I should be expected to be "old school".

[Blue_Tires]

66. +1

[merrily]

145. Being allied with the Democratic Party makes you a Democrat, not necessarily

a liberal. Calling all Democratic politicians "liberal" is just wrong.

[proverbialwisdom]

25. Is it by design that "social issues and identity politics" suck almost all the air from politics? nt

[mopinko]

30. most likely

nice little bit of divide and conquer.
so entertaining when they do it. so boring to watch us do it.

[KoKo]

32. In the sense that polarization sucks the air out Debate and Discussion...

yes....I think so.

[Iliyah]

27. No, but thanks for asking

[cali]

29. yes, and the article makes a strong case (The Harper's piece)

You? you make no argument whatsoever.

easy to dismiss YOU.

[C0RYH0FFMAN]

28. I don't think support for Hillary Clinton demonstrates that the left has surrendered...

i mean let's face it, most politicians will follow the tide wherever it leads. Barack Obama did not come out for Marriage Equality until he absolutely had to. I just think a lot of liberals know that she is very likely to win if she runs and that's why they support her. When I hear liberals point out that Hillary isn't liberal enough it reminds me of listening to Tea Partiers complain that Romney/Ryan were not sufficiently conservative. It's just the nature of the beast in a first past the post two party system that we're not going to have the genuine liberal icons we might like run for President and win in a pluralistic society like ours.

It is up to us, the liberal masses to pull Ms. Clinton to the left if she runs and wins.

@C0RYH0FFMAn

CoryHoffmanForCongress.com

[grasswire]

91. We haven't been able to do that with Obama.

Despite his slide to the right after being elected by the left. And when a Democrat calls for him to be more to the left, our heads get bitten off by his fan base.

So I, for one, have no confidence in the notion that we can move a POTUS post election.

[Bluenorthwest]

225. What do you mean by 'we'? Obama ran as an opponent of marriage equality, we moved

him post election to be a proponent. Notes as to how 'we' did it and suggestions as to how 'you' can apply the same principles are available in the lobby.

[supernova]

31. There is are separate groups here

rather than just an amorphous "left."

We need to make a distinction between

1) The Left (TM) - what Reed refers to has the leadership class. People who's jobs revolve around government: running for and being elected to office, policy makers, and various levels of staffers who run their offices and sit on committees for them. Those folks have indeed moved right ever since, oh I'd say 1968. The career folks are on the MOR center-right track for all the reasons we've named over the years: the perceived badness, no-win aura of "identity politics," be perceived as weak on crime and other ne'er do well abusers of our (ever smaller) social safety net. Being perceived as weak internationally (the ever popular Jimmy Carter tag). These things are all designed to counter the name-called coming from the political right. They've become obsessed with winning The Game at the expense of representing us.

2) The Left (or The Rest of US) out here in the hinterlands. We are all as left as we have always been: going to peace vigils that sometimes turn into marches. Some of us worked for US PIRG and yes ACORN. Some of us go to inclusive churches like the UUs, and The Society of Friends. Some of us work at animal shelters, others do social work. Most every liberal that I know tries in some way to be of service in his or her community. Some of us are Democrats. Some of us are Anarchists, Some of us want want a democracy dipped in various flavors of Social Democracy as represented by European countries.

The problem is The professional class 1) is ignoring the voters 2). And we have given them the impression that's OK, desirable even. It's time to change that dynamic. It's time for us to vote them out. All of them and purposely start running and voting for more leftist candidates. It really does hurt us there is no third party from the left in this country. Without that, the national debate will not change to include more leftist concepts being voiced. I love Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, but they are only two people.

[blkmusclmachine]

33. ,

,

[adirondacker]

49. Commie!

[yourout]

34. To me....much of the Dem leadership is nothing more than con men and hucksters. Give people a few...

social victorys while stealing their wallets at the same time.

The only difference with the Republicans is they give the fundies the social victorys and they are dumb enough to just hand them their wallets.

[jtuck004]

35. No. They are just too afraid to break away from the home they know,

even though the cheese has been sold. They are in a place where they can either starve or go on a journey to find a place with new cheese, but that is a much, much harder choice than people realize.

Think about it in terms of why an abused spouse would stay, despite the pain. And millions upon millions do.

It's very hard to recognize that the hitching post that used to anchor you is now an island, and you are just drifting. You can see it every day if you look. It's much less frightening to just walk around the island in ever smaller circles and keep oneself busy, rather than recognize that one is now a castaway and should work on their own rescue.

It makes no difference what the Republicans do. Our two corporation rule will continue until either enough of those who care more about their neighbors than they do about the party walk away, or the Democrats no longer have anything to give away to their corporate masters. At that point they start to lose. Then a change will be forced on everyone. Whether that is good or bad, or even likely, is hard to tell, but given that it would take an effort along the lines of mobilizing for WWII to change, it's more likely people will continue in the servitude that gets them a lazyboy and cable, and spend the rest of their lives paying the debt that keeps the corporations doing very, very well.

[SoapBox]

36. Well....Dems sure could use a spine replacement!

Hey! Use their ACA plan, to get a new one, so they can actually stand upright to the PukeBaggers and TeaTaliban!

Ya...like the caving in, is gonna stop.

[bbgrunt]

37. k and r.

[heaven05]

46. I will NEVER surrender

my progressive/liberal/democratic ideals. Period. So no, this lefty has NOT surrendered. Billyboy may have surrendered, not the true progressive still out here fighting for our ideals.

[Lobo27]

47. The biggest issue we have is that the right has gone so far right...

That some of the left has gone to the right and in other times that would be considered extreme right. There is a video by TyT that talks on how the right has done it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

50. Hey Bill! You can always try these guys, I hear they're taking over Senate & House seats everywhere.

[brentspeak]

68. I take it academics wasn't your strong suit

Bill Moyers didn't the write the article; Richard Eskow did. It's being reprinted in billmoyers.com after it was first published by ourfuture.org.

[Tarheel_Dem]

75. Ooooh, insults from some random internet dude. I'm crushed!

[adirondacker]

76. Quite the sexist photobucket account you dredged that up from. nt

[sadoldgirl]

83. And so they should, since the dems don't want to touch the real problems!n/t

[freebrew]

54. None of this will change until...

Fake News is dead.

This nation can't go long like this. People are hurting and dying. Children have been sold out to the highest bidder. Our schools have been sold out. In my state, business people have taken office to promote their own private concerns that make them more $$$, and to hell with everyone else.

And if you listen to the news, everything is fine, awesome even.

The USSR had Pravda, such amateurs.

And the divisiveness exists even here, as it did when there was a REAL left. I seem to remember the 'leaders' of the movement then, not recognizing the women's movement, distancing themselves from the Panthers, etc.
The left has never been very organized, but then the left has been fighting $$$ and power for a looong time.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid the worst is yet to come.

[dembotoz]

57. once in a while it would be nice to vote FOR someone and not just against the repub

it has been too long
just too long

[merrily]

214. Then do that,

even if you have to write in someone. I am relatively fortunate in that i live in Massachusetts. I might write in someone before voting for Difi, though. And be involved with the state party as much as you can.

[aikoaiko]

60. I thought we weren't going to show asses on magazine covers in GD anymore?

[bvar22]

61. This old New Deal/Great Society/War-On-Poverty Democrat hasn't surrendered!

....and never will!


[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[Spitfire of ATJ]

69. "genuinely left-wing movement."

That depends on what you consider "left wing".

If you are talking about the elimination of money and private property then that only comes up when you are passing the skunk.

[TheKentuckian]

71. Never and those that want us to can sit and spin

[adirondacker]

81. A little Petty might do us all some good...

[Eleanors38]

111. What's that Cracker know about self-determination?

[sadoldgirl]

82. Depends on the definition of "left"

If it means New Deal - great society left the answer is yes. If it means being somewhat to the left of the John Birch society then the answer is no. With few exception I have not found the necessary interest here in the fundamental and most pressing problem of climate change (cali and Pitt obviously do). However, this problem would need a huge financial effort and a common change in life style, which the majority of people even here would resent. We can talk all we want about social issues, the crazy Republicans, the terrible ueberwealthy, the evil corporations, yet the most threatening issue is not in the center of discussions, even though it should pull all of us together.IMHO

[adirondacker]

86. Don't worry, the 1% is covered...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024521632

and that's all that seems to matter in these times.

[grasswire]

94. thank you for that caution

We can't save the whales or the seals if we don't save our planet. We can't exist as a society unless we work globally on climate issues, and that means laying down our swords and shields.

[L0oniX]

88. This is fucking crazy!

80 percent of Democratic voters reportedly want Hillary Clinton to run for president — despite the fact that she has yet to state her position on many critical issues of the day, from regulatory reform to tax policy to education and despite the fact that she’s closely associated with the regressive economic policies of the first Clinton administration.

[KoKo]

98. She's the Comfortable Choice..."The Known of the Unknowns" of which

we don't know. (I'm paraphrasing Don Rumsfeld...) 's...sadly

[Corruption Inc]

92. Many have traded civility for corruption

Just read how proudly the "Obamacare" supporters cram their "I got mine" in your face while not giving 1 iota about health care for all. Then there's the "look how great the markets are doing" people who could care less about banking corruption as long as they are getting rich. Of course there's the torture supporters too who think we should just "look ahead" and forget the worst war crimes and treason in American history.

Then there are people like E. Warren who get it. Let's hope the E. Warrens of the world have a great big piece of power in the coming years.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

97. Republicans are political geniuses, run laps around Dems

Last edited Sat Mar 1, 2014, 12:41 AM - Edit history (1)

It needs to be said.

They think long-term. The further to the right they move, the more radical they sound, the effect is that Dems get pulled to the right. Yes, the Democratic Party is now right-of center, but right of center looks dramatically left in comparison to today's right wing.

But they have long-term game plans for everything from pulling the Democratic Party further to the left to voter suppression to bullying Dems and the media.

Dems, meanwhile, know to show up every 4 years.

[KoKo]

99. Well...Some think the Two Parties have MERGED....so

What's good for the Dems is Good for the Repugs and let Congress work it out and let the "PEOPLE" be damned.

It's all a SHOW... BIG MONEY supports BOTH!

So the Dems are VERY CLEVER to have Co-Opted the Repug Party to go ALONG WITH THEM! HA!

Tell me ....?

[Eleanors38]

113. EZ to be a "genius" when there's no opposition.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

189. Actually, Republicans owe their success to the takeover of the Beltway Media....

They blamed the media for the fall of Nixon and losing in Vietnam. (It wasn't because of Nixon's crimes or the cause wasn't just.)

It's gotten so bad that,....say THIS happened:



If a Republican is in office the response by the media would be to flock to the briefing room to record the official response like dictation.

If a Democrat is in office the response by the media would be to flock to the briefing room to pummel the podium with charges of a leadership crisis.

[mdbl]

218. they have long-term money

It isn't as difficult to think long-term when you are in a paying career as the right wing media machine and teabagger organizations are. They are propped up by money no matter how crazy they are. Any left wing organizations like the heritage foundation I can apply to get paid to organize and strategize? If I thought that were a sound career move, I'd apply tomorrow. Oh and don't forget the churches. They are good at feeding some desperate people and making them feel that liberals are evil while they eat.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

223. about the money

they're intent on exhausting Dems both financially and literally. Every idiotic idea they have won't go down without a fight, and a fight costs money. The end game here is to dry up our reserves so that we're broke by the time we fight something meaningful.

[Bonobo]

103. If you can get a "left winger" to swallow the Drone Program for 8 years...

The rest is easy-peasy.

[merrily]

134. I don't swallow it, but I don't know how to stop it, either.

Please don't tell me to call anyone in Washington and make my voice heard. They could give a crap what we think.

[Bonobo]

138. Well it's true that it would require a fairly radical action.

And it might place you out of what has come to be perceived as the mainstream, but harsh times require harsh measures.

In my case, I left the country. I did not want my children to feel that I was giving any allowance for that kind of behavior. I had an option which few have however.

One option ALL Americans have, however, is their vote. That can't be taken away from you easily.

IF your vote has been taken for granted, perhaps you need to make it so that it is not. Make them work for it.

[merrily]

140. Your leaving the country, though, did not stop the drone killing.

My comment was that I did not know how to stop them.

The TOS here prevent me from saying a lot of specific things I would like to say. However, I have taken steps, too, and will continue to take them. However, unless maybe a couple of million other Americans also take steps, what you or I do won't stop drone killings. Maybe nothing can.

[Bonobo]

141. I agree. It is beyond any individual.

But revolutions also are not accomplished except by a huge number of people all moving in the same direction like a wave.

We are only one drop of water in the ocean and can only change our own behavior. But the longest journey must start with a single step.

[merrily]

142. Which year did you move out of the country?

[Bonobo]

143. End of 2009. When I realized the electing a Dem didn't change what I wanted it to.

It was the final blow to me.

I survived all the Bush years on the belief that it was them and that they didn't represent us a a country.

I worked as hard as I could to get our guy in office -and when I saw that it didn't make enough (for me) of a difference, when I saw that we were still doing things on an International stage (war) while failing to provide the basics (like health care) to our own people, I decided I couldn't be part of it and wouldn't raise my kids in the US.

People feel differently I know and I'm sure many will attack me for it, but that is how I felt. Strongly.

[merrily]

144. Oh, I thought you meant you had moved because of the drones.

That was pretty fast action for an international move. I was pretty disillusioned by the end of 2009, but an international move involves a lot of logistics. So, you probably gave up sooner than I did. And you knew that soon to apply it to all Dems and not only to Obama?

[Bonobo]

146. Well I had wanted to move back to Japan for a long time.

I left Japan in 1995 to raise the kids in what I thought was a better place. But the politics was eating me alive from the inside. The killings, the war, the poverty, the cost of health care.

I wanted it to change. More than anything, I wanted to kick out Bush, to repudiate everything he stood for. I was too optimistic and thought that Obama was going to represent that repudiation. It didn't and my disillusionment came down hard on me. I could no longer pretend that that wasn't who we were. It was just the final straw. It was the end of my hope and it had been building for a long time. I just stupidly thought that 2008 would be the change I was looking for,

I wanted war-crime investigations. I felt they were needed to clean ourselves up. When they didn't come, I knew which way the wind was blowing.

[merrily]

148. And "off the table" did come very quickly. both

for Pelosi in 2007 and for Obama in 2009.

It's no accident that you thought Obama was going to be the repudiation of Bush. I was very much an Obama supporter in the primary and the election. However, even I began to think that Obama was overdoing it. He seemed to be running against Bush more than he was against McCain--and Bush wasn't the one who was running. And, his 2008 campaign slogans were CHANGE and hope (which implies change). Of course, in 2012, it was simply "Forward."

[ReRe]

114. Oh, how they wish!

I will never surrender. I will be knee-jerk kicking till the day I dee. Till the day I dee. And when I dee, I will consider it a life well-lived, leaving behind a bunch of knee-jerk kicker descendents and friends to carry on.

[JDPriestly]

115. K&R.

[JimDandy]

119. I am a real lefty: in the 20% who recognize that Clinton

is not a lefty Democrat, but in fact is a corporatist.

[merrily]

120. Also, politics seems to have become a religion.

I agree with the 3 points in the OP. In fact, I probably have been posting them for a few years on various boards.

However, I don't agree that the left has surrendered. I think some of the left still has no clue that the Democratic Party has changed. Others on the left do realize it, but have no idea what to do about it, given that neither of the two largest political parties are representing their point of view and lord knows the media is not representing them either.


There's lots of money behind the Republican Party, lots of money behind the Democratic Party and lots of money behind media. Almost no one, however, is funding anyone to the left of those three.

[Solly Mack]

147. K&R²

[Teamster Jeff]

149. The Truth

The real question is, are things improving? The answer, as reflected in most economic indices, is “no.”

Patience isn’t a virtue when you’re headed in the wrong direction.

[xchrom]

150. du rec.

[tomp]

152. y'all have got to read hedges' "death of the liberal class."

liberalism as a true progressive force died long ago.

I've said it before: true progressives must break from the democratic party.

[merrily]

215. RW rhetoric to the contrary, the power structure of the Democratic Party

has not been liberal for decades. However, I disagree that American liberalism is dead, simply because the Democratic Party hierarchy seldom represents liberal views anymore.

[tomp]

222. if you read the book you won't be able to say that.

that is not to say that there are no people/activists with progressive ideas. sometimes i think semantics gets in the way. the book looks at liberalism historically and is a real eye-opener regarding "liberals".

[TeamPooka]

159. and this is what my other thread was talking about.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4580633

[gtar100]

164. No, it only been systematically banned from mainstream media.

If you only get your impressions of the world from them it's easy to come to the conclusion that the Left has surrendered. Or if you live in a part of the world where conservatives have a stranglehold on the social fabric of the area it no doubt feels mighty oppressive. But we haven't given up, not by a long shot. It's just that our government once again is openly operating in the interests of the wealthy and the mainstream media is owned by those same interests. The messages and the policies being churned out are filtered.

They fear liberals a great deal and spend an inordinate amount of effort keeping us out of the conversations and decision making. Why? Because they know deep down, if not consciously, that what they are doing is hurting other people and it's simply to support their own selfish interests. They know they are wrong but they are like addicts..., no, they *are* addicts to excesses of wealth and power. They are completely unreasonable about their wants and needs.

My heart still beats, I have not given up. And I know I am not alone. None of us should forget that.

[stupidicus]

165. In many ways, collectively yes, individually no

there's nothing new here, it's just a case of something being published that many of us have been saying for better than a decade now.

It's the natural result of the millions that mistook the Clinton bubble-induced success as victories for "leftness", when in reality it was just the launching pad for the widespread and unwitting acceptance of the good cop/bad cop, divide and conquer, DLC/Third Way BS behind that rightward movement.

The tireless BHO, etc, cheerleaders here on DU exemplify and personify the end product of the inculcation, and as such, lab rats to be used for cure testing.

Personally I don't think there is a cure for them any more than I do for the rightwingnuts as long as we are on the "politics as usual" path, because this has become the new "normal". I've long thought and argued that only the human-misery inducing, existential threat of global warming that will require "socialistic" solutions can break the current paradigm. That's the ashes from which the lefty Phoenix will rise and take flight again, sometime in the coming decades.

[pragmatic_dem]

168. politics is now corporate business, voters are captive customers in a monopoly of

two choices. Ironically, the same people who rail against corporate monopolies are in love with political monopolies.

The MBA revolution of the 1980s infected every aspect of life, demanding profit over principals. Every voter is now just a nameless commodity to be exploited for profit.

Politics is a business that sells legislation which can increases your profits. The customer is the 10% who are accumulating 90% of all wealth in the USA. Those 10% are bankrolling our politicians, and they get looked after first.

When Congress speaks, they speak to comfort the rich. When the President speaks, he speaks to comfort the rich. Speech writers are careful to craft politically correct language as if manufacturing a product for an audience of billionaire plutocrats.

The rich believe they are entitled to 10% a year growth in wealth. The rich must constantly be assured that their lavish lifestyles will not be interrupted by any inconvenience as the nation plunges into wars, deeper poverty and growing income disparity.

As a result, adjusted median wage has barely moved since 1970s, a fact which comforts the rich and validates their platinum citizen customer status. And every election, they cash in their reward points.

Our political process is corrupt. An average citizen in the US will only receive accidental representation as a result of overlapping interests of the rich and the non-rich.

It doesn't happen very often, but when it does, it can be confused with progress.

[socialist_n_TN]

173. RE: You're first sentence, I would disagree.......

I find, especially on DU, that the ones who are in favor of political monopolies actually support corporate monopolies. Then again, maybe they DO "rail against corporate monopolies". They just don't act against corporate monopolies and so, tacitly support them.

Never mind.

Welcome to DU BTW.

[pragmatic_dem]

174. Thanks, and agree, it's like BP saying they care about the environment, more slogan than policy- nt

[socialist_n_TN]

175. Yes, more slogan than policy.....

nm

[kentuck]

179. The coup de grace will be after the election...

When President Obama sign the Keystone XL Pipeline legislation.

[KoKo]

190. I think it will be after the Mid-Terms..but...you are probably correct....

he will leave us with his last goal fulfilled.

[flamingdem]

212. The answer to this part is simple

quote: As if to underscore these points, new poll results show that an increasing number of Americans describe themselves as “liberal” while, simultaneously, 80 percent of Democratic voters reportedly want Hillary Clinton to run for president — despite the fact that she has yet to state her position on many critical issues of the day


The idea of a Republican, ANY Republican getting the reins would be utter and total disaster for the world. Thus, Hillary Clinton looks not just good, in spite of her limitations, she looks GREAT, because she'll win and we can survive as opposed to tilt quickly into oblivian.