The problem is the Worldview of the Democratic Establishment and its members

[Armstead]

The problem with Hillary is not necessarily that she's a bad person, or has evil motives.

It is what she represents, and what she helped to create, in the form of "Centrist" Democrats. Bill, the DLC, the New Democrats, etc.

That is an Elite Worldview that is disconnected from the basic principles of Liberal/Progressive Values and Principles.

It is a Worldview that is disconnected from the daily reality that a majority of Americans have to struggle with, and which is pushing them down, whether they are poor, working class or Middle Class. It also harms them whether they are white, POC, male or female, gay or straight, etc.

That Worldview is comprised of people at the Top who believe they are doing the correct things. They accept the hedgemony of Large Corporations in our lives and society. They believe, for example, that a Wall St. firm like Goldman Sachs is benign because they "create and support entrepreneurial activity" and "create jobs." They also have a lot of nice-sounding programs and charities to "empower" poor people and "support" nice little programs like microloans to small enterprises, etc.

Read a Corporate or Wall St. website and you'd think they were Enlightened Religions whose only mission is to improve the world, solve all of our problems, raise people up together and save the Earth.

You tend to buy into that when you get into the Elite Beltway Bubble, and hobnob with the oligarchs who run those companies. You tend to buy into it when you attend fancy "save the world" gatherings in places like Davos. You tend to absorb it when you spend summers ensconced at places like The Hamptons.

It helps to reinforce that, if you are a politician and know that there's a big personal payday as lobbyist , "consultant" etc. when you leave the halls of Congress or the WH.

Problem is that is NOT reality. The reality is those Wall St. banksters and Corporate Monopolies and the governmental infrastructure are not primarily dedicated to the high-sounding goals they espouse. Their motive is Institutional profit and Personal Enrichment.

The irony is that this Elite Oligarchy creates problems, but then claims to be dedicated to solving them. Charity is great, but not when yo're also creating the NEED for charity by your behavior.

They resist the quaint notion that Government exists to balance their power, and ensure that the Public Interest is represented in policies, legislation and the messages of politics.

It is a Conservative, right-wing view that the GOP espouses. But when given a "kinder and gentler face" by the democrats, it is just as bad for average people who are not in that bubble.

Unless we want to continue to slide into increased concentrations of wealth and power, while the majority continues to be pushed down, Democrats have to break the grip of that Elite Corporate Worldview. Leave it in the GOP where it belongs, and Fight it as the Liberal/Progressive Counterpoint and Counterbalance.

Barring unforeseen circumstances, the Democratic Party has apparently chosen to reinforce that Elite Worldview in this primary with Clinton.

But in the longer view it needs to shake off the grip of that brand of Democrat and return to the notion that on issues of Wealth and Power the Democratic Party is not part of that elite club.

[NurseJackie]

1. I'm perfectly *content* with her.

P.S. Tick tock.

[Armstead]

2. Posts like this are not going to disappear, unless Skinner clamps down more than usual

I don't think (at least hope not) that discussions of actual issue regarding the Democratic Party and state of the nation are going to be banned forever.

[NurseJackie]

3. ... and Bernie might still win.

[socialist_n_TN]

21. Yeah, I'm kind of curious about that myself............

Just how much will this place be "Democratic" and how much will it be "Underground"? I've been around for one election cycle and I didn't get banned, although I've never claimed to be a Democrat. From the beginning I've been an open socialist who has voted Democrat every time I've voted. But discussion of supbstantial issues (OPs like yours) has never been banned in the past. Will the fervor for falling in line for Team D mean you're going to have to support the policies of the Democratic nominee even if you disagree with them?

If so, I'm afraid that after 5 years plus, I won't be around very much. I'm an issues guy, not a "team" guy.

[Demsrule86]

65. He will clamp down on them as this is Democratic underground in an election year. nt

[NurseJackie]

85. We have our nominee ...

... But they behave like the primary has just started.

Their intentions and motivations are clear.

[Demsrule86]

98. They think they are so clever.

They can post 'articles of interest' ...but the mods and Skinner will see right through it.

[Chan790]

4. Of course you are.

You share the worldview in question.

I too am waiting with baited breath for the day the new rules kick in; the way Skinner talks about them, I expect they will be the end of certain particularly-vile, bellicose and abusive Clinton supporters here.

[NurseJackie]

13. Oh dear ... That's very amusing!

[panader0]

77. Tick tock versus drip drop.

The tick tock will end on the 16th. The drip drop will go on and on.

[NurseJackie]

82. In your imagination only.

[panader0]

84. Thanks for kicking this fine OP.

[NurseJackie]

87. It hadn't dropped very far to begin with ...

... It's still an active thread and would have risen to the top again with or without my "help".

[Demsrule86]

108. Posting negative articles about Clinton

serves what purpose? After she is the nominee why would you do that? So no matter what source you 'smartest people in the room types use' I think you will end up getting hidden and face worse consequences if you continue. Skinner is not stupid and he/she wants to defeat Trump. Why wouldn't you post every negative article you could find about Trump. I question your motivation and I question whether you should be here.

[guillaumeb]

111. This is an article about a mind set that is very popular in the Democratic Party.

Rather than simplistic attacks on the poster and the poster's motivations, why no attempt to refute what is posted?

[DonCoquixote]

104. Tick tock?

Funny, acting like a group that has the right to threaten or call doom upon people who say outright that they do not think Hillary is a bad person is the sort of thing we used to make fun of the Soviets for doing.

It is only a matter of time before people's vanity runs into reality, tick tock.

[GeorgeGist]

121. Come Thursday ...

[CrowCityDem]

5. "Progressives" lost for a generation...

giving us the Reagan revolution, and throwing us into the hole of trickly-down lunacy. You might hate the DNC, and what Bill Clinton did, but he rescued the White House from Republican hands when more liberal politicians couldn't sniff winning.

[Armstead]

6. He furthered that GOP/Reagan Worldview

The 90's should have been a time of Beating Back the GOP, and the Corporate Power and Wall St. Corruption they represent.

Instead it was a time when they were further embedded and advances.

[CrowCityDem]

8. You miss the point. None of that could happen when Dems couldn't sniff the White House.

Clinton was the only Dem who could actually win, so his way was the best progressives were going to do.

[Armstead]

17. I disagree

Clinton won because he is a gifted politician, regardless of ideology.

And also because he convinced people that he would represent liberalism and progressive values in the WH. But he didn't. His actual policies were in alignment with the GOP on core issues like corporate "free trade" and deregulation, etc.

And we all felt so high on the cocaine of an unsustainable "boom" that was predestined to crash and burn eventually.

[CrowCityDem]

20. Before him, the only Dem to win in six elections was Carter over someone never elected.

[Armstead]

23. Times change

Liberalism needed an upgrade in the 70's and 80s. But the DLC/Clinton threw the baby out with the bathwater, and went Full Corporate.

Plus, the Dems ran weak candidates regardless of their ideology. Dukakis was not a raging liberal firebrand. He was a good governor, but a bloodless technocrat who was a terrible presidential candidate.

[CrowCityDem]

25. Yes, times change. Going the Clinton/Obama way has won five of the last six popular votes.

What you're saying is pure speculation, since there has never been any evidence that the country at large was willing to vote for someone you would find progressive enough. The Democrats who have won are the ones who have been slightly more moderate. I'll take winning over sucking my thumb at home any day.

[Armstead]

26. Conservative Corporate is not the same as moderate

[Octafish]

27. Then Bush and the CIA torpedoed him with the Iranian hostage crisis.

As part of the October Surprise, Poppy Bush and Bill Casey worked their Old School ties at CIA and Wall Street to do in the career of President Jimmy Carter.

From...

The State, the Deep State, and the Wall Street Overworld

By Prof Peter Dale Scott
Global Research, March 10, 2014
The Asia-Pacific Journal, Volume 12, Issue 10, No. 5

EXCERPT...

The Safari Club Milieu: George H.W. Bush, Theodore Shackley, and BCCI

The usual account of this super-agency’s origin is that it was

the brainchild of Count Alexandre de Marenches, the debonair and mustachioed chief of France’s CIA. The SDECE (Service de Documentation Extérieure et de Contre-Espionnage)…. Worried by Soviet and Cuban advances in postcolonial Africa, and by America’s post-Watergate paralysis in the field of undercover activity, the swashbuckling Marenches had come to Turki’s father, King Faisal, with a proposition…. [By 1979] Somali president Siad Barre had been bribed out of Soviet embrace by $75 million worth of Egyptian arms (paid for… by Saudi Arabia)….95

Joseph Trento adds that “The Safari Club needed a network of banks to finance its intelligence operations,… With the official blessing of George Bush as the head of the CIA, Adham transformed… the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), into a worldwide money-laundering machine.”.96

Trento claims also that the Safari Club then was able to work with some of the controversial CIA operators who were then forced out of the CIA by Turner, and that this was coordinated by perhaps the most controversial of them all: Theodore Shackley.

Shackley, who still had ambitions to become DCI, believed that without his many sources and operatives like [Edwin] Wilson, the Safari Club—operating with [former DCI Richard] Helms in charge in Tehran—would be ineffective. … Unless Shackley took direct action to complete the privatization of intelligence operations soon, the Safari Club would not have a conduit to [CIA] resources. The solution: create a totally private intelligence network using CIA assets until President Carter could be replaced.97

Kevin Phillips has suggested that Bush on leaving the CIA had dealings with the bank most closely allied with Safari Club operations: the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). In Phillips’ words,

[font color="green"]After leaving the CIA in January 1977, Bush became chairman of the executive committee of First International Bancshares and its British subsidiary, where, according to journalists Peter Truell and Larry Gurwin in their 1992 book ‘False Profits’ [p. 345], Bush ‘traveled on the bank’s behalf and sometimes marketed to international banks in London, including several Middle Eastern institutions.[/font color]

Joseph Trento adds that through the London branch of this bank, which Bush chaired, “Adham’s petrodollars and BCCI money flowed for a variety of intelligence operations”99

It is clear moreover that BCCI operations, like Khashoggi’s before them, were marked by the ability to deal behind the scenes with both the Arab countries and also Israel.100

[font color="green"]It is clear that for years the American deep state in Washington was both involved with and protected BCCI. Acting CIA director Richard Kerr acknowledged to a Senate Committee “that the CIA had also used BCCI for certain intelligence-gathering operations.”101[/font color]

[font color="red"]Later, a congressional inquiry showed that for more than ten years preceding the BCCI collapse in the summer of 1991, the FBI, the DEA, the CIA, the Customs Service, and the Department of Justice all failed to act on hundreds of tips about the illegalities of BCCI’s international activities.102[/font color]

Far less clear is the attitude taken by Wall Street banks towards the miscreant BCCI. The Senate report on BCCI charged however that the Bank of England “had withheld information about BCCI’s frauds from public knowledge for 15 months before closing the bank.”103

CONTINUED...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-state-the-deep-state-and-the-wall-street-overworld/5372843

From there, Ronnie was set for the role of a lifetime, what was supposed to be a bit part extended.

Through a Glass Darkly

Alexander Cockburn
Lies Of Our Times (p. 12-13)
November 1991

What was surprising to me was Reagan’s condition. He was exhausted to the point of incoherence throughout much ofthe interview and could not remember the substance of any subject that had been discussed apart from Mitterrand’s expression of anticommunism. I had not seen Reagan at such close rangesince the assassination attempt nearly four months earlier, and was shocked at his condition.... Reagan simply was unable to recall the contents of the talks in which he had just participated.... The interview concluded at a signal from Deaver,who did not seem to find the president’s condition unusual.”

Thus ran Lou Cannon’s recollections of an interview with the Commander-in-Chief in 1981, as set forth in his book President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime (New York: Simon & Schuster,1991), published earlier this year. But how did Cannon describe Reagan’s condition to the readers of the Washington Post when he wrote up his interview? In the July 23, 1981, Washington Post,Cannon’s story appeared under the headline “Reagan Describes Summit Meeting as ‘Worth Its Weight in Gold.’ ” Cannon’s report gives the impression of a lucid chief executive returning home after a fruitful colloquy with other western leaders at the economic summit held in Ottawa in mid-July. Cannon did mention in the tenth paragraph that “Reagan appeared tired to the point of near-exhaustion,” but this observation was quickly qualified by the opinion of “aides” that the president had been doing a lot of prep for the conference and was also worried about the Middle East.

Cannon shared his brief session with Reagan aboard Air Force One with Hedrick Smith of the New York Times, who similarly gave his readers the impression of a president in touch with things rather than the incoherent old man they had actually encountered. As did Cannon, Smith wove the few quotable remarks from Reagan into a tapestry of attributed presidential dicta passed on — and no doubt confected— by Meese, Deaver,and Speakes. It is clear from Cannon’s account of the conference itself that Reagan was fogged up throughout the actual conference, occasionally interjecting trivial observations or homely jokes into the proceedings and then relapsing into bemused silence. Cannon’s memoir is one more indication of the cover-up that took place in the wake of Hinckley’s assassination bid on March 30, 1981. At the time of the shooting, the press was full of phrases like “bouncing back,” “iron constitution,” and other terms indicating that Reagan had emerged from the ordeal in good shape. In fact Reagan very nearly died on the operating table and was a dotard afterwards. He never fully recovered.

Conclusion: Unless a president is actually dead, the WhiteHouse press corps can be relied upon to present him as both sentient and sapient, no matter how decrepit his physical and mental condition.

SOURCE in PDF form:

http://liesofourtimes.org/public_html/1991/Nov1991%20V2%20N10/Nov1991%20V2%20N10.pdf

Somewhere in Detroit, 1980 GOP Convention:



After the election, the relationship really, ah, evolved:

George Bush Takes Charge

The Uses of "Counter-Terrorism"

By Christopher Simpson
Covert Action Quarterly 58

A paper trail of declassified documents from the Reagan‑Bush era yields valuable information on how counter‑terrorism provided a powerful mechanism for solidifying Bush's power base and launching a broad range of national security initiatives.

During the Reagan years, George Bush used "crisis management" and "counter‑terrorism" as vehicles for running key parts of the clandestine side of the US government.

Bush proved especially adept at plausible denial. Some measure of his skill in avoiding responsibility can be taken from the fact that even after the Iran‑Contra affair blew the Reagan administration apart, Bush went on to become the "foreign policy president," while CIA Director William Casey, by then conveniently dead, took most of the blame for a number of covert foreign policy debacles that Bush had set in motion.

The trail of National Security Decision Directives (NSDDS) left by the Reagan administration begins to tell the story. True, much remains classified, and still more was never committed to paper in the first place. Even so, the main picture is clear: As vice president, George Bush was at the center of secret wars, political murders, and America's convoluted oil politics in the Middle East.

SNIP...

Reagan and the NSC also used NSDDs to settle conflicts among security agencies over bureaucratic turf and lines of command. It is through that prism that we see the first glimmers of Vice President Bush's role in clandestine operations during the 1980s.

CONTINUED...

More details from the good professor:

EXCERPT...

NSDD 159. MANAGEMENT OF U.S. COVERT OPERATIONS, (TOP SECRET/VEIL‑SENSITIVE), JAN. 18,1985

The Reagan administration's commitment to significantly expand covert operations had been clear since before the 1980 election. How such operations were actually to be managed from day to day, however, was considerably less certain. The management problem became particularly knotty owing to legal requirements to notify congressional intelligence oversight committees of covert operations, on the one hand, and the tacitly accepted presidential mandate to deceive those same committees concerning sensitive operations such as the Contra war in Nicaragua, on the other.

The solution attempted in NSDD 159 was to establish a small coordinating committee headed by Vice President George Bush through which all information concerning US covert operations was to be funneled. The order also established a category of top secret information known as Veil, to be used exclusively for managing records pertaining to covert operations.

[font color="green"]The system was designed to keep circulation of written records to an absolute minimum while at the same time ensuring that the vice president retained the ability to coordinate US covert operations with the administration's overt diplomacy and propaganda.

Only eight copies of NSDD 159 were created. The existence of the vice president's committee was itself highly classified.[/font color] The directive became public as a result of the criminal prosecutions of Oliver North, John Poindexter, and others involved in the Iran‑Contra affair, hence the designation "Exhibit A" running up the left side of the document.

CONTINUED...

CovertAction Quarterly no 58 Fall 1996 pp31-40.

This all matters because there's a steady bloody red line from 1981 to the present day few write about. More would, were the nation's news media honest and lived up to their constitutional mandate. Today they may have hijacked for their own use the NSA -- what Sen. Frank Church warned us about in 1975.

Behind the Curtain: Booz Allen Hamilton and its Owner, The Carlyle Group

Written by Bob Adelmann
The New American; June 13, 2013

According to writers Thomas Heath and Marjorie Censer at the Washington Post, The Carlyle Group and its errant child, Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), have a public relations problem, thanks to NSA leaker and former BAH employee Edward Snowden. By the time top management at BAH learned that one of their top level agents had gone rogue, and terminated his employment, it was too late.

For years Carlyle had, according to the Post, “nurtured a reputation as a financially sophisticated asset manager that buys and sells everything from railroads to oil refineries”; but now the light from the Snowden revelations has revealed nothing more than two companies, parent and child, “bound by the thread of turning government secrets into profits.”

And have they ever. When The Carlyle Group bought BAH back in 2008, it was totally dependent upon government contracts in the fields of information technology (IT) and systems engineering for its bread and butter. But there wasn't much butter: After two years the company’s gross revenues were $5.1 billion but net profits were a minuscule $25 million, close to a rounding error on the company’s financial statement. In 2012, however, BAH grossed $5.8 billion and showed earnings of $219 million, nearly a nine-fold increase in net revenues and a nice gain in value for Carlyle.

Unwittingly, the Post authors exposed the real reason for the jump in profitability: close ties and interconnected relationships between top people at Carlyle and BAH, and the agencies with which they are working. The authors quoted George Price, an equity analyst at BB&T Capital: &quot Booz Allen has) got a great brand, they've focused over time on hiring top people, including bringing on people who have a lot of senior government experience."

CONTINUED w Links n Privatized INTEL...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15696-behind-the-curtain-booz-allen-hamilton-and-its-owner-the-carlyle-group

Wouldn't it be great to live in a democracy, a republic built on equal justice for all, though? Traitors, warmongers and banksters would be in jail instead of printing money. Instead, we live in a time where ''Money trumps peace'' since the Ayatollah gave Reagan a major for the Hostages and Jimmy Carter got the boot as a failed, miserable human being.

Did you know he was one of the bravest men to ever serve as President? One would not know it, reading the newspapers or watching the tee vee, even PBS.

[Demsrule86]

39. You are wrong

Bill Clinton did not ever have a majority. He beat the GOP only with Perot's help and by running to the center. That is a fact...he saved us from years more of the GOP doing all sorts of terrible stuff..I doubt many programs like Social Security or Medicare would have survived... also we would not have Ginsberg on the bench...sick of Bernie people attacking a good Democratic president for his times...it was a miracle he beat Poppy Bush. You re-write history to serve an agenda and in the process hurt Democrats and progressives. I promise you Bernie Sanders could not win a general election even against a candidate as flawed as Trump. Many of you make the same mistake that the GOP does...you believe your own propaganda. Our country will not elect a socialist. The GOP was panting for Bernie to be the nominee for a reason...he was bound to lose in the general.

[Armstead]

44. Clinton could have led the country to the left if he had chosen to

He's a brilliant politician. That's his strength....not the fact that he is a centrist.

He blew it because he did not sell things in a straightforward way. Because he was trying to cultivate the support of Big Business, and didn't want to upset the gravy train.

[Demsrule86]

58. He could not do any such thing.

The country was right of center. You can't lead people in a direction, they don't want to go...he got elected the only way he could and saved us from eight more years of GOP rule.

[Armstead]

59. People were not clamoring for shit like NAFTA..Clinton enthusiastically pushed it

Clinton did a lot of crap that the public was not demanding. He also joined too often with the GOP to help create demand for things that further ensconsed corporate conservatism into politics and government.

For example, they were not clamoring for Clinton to deregulate broadcasting to make it possible for a handful of major corproations to buy up just about every radio and TV station in the country. That's on Clinton.

It is myopic to blame everything on the GOP. They would not have gotten nearly as much as they have if the Democrats had more forcefully fought them, instead of either surrendering or selling out.

[Demsrule86]

107. That was actually a Bush idea that Clinton adopted

as a bargain...there are some Dems who believe in global trade including Obama. I knew this when I voted for hiim...that being said. I do not think TPP will pass under Clinton.

[Armstead]

119. Global trade is not the same as the Corporate "free trade" agenda

And if you read news accounts at the time, it is clear that Clinton was 100 on board with NAFTA and all the rest. Enthusiastically. And he knocked down Democrats to advance that agenda.

[AgingAmerican]

80. What a pant load

[Demsrule86]

101. You should do some reading of the 92 election

educate yourself.

[socialist_n_TN]

28. I actually agree with you on the mind-set of the electorate ...........

in the 80s/90s. But this is NOT the 80s/90s anymore. We've now seen the results of the "trickly-down lunacy" and the majority of the populace no longer believes in it or likes it very much. It has shown itself to be bankrupt in it's stated purpose of "lifting all boats". Of course, that was never its true purpose, but it was the way it was sold to the people. The problem is that the Democratic Party STILL believes and supports it, even though times and people's attitudes towards neo-liberalism has changed.

That's a problem.

[CrowCityDem]

34. Still believing trickle down? Didn't Obama raise the highest tax bracket?

Doesn't Clinton talk about raising taxes on the wealthiest?

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

[socialist_n_TN]

48. How much of a raise? And where are those tax receipts going.......

From what I could see, the raise in taxes on the rich was more of a token raise and came because the tax cuts of W were set to expire. They would have been raised even MORE if Obama had just done nothing. And the receipts certainly didn't go into social programs as witnessed by the cut in SNAP benefits.

[CrowCityDem]

54. Theory disproven, you go back to 'it wasn't good enough'.

[socialist_n_TN]

73. If you think these guys are going to give up.........

on fucking the rest of us, well we'll just have to see won't we? One nice thing about being a Classic Red, I don't have to worry about making arguments against neo-liberals and capitalism, all I have to do is point it out. They make my arguments FOR me.

[merrily]

76. That is oft-repeated anti-liberal mythology.

FACT: No incumbent Democrat who ran for President from Wilson on lost,* except Jimmy Carter--not a liberal.

FACT: Walter Mondale, not a liberal

FACT: Democrats had kept control of one house or the other of Congress, or both, for forty years, until New Democrat Presidents.


* I count from Wilson only because I didn't want to bother thinking about how to handle Grover Cleveland, the only President to hold the Oval Office for non-consecutive terms. Besides, Democrats from Wilson and earlier are not much like either today's Democrats or New Deal Democrats.

[CrowCityDem]

91. You're not disproving that from 1970-1992 no Democrat won except Carter.

[merrily]

93. Aside from mythology, your statistic does not say a thing about liberals.

For example, RFK was assassinated and Humphrey was sold to the Party as the conservative alternative to RFK and McCarthy. As a war time incumbent, Nixon was not going to lose to ANYone, period. See this OP and the replies for more about that. Then we had Carter and Mondale. We have not run a liberal as a liberal in a general since RFK.

[CrowCityDem]

95. I'm saying if the country wanted it, someone you find progressive would have run and won.

[merrily]

99. I don't agree. Among many other things, Democratic voters have bought the mythology

you're peddling on this thread. They've been made afraid to vote for liberal in the primaries.

America is a liberal nation. Polls on issues prove that. Also, if these primaries did not prove that to you nothing will. Hillary and her team felt she had to go left to win, not stay center right or go further right.

[CrowCityDem]

100. 1. Bernie didn't win. 2. You say indies are the biggest group now, and they aren't that far left.

[merrily]

110. There were so many other factors with Bernie. Um, I didn't say a thing about Indies, but

again, your assumption does not match up with reality.

For one thing,many Democrats changed their registration to indie or unenrolled or NPP, whatever a state calls it precisely because they were sick of Third Way Democrats, not because they (the voters who switched) had became more rightist.

For another thing, I don't think many reasonable people would argue that Massachusetts is blue state. However, more voters in Massachusetts are registered indie than are registered Democrat. When I moved here, my husband convinced me to register indie, not Dem. I did, but changed back to Democrat in 2004, after Dimson's second victory. I changed my registration back to indie on Monday--and not because I've become more centrist or rightist!

P.S. You did not address my point about Hillary having to tack left to win a primary. And with everything she had going for her in this time, it was not exactly a cake walk. Why do you suppose that was?

[CrowCityDem]

113. You said America is a liberal nation. If it is, the liberal should have won.

[merrily]

114. False.. However, I just edited my Reply 110. If America were not liberal,

Hillary should have enough pledged delegates to win by now, given all she had going for her this time.

You are ignoring everything I say in my replies to you, I am not going to waste any more time doing that. Have a great day.

[CrowCityDem]

115. What's false about it? The liberal in a liberal party in a liberal nation didn't win.

[choie]

129. and what a great thing that was for the United States...

aren't we flourishing?

[CrowCityDem]

130. We're better in every f'n way than when the Republicans were in charge.

[choie]

131. That's quite the high bar you got there...

[CrowCityDem]

132. Listening to some of you, I'd think you were Republicans.

[choie]

134. That's really rich

coming from one who supports a DLCer

[CrowCityDem]

135. When all you do is complain about everything Dems do, it sounds a lot like a Republican.

[choie]

140. I'm not a blind follower

Citizens must criticize their govt- I can't and won't do a damn thing about republicans because they're off the deep end and are anathema to progressive tenets, but I can try to effect the Dems, who used to align with my beliefs.

[ms liberty]

7. Very well said. n/t

[randome]

9. Sure, blame the world on the Democratic Party and ignore Republicans.

This is nonsense. The Democratic Party does have a more equitable world-view. But in case you haven't noticed, the GOP is in charge. They control the reins of power in the House and Senate. Not enough to get what they want in everything but you know what's standing in their way? The Democratic Party.

[workinclasszero]

15. Why do they ALWAYS blame the democratic party?

Its the scum sucking republican neanderthal party that's dragging this country to hell and the ONLY thing standing in its way is the Democratic party they hate so much!

[Armstead]

18. I wish it were that simple

The "good guys" vs. the "bad guys."

But it's not as binary as that.

[NorthCarolina]

36. It's more like

"good cop", "bad cop".

[Demsrule86]

46. It is that simple

Either the good guys...Democrats win or the bad guys Republicans win...for all your word salad that is the bottom line and all this lofty talk is meaningless in the real world. You want change, register voters, run candidates...that is how it happens not by tearing down a party that is the only thing that stands between us and the Republicans who are evil.

[Chan790]

62. This is a simplistic and wrongheaded worldview that should be rejected out of hand.

The only way to win and repair the damage is to tear-down and destroy corrupt institutions that are beyond repair.

The Democratic party is a condemned, dilapidated house in need of a wrecking ball so we can rebuild.

[Armstead]

16. Not ignoring problems. The GOP are the worst problem. But the Democrats have not been the solution.

The GOP controls the reins because they have been direct about what they have been pushing, and they never give up. True, it is based on a central lie, but they have smartly packed it in ways that are convincing to too mant Americans.

The Democrats have not offered a clear counter message or policies to that. Too often they have either surrendered, or sold out.

The Democratic message has become a muddle of conservatism and a superficial liberalism that avopids dealing with core issues of Wealth and Power. It has gotten into bed with the likes of Goldman, Monsanto and Comcast and otehr Robber Barons.

As a result it is a giant muddle. "Yes, well, we sort of disagree on those economic issues, but not really. We sorta believe that Big Corporations and Wall St. should drive government policy too because,...well, you know liberalsm is ponies and unicorns and we can't have that...er, um, mumble,mumble. But we're Pro-Choice and we are not overtly Racist and the GOP are mean, so you have to support us as your only alternative to them. "

[randome]

19. Politics abhors a gadfly. (Which, btw, is why Sanders has made so little progress.)

We all wish politicians could be more direct, demonstrate more in-your-face-ness when needed but, otoh, do we really want to see Republicans do that, as well?

Politicians have to see the prevailing winds or they will end up unelected and unable to do anyone any good. They have to be able to bend under pressure, but not break. I think this is where we've been in the past 3 decades. The Reagan Revolution badly scarred the Democratic Party and we're still recovering.

We can help the recovery process, especially now with the Republican Party self-destructing, but we're going to make it harder if we castigate our own instead of supporting them.

Politicians at their best will inspire us. But in this case, in order to get past the trauma of the past 30 years, I think we have to inspire them.

[Armstead]

24. Reagan was a major gadfly, and he won and won again and pushed the country in his direction

Sanders did DAMN WELL considering where he started, what he was up against, and the fact that he got around 40 percent. That's not peanuts.

Whether or not he was the ideal presidential candidate is beside the point. He showed that a substantial number of people agree with his message and positions.

[randome]

33. Reagan wasn't as much of a gadfly as you might think.

They referenced him in Get Smart episodes in the 60s. Sarcastically, of course, but he was expected to be a major force in politics even then.

[Armstead]

61. Reagan took the role of gadfly....and to some Republicans he was. Clinton was too.

One of the reasons people supported Bill Clinton in 92 was that he was perceived as a liberal gadfly to the then-entrenched GOP and trickle down.

[socialist_n_TN]

74. Reagan was much more of a political force in California in the '60s.......

than he was on the national stage because he was the governor of that state. Across the country for 15 years or so, he WAS a gadfly rather than a force.

[socialist_n_TN]

42. And that 40% that Sanders got in the Democratic Primary races.........

in a lot of cases didn't even allow his core supporters (left-leaning independents) to vote.

The largest majority of party affiliation today according to Gallup is independent and NOT Democratic or Republican. Now while it's true that independent covers the entire spectrum from left to right, Gallup also said that 18% of those independents are "Democratic leaning independents" and those voters would logically be to the left of HRC. Toss in 33% or so (my guesstimate) who still claim to be Democrats, but are left enough to support Bernie, you have the makings of a pretty large voting bloc THAT IS NOT REPRESENTED BY EITHER PARTY. That's the group that the Democrats are in danger of losing unless they change their neo-liberal ways.

[Melissa G]

30. Excellent post!

The Democratic message has become a muddle of conservatism and a superficial liberalism that avoids dealing with core issues of Wealth and Power. It has gotten into bed with the likes of Goldman, Monsanto and Comcast and other Robber Barons.

Add to that Wealth and Power-specifically Inequality and Climate Change which are fall-outs from the misuse of Wealth and Power.

Beyond that, we as a Democratic Party are ignoring voting problems all over the country that could really hurt us in November and as a party have been complicit in some of those problems in this election.

Up until now, in this cycle, the Establishment Power in control of the Democratic Party has not been offering solutions to the core issues plaguing this country esp the diminishing middle class. This IMO, is very short sighted at a time when our country and world desperately needs more Panoramic Vision.

[Armstead]

32. I like that phrase "panoramic vision"

[Chan790]

64. I have never seen a more damningly-accurate summation of the post-WJC Democratic party. n/t

[Chan790]

60. "They control the reins of power in the House and Senate."

Do you know who I blame for that? Rahm Emanuel, Steve Israel and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Three corporatist "new" Democrats...three Clinton allies.

Not the GOP. They didn't do anything to gain that advantage...we handed it to them by putting incompetents at the head of the DNC and our campaign committees. They, unsurprisingly, ran terrible campaigns and equally unsurprisingly, the GOP used their wins to cement control.

It's time to clean house. No matter who Clinton recommends as DNC chair...the membership should reject them and put forth an alternate candidate. It's time to take control of the DNC away from the party leadership and put it back in the hands of the people who make up this party at the local and state level.

[Exilednight]

112. More equitable world view compared to what? The Republicans? that's like trying to hurdle

A limbo bar that's six inches off the ground.

[Juicy_Bellows]

10. Excellent post.

[Teamster Jeff]

11. Kick rec

[Arazi]

12. Kicked and recced. The neoliberalism takeover by New Democrats is complete

[disillusioned73]

14. K&R..

"They believe, for example, that a Wall St. firm like Goldman Sachs is benign because they "create and support entrepreneurial activity" and "create jobs.""

never thought Dems would sound like Repubs.. but here we are..

[Lord Magus]

79. That's the power of TC's strawman.

?itok=0fT9pHnw

[disillusioned73]

81. Who or what is TC??

[Lord Magus]

83. Thread Creator -nt-

[disillusioned73]

89. So you respond to me..

instead of the "TC"..

Sounds like your not too confident about your alleged "strawman"..

[bunnies]

22. You nailed it.

Well done.

[One of the 99]

29. The DLC hasn't existed for years.

Whenever I see someone talking about the DLC it reminds me of a FAUX news host that is still complaining about Acorn. Let it go. Stop living in the past.

[Armstead]

35. Read up -- They have morphed into another group with the same aims....

And the DLC Worldview remains in the form of the Clintons and otters.

[One of the 99]

38. Yes

and FAUX news hosts still rail about Acorn too.

And why are you so threatened by people that have a different worldview?

[Melissa G]

49. It could be that that particular worldview threatens the middle class and the health of the planet.

If the DLC was such a great idea, why did they disband?

[One of the 99]

51. Or maybe you just don't like that not everyone agrees with you nt

[Melissa G]

55. Is that actually your response?

What a peculiar attempt at dialogue.

I am happy discuss our differences. This actually used to be a pretty good discussion board where we did just that with facts and links. I have provided mine. You just seem to like attacking me with no basis for that.

Could you please supply something factual to support your assertion?

[One of the 99]

71. Your posts

support my assertions.

[Melissa G]

86. Ah.. more lack of facts or links

Gotcha. okay. Nice chatting with you. Have a wonderful day!

[One of the 99]

88. Don't need facts or links

just your posts.

[Melissa G]

109. Your assertion

Or maybe you just don't like that not everyone agrees with you nt

Is not supported by my posts and your lack of backup is beginning to sound like projection to me.

ad Hominen attacks undermine good discussion. Please refrain.

[One of the 99]

122. Yes they are

Just admit it.

[Melissa G]

125. LOL!!!

You are Hilarious!!! sad, but hilarious! I wish you much prosperity in your chosen career!

[One of the 99]

133. No what's sad is

that you refuse to see reality.

[Melissa G]

136. Thank you for your concern and case and point

the you are deep in projection.

[One of the 99]

137. Better than

Last edited Tue Jun 14, 2016, 06:37 PM - Edit history (1)

being still obsessive over a defunct organization who's main goal was to elect more democrats just because they don't agree with you 100% of the time.

[Fumesucker]

66. You are never bothered by someone with a "different worldview"?

ISIS has a distinctly different worldview that some people are bothered by.

[One of the 99]

70. So your saying that ISIS and the defunct DLC are the same?

[TheKentuckian]

116. Do members of ACORN now make up the powerful and leadership or is that a strawman you are erecting?

[One of the 99]

123. No strawman at all

Still complaining about the DLC is as ridiculous as complaining about Acorn. Sorry that the reality of that is so disturbing to you.

[TheKentuckian]

138. Which member of ACORN is the presumptive nominee for a major party?

Which one was Chief of Staff?

Which one got Interior?

Which are or were on the economic counsel?

Which rising ACORN star was at Homeland Security?

Any of them on Boards of Directors or heading influential think tanks?

The DLC exists vibrantly they have just rebranded and/or been put in charge aka MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

[One of the 99]

139. None

And no member of the DLC because it doesn't exist anymore. Too bad that you're still obsessed with it.

[TheKentuckian]

142. No former DLC members hold those positions? BULLSHIT.

[One of the 99]

143. The key word being former

because the DLC doesn't exist any more.

[Demsrule86]

47. so you say

I say your wrong as usual. Trump or Clinton...Dems or the Repubs...and you choose to tear down the Dems...senseless.

[Armstead]

52. You're just parroting the same nonsense that has been repeated endlessly

I agree Trump is evil. he must be defeated....I also agree that the GOP is bad overall, and must be fought vigorously at every turn.

But that doesn't mean we are morons who can only do one thing at a time. Doesn't mean we can't work to offer something better as a true alternative to the GOP lies and the Conservative Corporate Worldview I mentioned in the OP.

[Demsrule86]

57. Actually it does

You can not tear down the Democratic nominee and the Democratic party and work to elect Democrats at the same time...not happening. You are kidding yourself.

[DCBob]

68. +1

[Armstead]

97. When there is no election it gets ignored. We have to "keep our powder dry" endlessly.

Even when the Dems have had majorities in Congress and the WH...the same old crap is used to stifle change and reform.

The Big Bad GOP is always a convenient scapegoat.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

117. Point of order

During the last two Democratic Presidencies over the past 23 years, there has been a Democratic Congress and President working together for a grand total of FOUR (count 'em) years. 19 years of those were either a Democratic President being stuck with a Republican House or Senate (or both) or a Republican President with a Republican Congress (George W. Bush got a Republican Congress for SIX years) or a non-supermajority Democratic Congress that could not overcome a Republican President's vetoes. Tell me again how much liberal progress gets accomplished in four total years (spread out over nearly three decades? Also, tell me WTF happens after the first two years of a Democratic Presidency that loses us the majority for the rest of the Democratic President's term in office? It seems to have been this pattern with the last two Democratic Presidencies. Why?

[Armstead]

118. Point of order....It doesn't matter

Yes the GOP is an obstacle. But internal obstacles within the Democratic Party are serious too.

The GOP has been consistent whether in the minority, majority or mixes power. They have clear goals and push for what they want relentlessly. They never give up, they use their power as a majority, and they use every impediment they can when in the minority, they don't make excuses about "those mean old Democrats who never let us do anything."

As a result they have been successful in either getting what they want, or blocking and minimizing Democratic progress.

Democrats do not do that. They let themselves get pushed around no matter whether in power or not. They give 75 compromises. They cite filibusters, lack of a total majority, etc. as excuses.....And worse, too many actually push for corporate policies or neocon wars because they wither support them or have been bought off or are afraid of tghe power of lobbyists and Wall St.

[One of the 99]

124. That is so delusional

You really need to get out of your bubble and look at the reality of the world.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

126. Democrats fight fair

Republicans don't. Democrats want government to run smoothly and benefit the most number of people. Republicans don't want government to help people or do anything that doesn't benefit their constituencies. Republicans don't care if they blow up the government to stop Democrats from doing good. Democrats won't sacrifice people's well being for the sake of getting something they want passed into law. Tell me how Democrats are going to accomplish anything with Republicans throwing sand in the gears every five seconds or if liberals don't get out to vote in the midterms and give Democratic Presidents a majority to work with in Congress for more than 2 years? You can call it "making excuses" or using Republicans as "scapegoats" but it's not like it's not real.

[One of the 99]

141. Great points

I hope that some get it. Too many seem more invested in attacking their fellow Dems than the GOP.

[One of the 99]

72. Well said

Instead of bringing up the ghosts of the DLC, there are better ways to push the party in the right direction.

[Duval]

90. +100

[Melissa G]

41. The DLC as an organizational name has not existed for years

But it's adherents are now running the Party.

What happened to their papers you might ask?

On February 7, 2011, Politico reported that the DLC would dissolve, and would do so as early as the following week.[4] On July 5 of that year, DLC founder Al From announced in a statement on the organization's website that the historical records of the DLC have been purchased by the Clinton Foundation.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

Why they are being controlled by Bill and Hill! Quelle surprise!

[One of the 99]

43. FAUX news hosts

make the same argument about Acorn. Get over it.

[upaloopa]

31. Says you

You have your opinion and you think we need to know what it is

You don't have a grasp of reality just talking points and worn out words

[Armstead]

37. Whatever...This is a discussion board and we all share our views

As for grasp of "reality" that;'s a phrase that is also popular among conservatives.

Reality is a relative term, and no one has a monopoly on it.

[Demsrule86]

50. Lofty talk and so much purity

and what will that get us...nothing...you guys are completely ineffective in building anything...if you turned your sights on the GOP party you might be helpful...but oh no...so much easier to eat your own.

[Armstead]

53. Purity....another useless meaningless meme

Pull out "pragmatic" next since you're spouting all of the meaningless memes to mindlessly put down anyone who believes we need to reform the Corporate Status Quo.

[Demsrule86]

56. Damn right it is useless

Instead of fighting those that threaten us...the GOP, we try to decide who is 'pure' enough. waste of time.

[stonecutter357]

40. tick tock..

[Demsrule86]

63. I am sure that the Dems are always at fault

just like the Republicans keep saying. sarcasm...

[Chan790]

67. Not Democrats...

Clintonites.

Clintonites are always at-fault. I used to think the accusation of such was something akin to Obama Derangement Syndrome, but it's demonstrably-true.

[DCBob]

69. If you put as much effort into attacking Republicans as you do attacking Democrats..

.. some actual progress might be accomplished!

[Armstead]

94. I don't believe in echo chanmbers

The GOP sucks. I know that. You know that.

There will be plenty of energy expended on defeating Trump and the GOP.

Good.

But just repeating GOP Sucks, the Dems are Better is not very useful, IMO.

What is the purpose of it all? What is the best way to beat back the GOP in the bigger picture. What's the best things to do for America?

That's what I'm interested in.

[DCBob]

103. Clearly there is no echo chamber here..

Many on this board think Hillary is no better or just slightly better than a Republican.

Yes, in fact it would be useful to define why the "GOP sucks"... even in a place like this. Imagine how much stronger we would be if we were all unified in our support of Hillary and opposition of the GOP.

That's what I'm interested in.

[Armstead]

105. Unity yes. Monolithic blind support of everything, no

There has been too much of that over the years.

That's one reason Bernie triggered such a strong response. He released the pent up frustrations that have existed among a very significant percentage of the electorate....Even many who support Clinton admit they agree with -- and even prefer -- his message and goals.

[DCBob]

106. Bernie lost.. Hillary is our nominee.

Now is the time to unify.

[Armstead]

120. I stand by above post

Unity is not the same as monolithic surrender to principles.

It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

[m-lekktor]

75. This is similar to what Thomas Frank discusses in his recent book "Listen, Liberal"

And I am not surprised at the pathetic attacks you are receiving from a certain "segment" of DU.

[Duval]

78. Great summarization, Armstead.

We need to get back to our roots. The DLC may have thought their way was best, but we have seen that it is not. That's why so many flock to hear Bernie's message. He give us hope for a better Democracy for all.

[villager]

92. Very well put. It's not that Clinton is "evil," like in the overwrought responses to her.

But she represents a corporate/center-right drift that that Democrats, that America, that the planet, can no longer afford.

Rockefeller Republicans may be occasionally okay on social policies, but things are too serious to keep electing them as Democrats.

[Nye Bevan]

96. Nothing wrong with the vast majority of large corporations.

Most large corporations follow the rules, treat their employees fairly, and refrain from crashing the world economy. Many DUers even work for one. Given how many peopke corporations employ and their importance to our economy, I actually prefer a president who does not think that all corporations are evil incarnate (although I know this viewpoint puts me well outside the DU mainstream).

[Armstead]

102. It's not when they behave that's the problem

Since 1980, Corporate America been given far too much license to misbehave. And propaganda from the media and BOTH political parties that either ignore or condone that misbehavior.

And thus we have seen a deterioration in business morals and behavior. We have seen business corrupt politics and government in to an unprecedented degree, as business as usual.

And the result has been an attack on workers, concentration of wealth and power, a decline in the diversity of businesses to monopolization, and pressures on good businesses to behave badly, just to survive in this environment.

That has to change.

[dreamnightwind]

127. Excellent OP

Their worldview is exactly the problem.

[840high]

128. yes