Naomi Klein: Neoliberalism is to blame ...

She to is applying blame. Lol

"So let’s get out of shock as fast as we can and build the kind of radical movement that has a genuine answer to the hate and fear represented by the Trumps of this world. Let’s set aside whatever is keeping us apart and start right now."

We lost the election for many reasons, some of which, amazingly, haven't been explored yet.

Yes, the heavy finger of neo-liberalism (which is really just Republican-light, but scholars and pundits have to coin a new world for just about everything or they won't be worth their paychecks) has affected many people. And the Clintons were leaders of this trend. But Bill was one of our more popular Presidents, so how is it his signature leadership style is suddenly so hated?

I'm not going to answer that because i don't know enough to answer it at this point. But I have no doubt plenty of august and well-regarded intellects here have any number of answers. We've seen a lot so far, and more to come. I may have posed one or two myself in a weaker moment.

Too bad bullshit answers here don't get paid for, but I bet a lot would love to know how to get a gig where you run your mouth about things that will be forgotten by next week and get paid pretty well for it.

I sure would.

"Leadership style is suddenly so hated?" It is pretty simple: it's because hindsight is 20-20 and now we see the effects of it, that's why.

NAFTA, crime bill, telecommunications act, bank deregulation, welfare reform--these have all worked out so well in the long run, haven't they?

The veto-overriding of any presidential veto during those years had nothing to do with it. It's all Bill Clinton's fault because the president, not congress, drafts and passes domestic policy.

If anything, the American voter back then was to blame for all those bills becoming law since, back then, voter rights were still protected under the VRA and voter suppression laws were minimal. It was pure laziness by too many on the Left that swept Democrats out of power in Congress in '94 and gave Republicans power to shove these laws through and down our throats.

So please stop laying the blame on the president. He did his best with the Congress the lazy American voter gave him. Period.

Congress could not have voted on NAFTA if Clinton had not sent it up to them for a vote. That's how trade deals work. He even sent it up and got it passed in 1993, when the Dems still controlled Congress.

Welfare reform was Clinton's idea. He campaigned on it on 1992. He used dog whistle politics by calling it a "way of life," which built onReagan's "welfare queen" meme.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/bill-clinton-in-1992-ad-a-plan-to-end-welfare-as-we-know-it/2016/08/30/9e6350f8-6ee0-11e6-993f-73c693a89820_video.html

He also campaigned on crime:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-07-24/news/9203060835_1_clinton-campaign-police-officers-bill-clinton

And his crime bill passed when Dems still controlled Congress in 1994.

Moreover, Clinton only used the veto 37 times in 8 years, while George HW Bush used it 44 times in only 4 years. Reagan, who also served two terms, vetoed 78 bills. So Clinton could have vetoed a lot more than he did.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm

Do not blame all of Clinton's policies on the Republican congress.

Congress, the branch "of the people", holds all power (government of, by, and for the people, remember?) - even over a president. If the past six years of unprecedented Republican obstructionism didn't make that clear to you, then you haven't been paying attention.

A good example: The TPP. Despite President Obama's most fervent attempts to pass the strongest trade agreement in U.S. history, the TPP is dead in the water. Why? Because congressional Republicans made it so. Now China (not the most worker-friendly country in the world) gets to set the rules for trade among Asian countries. God help the United States.

Btw, NAFTA began under Reagan, was handed over to G.H.W. Bush who negotiated and signed it, and then after renegotiations of labor and environmental agreements within the trade agreement, it was ratified under Clinton who truly believed it would create millions of more jobs for a job-starved United States - back then.

Although I don't blame ALL disastrous policies on Republicans, I do blame them for most of them. Unlike you, I don't believe it's smart to attack Democrats while absolving Republicans of all responsibility.

As for your timeline of events, ALL old news. Those were cast in a different time. Hindsight is 20/20. Situations were different back then, and those policies were specific to those times and shouldn't be used to vilify Democrats today.

No reading. Just maintaining your original but inaccurate statement, "So please stop laying the blame on the president. He did his best with the Congress".

No, he didn't do his best.

The welfare and crime bills were Clinton's ideas. Those cannot be blamed solely on Republicans. Clinton chose to send NAFTA to Congress. It cannot be blamed solely on Republicans. He barely vetoed anything even though the Republicans DID NOT have a veto proof majority. His failure to veto cannot be blamed solely on Republicans.

So you CANNOT blame the not so great things that happened in his presidency solely on Republicans.

BTW, Congress does not hold "all the power." They hold the "legislative" power, and even that is checked by the power of the veto.

You may wish to read this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview

It's handy and informative!

BTW, your attitude of unconditional acceptance and calling voters names (e.g., "lazy" is what prevents our party from improving. We will not gain new voters when you hold them in contempt.

defend the obstructionist hyper-partisan Republican congresscritters for their role in the worst domestic policy this country's ever been subjugated to, and now you're claiming that a Republican Congress, TWO Republican presidents, and Republican policy is all the fault of a Democratic president - and you continue to do so despite the information I gave you (which you conveniently ignore).

Great. With Democrats like you (I'm assuming you're a Democrat based solely on your "our party" mention), who needs Faux News and Breitbart consumers?

I'm done with you. I've posted enough for you to have learned some info but it's clear you've made up your mind in stone. But I'm not going to play your little game of attacking Democrats while all but absolving Republicans of any blame while still claiming you're a Democrat.

Bah.

Please show me one place where I linked to Faux News or Breitbart. Just because you don't like my facts does not mean they are not true.

And please show me where I "absolved" any Republican of anything? What I did was say you cannot give Clinton a pass for the things HE CHOSE TO DO. If you cannot see that Clinton ran on these ideas and then advanced them by his own choice, you cannot make the party better in the future. Blaming things wholly outside our control (e.g., the behavior of Republicans) is pointless. We cannot control Republicans. We can control how we react to them. We can become Republican-lite or we can fight.

You have no facts to prove that welfare reform and the 1994 crime bill and NAFTA were caused by a "Republican Congress". You obviously never went to the links and watch Bill Clinton's campaign promise to "end welfare as we know it." You continue to misunderstand that NAFTA could never have been voted on had Bill Clinton NOT sent it to Congress -- Congress cannot vote on a trade agreement of its own volition -- and you realize that the 1994 crime bill was passed by a Democratic Congress + Democratic President. Bill Clinton used the veto LESS THAN HALF as many times as Reagan. That's not a defense of Reagan: that's an criticism of Clinton, not using the veto more.

THESE ARE FACTS. Facts that you clearly will not admit. DU is not about pretending things. It is about building the party. We cannot do that if we do not speak the truth and we do not demand better from our elected leaders.

Ha ha. You never engaged with the truth, so you never began with me. It's hilarious that you now say your are done. Please do be done. Please mean it. I have tried to end this conversation numerous times already. So please pretend it is your idea and really end it. Bye!

The Schumer/Establishment end of the Party still thinks it's about messaging.

They could not be more wrong.

It's about policies.

It's very simple, really:

The current corporate and banking funder$ of the Democratc Party will not permit
policies that are good for the middle class (inexpensive education, secure SS and Medicare,
Single-Payer HC, sensible banking regulations, etc.)

They never will.

To be an honest Party of The People again, the Democrats are going to have to kick-out
the corporate people and their money, and become a more left-leaning, truly Progressive Party that stands for the
things Bernie Sanders talked about, and more.

The Party will become much poorer, but it will then be a real party again.
It will again have a soul.

That is the answer.

Problem is, too many people who insist on calling themselves Democrats, don't like that answer
and see FDR/New Deal policies as undesirable.

OK, then, The Democratic Party dies.




Is this the future that has to be?

I knew we were in trouble when I got into an argument with a Democrat on this board
last summer who did not want to see the Party return to it's New Deal roots, because the ND was
"racist" and represented the "old" way of doing things.

That left me with a serious, long-term facepalm.


What are folks like that doing in the Democratic Party?
How did they get that way?

This is a very real problem, and could split the Party.

JMO.

First, moderate Republicans have migrated over; and

second, for the past 30 years the background noise of Limbaugh, Fox News, Heritage Foundation, etc., has changed the water that we all swim in. That's caused a whole lot of people who consider themselves Democrats to actually be Republican. They don't know that about themselves because they know nothing of history.

Don't ask me how we get out of this swamp. I don't know.

Decades of propaganda have their effect on nearly ALL of the population, in different ways.

That how some of the deadly "Conventional Wisdom" (CW) finds its way into the Public Mind,
like parasitic worms.

Those worms must come from that "changed water" you write of.

felt largely "left behind" by The New Deal policies.

It seems to be "guilt by association," which I think is ridiculous.

There's nothing inherently racist about economically progressive ideas! The fact that past progressive, Keynesian economic policies also had some prejudiced aspects to them is no reason to think that modern progressive fights will be that way!

... To spend money allocated by the New Deal in non-white areas.
These politicians (or the equivalent) are all GOPers now.


(Hey ---- That might be an argument for kicking-out all Conservatives from the Democratic Party, eh?
You know---Learn from the past. lol)


The New Deal wasn't inherently racist at all.

Unfortunately, it counted on unavoidable cooperation with the nasty, racist, POS southern Dems.

That is not the fault of the New Deal or FDR.


1 more thing ...

One area where people of color did receive New Deal benefits was in some of the big
water and power projects that supplied electricity to poor rural areas for the first time ever,
raising the standard of living (Tennesse Valley Authority, etc etc).

The ol' Southern Democrats, later known as Dixiecrats and Republicans.

Being able to read let alone getting accepted to a college?

I remember Bernie saying "if only Mike Brown" was on his way to college instead of hanging in the streets. Foil did bother himself to read the slimmest bio of that kid, did he?

The Democratic Party has lost its soul.

How can we get it back?

I would have thought that this debacle of an election would do it, but have gotten arguments from far too many when I say so: they point to the popular vote, blame racism, sexism, Comey, the Russians, vote suppression, Bernie....and ignore the fact that this election was just the latest in a series of debacles.

I've been saying for years that "Not As Bad as Those Other Guys" is not a winning message but of course the people whose funding depends on not seeing that oddly (!) just don't get it.

Good news is Trump is so awful that the left, which has been far too complacent with a "Democrat" in charge, will now wake up and resist. The future and nature of the Democratic should become apparent very soon.

How do I know this? Because if you went to Hillary Clinton's campaign website and looked at the policies there, they have all the things that you and Naomi Kline are talking about. Education, jobs, taxes on the rich, clean energy investments, healthcare, it's all there.

And if you look at what Obama has been pushing for 8 years, it's also a very progressive agenda. Problem is, the GOP blocked most of it.

If a progressive agenda were the answer, the Dems would have won in a landslide, because they already have a highly progressive agenda.

I'm not saying that the Dems should abandon their progressive agenda. I'm a progressive, and I think the Dems should continue to be a progressive party. But they need to improve on messaging and organization. And they need to pick more better candidates than Bernie and Hillary. Obama won twice running on basically the same agenda that Hillary ran on, because of his personal appeal and charisma. We need more Obamas.

Obama governed as a Corporatist on many important issues, and that should be acknowledged.

Thankfully, Obama's achievements on social issues and some environmental issues were Progressive.

The Iran Treaty, plus opening Cuba, were Progressive.

Infrastructure spending (limited by GOP) was Progressive.

I give him full credit for those policies, and some others, for sure.

However,
settling quickly on a for-profit health plan without battling for Single-Payer or Public Option, 1000s of drone killings, Race-To-The-Top (NCLB on steroids, ask a teacher), destruction of Libya (a Neocon desire), continued expansion of NATO (Neocon), strongly pushing TPP/TTIP, authorizing a new generation of micro-nukes (at 1-2$Trillion cost), Eric Holder's "Too Big To Fail",
bailing out banks and not people (to compare, see Iceland for actual Progressivism on this issue), and putting a cluster of corporate people like Geitner, Paulson and Arnie Duncan in the cabinet is not Progressivism.

Not my opinion. Fact.

No Republican made Obama put those corporate people in his cabinet, or told him to follow the Neocon plan
for American hegemony overseas, or made him sign-off on all those drone killings, done without
due process, or told him to give the money to the banks in 2008, while letting them keep millions of citizens in debt.

Obama is a Centrist, with some Progressive leanings, but some Conservative leanings as well.

Admittedly, a number of Democratic leaders like Schumer, are even more corporate-leaning,
and may have been a Conservative
influence on some of Obama's policies.

A Corporatist Democratic Party is doomed to the dustbin of history.

We already have a Corporate Party----The GOP.
I say----Let them run on that, alone.

America does not need 2 Corporate parties.

It's OK, you won't hurt my feelings.

I'm all ears.

Tell me where I call something Progressive that isn't.

Or perhaps I called something not Progressive, that is?

Par-for-the-course.

Thanks, loved reading it and agree with you and everything Naomi says.

http://thesuspicionist.blogspot.com/

ON some lefty blogs the term is used to mean "not as far left as Trotsky" but actually it means something else entirely.

I'm glad you acknowledge many of Obama's progressive accomplishments. You left out a few:
Dodd-Frank, strongest financial regulations since WW2.
Expanding healthcare to millions of people while reducing cost growth.
Saving the auto industry with large state intervention.
Embracing stimulus and rejecting austerity, resulting in a much stronger and faster recovery than Europe.

And then you leave out all the stuff that Obama was in favor of but got blocked by congress: minimum wage, equal pay, student loan reform, employee free choice act, etc.

You have a point with TARP: it should have done more to rescue mortgages. But it wasn't, as you put it "giving money to banks", it was loaning money to banks. And Iceland is a horrible analogy because they had a totally different problem. Iceland had a much, much bigger financial sector relative to GDP. They bailed out their banks and protected domestic deposits while letting foreign deposits fail. Then they took IMF loans to pay for their bailout, and imposed austerity as part of the IMF deal. None of this has anything to do with what the US did or could have done or should have done.

And then there's TPP, which personally I'm neutral on. The plus side is that it increases US influence in Asia, which is certainly better in terms of the environment and human rights than having China dominate the region economically. But there are some complaints I think are valid, such as the intellectual property provisions being too broad, the lack of addressing currency manipulation, and so on. But I don't think being reflexively anti-trade is "progressive".

As far as the others:
--Obama fought hard for the public option, but there weren't the votes in congress. And if he had gone for single payer instead, he would have lost the Senate vote by about 85-15, and his presidency would have taken a huge blow.
--Libya was not a neo-con war of conquest, it was a targeted humanitarian intervention led by Europe. Libya was already in the midst of a civil war when the intervention took place, and Gadafi was in the process of mass murder. And, look, you can argue that the world should have just sat by and watched the mass murder take place like in Rwanda, fair enough, but it's absurd to call the intervention an act of hegemonic aggression.


Who, in your mind, is not a "corporatist"? Compared to the progressive hero LBJ, Obama is a downright pacifist. JFK was a hardened cold warrior who authorized a peacetime invasion of Cuba. Oh, and FDR: jog my memory, he was involved in some kind of overseas conflict, right? Or maybe Truman, the only administration in the history of the world to engage in nuclear war, was the "true progressive"? And they were all free-traders.

The only way Obama is a "corporatist" is if every president the US has ever had is also a "corporatist".

acknowledge as they continue on this disastrous pathway of attacking the only other major Party that's closest to their own ideals, letting the other major Party that wants to silence them reign supreme.

I'm so sick and tired of purists. They just don't understand how it works in the real world where governing isn't forcing one's view down people's throats but actually finding a way to work with the other side.

They're called, values.

Mine go back to the 50s, and evolved thru the following decades, thru JFK, LBJ,
Nixon, Carter, Reagan, BushI, etc, up to now.

And yes, I supported Bernie.

But I forgive you, man.

You're just scared, as many folks are.
I am too.

FDR's classic advice helps now.

Just don't let fear cloud your vision, as it has for many these days.

Below is a link to a blog post I have made.
If you are serious about knowing where I'm coming from, check it out:

http://thesuspicionist.blogspot.com/2016/12/how-can-progressives-evaluate-trumps.html

their vision is corrupted and not worth fighting for, and that those who won't listen should suffer. That's not democratic. That's dictatorial. There is NO ROOM in a functioning Gov't for purist-thinking on either side of the aisle.

And, no, I have no inclination to know about where you're coming from. But thanks anyway.

Not everything you say is true, some is projection and some is spin. I will pick out one thing you said.

You say "Obama fought hard for the public option." Obama ran for election on a public option and no mandate. However, that is not your claim. Your claim is that in office he fought for these. This claim is spin and not supported by Obama's actions.

Obama publicly rejected the House version of the ACA (passed before the Senate bill) which included a public option. Instead publicly Obama said that the bill that came out of the finance comittee chaired by and run by Max Baucus would control the contents of the bill. Max Baucus is a conservative democrat from Montana who was against the public option. Once Obama got behind the Baucus to be drafted version (before it had been drafted), there was no path for the public option. If you pick the author of a bill or a court opinion you know where it is going. It is kind of like appointing Simpson and Bowles to head a committee on social security and expect they will not recommend cutting benefits. At the end we got no public option and Baucus got rewarded with an ambassadorship.

Whether Obama actually wanted a public option and no mandate is a good question and I hope that he did. However, unlike you, I do not know his "private" views vs his public campaign promises. I just know what we ended up with and some facts. Your claim that he fought for a public option is pure spin. In office, Obama quickly abandoned the fight for a public option choosing a different path to obtain the republican version of insurance reform (nixon, heritate, romney) by trying to woo corporate democrats and moderate republicans by TOTALLY ABANDONING any fight for a public option.

During the Obamacare debate he went around the country stumping for the public option as part of the bill. He only abandoned it when it became evident that it didn't have the votes. Like it or not, Baucus effectively had a veto on the entire bill, which means that anything that got passed had to be voted for by Baucus (and Lieberman and others). So, yeah, when it came down to the choice between a bill without a public option, or nothing, he wisely chose the bill without the public option.

It wasn't for lack of effort on Obama's part, the votes just weren't there.

We seem to agree that he adopted a strategy of wooing corporate democrats and republicans which meant abandoning any push for the public option. You want to say that was not quickly but was after a fight.

However, again this is projection. He did not stump for the public option. His public statements were that he was leaving it up to congress. You can check the news throughout this period. He did say he would like a public option but that is different than fighting for it.

Regardless of when, when the push came for the bill he adopted a different strategy. I have had arguments over whether that strategy was right or wrong. I am open to thinking his perception of votes was accurate but also open to the opposite that presidential power can overcome roadblocks as it has in the past. Regardless, he did not fight for a public option in the bill, he took a different strategy.

I find your posts very logical, I just think you need to abandon this claim of fighting for it. Instead, he deliberately left it to congress and then did not fight for a public option to be included in the Baucus drafting of the Bill.

Yes, he stumped for the public option, as a simple google search demonstrates, for example, from July 2009:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/weekly-address-president-obama-says-health-care-reform-cannot-wait

And, yes, he did try to woo conservative Democrats. That's because unless he got votes from Lieberman and Baucus, there would be no bill. This is vote-counting reality. He needed every single Dem, so a strategy of thumbing his nose at those two would have been extremely foolish.

It's a fantasy to think that if someone like Bernie had been president, Baucus and Lieberman would somehow have decided that, actually yes they really did support the public option after all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/16/what-options-did-obama-le_n_394697.html

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/29/6/1117.fullhttp://content.healthaffairs.org/content/29/6/1117.full

In the second link, it notes the fights in the Senate. Note that it references the House bills too. The first link shows what other steps of fighting could have been taken and I lost another link which had quotes from senators actually fighting in Congress saying they did not have white house support.

There are a number of issues in this area. First, its a vote counting decision. I can say, If i dont fight and roll over, I can pass a bill (regardless of its imperfection) 100% of the time. If i exert presidential honey and sticks and hold to my position, I am likely to get my bill 50% and no bill 50%. Last the compromise could have been done later in the reconciliation stage. There are lots of paths and someone who "fights" for something takes some risk of not obtaining it. You seem to want both to allow Obama to take the 100% path and still say he fought for something else. He chose a path that involved not fighting and not taking risk. Within that path, he certainly said he wanted a public option and tried to woo Olympia Snowe with a trigger that no one really wanted but he did not actually fight for the public option in the sense of actually risking anything or applying actual pressure.

The more important issue is one of long term results. Passing the imperfect ACA got a few years with some millions more people getting some version of insurance. It did not result in full health care nor did it solve the cost problem. Further, its in danger of being a Pyhrric Victory. Democrats do not look like principled actors and just keep losing elections from state house to congress and the ACA is likely to be swept away in favor of long term republican favorites like allowing every insurance company to incorporate in North Dakota and sell into other states avoiding regulation and eliminating lawyers from any role in the medical system.

I was and am an advocate for the simple both as a plan and politically as a strategy. I believe the Democratic Party would be in much better shape if they had actually fought for a Medicaire for all system and taken a long term view of obtaining it. I am not sure it would have resulted in a bill in 2009-10. However, I think the fight would have continued and used as a hammer in the next election cycle if Obama wanted to actually "fight". We have discussed the ACA but in the broader context, I think this is the problem with Triangulation politics. You may win an election but lose the war.

Baucus, like you said, was very conservative and also in the pocket of the healthcare industry. He basically had to be bribed to even support the bill without the public option. And Lieberman was as close to a Republican as a Dem can be. He supported McCain in the election, and was officially not even a Democrat anymore. Those two guys were going nowhere progressive.

I agree that Obama did eventually give up on the public option, but he didn't do so immediately, only after months of pushing for it. And at that point, the chances of a public option weren't 50%, they were basically 0%. Lieberman wasn't going to bite, and no Republicans were going to bite. Olympia Snowe didn't even vote for the bill without the public option.

As to the larger question, I think it's good to pass bills like ACA that make huge improvements to people's lives rather than wait, likely forever, to pass the perfect bill. I don't see how it could possibly have been good politically to try for single payer and then lose 85-15 in the Senate. At least now the GOP actually has to repeal ACA, which means kicking tens of millions of people off of insurance. It's a trench war, and gaining no ground at all doesn't help to win it.

That is your argument. He sacrificed the Public Option supported by a great majority of democrats to pass what became known as Obama Care, not that he fought for a public option. He chose to enact something in 2009 rather than fight for something else. You favor winning immediate battles and assume that is the path to long term good. I do not agree with you but it is a valid position. My belief is that if you pass something that puts insurance companies as essential in the middle of the system and give them tons of money, you can never further reform it. I think the ACA was a very Pyhirric Victory. However, mine like yours is just an opinion.

As to Baucus and Lieberman, past presidents and politicians going all the way back to the founders dealt with seemingly intractable political opposition. It is a mircacle they got the Declaration of Independence adopted because there were people like Lieberman and Baucus around then.. Obama took the path of making sure some bill passed. Other paths to passage of a robust bill were not taken, including calling for millions of the people who swarmed his path to the presidency to come out to the mall to pressure politicians, using hard ball political pressures on pet congressional projects and promising to campaign or raise huge amounts of money against people who didn't vote for a public option (including republicans).

It is your opinion that Lieberman and Baucus wanted nothing and could not be influenced. To me they are both incredibly corrupt, Lieberman in particular. Past presidents used honey and sticks to get what they wanted. Public shame or private jobs usually work on the corrupt. Neither you nor I know what real presidential action would have accomplished. However, Obama was not prepared to actually oppose those standing in the way of a public option which is why its spin to say he fought for it. He fought for heritage care and was willing to not fight for a public option to get heritage care through. However, that was not your claim. You claim he fought for the public option. He didnt. He fought for a health insurance bill.

Fighting has one benefit in the long term that sacrificing essential elments for a weak bill does not. Fighting actually addresses the issue and sets it before the Public. If as polls show, the American people supported a more robust system, it would have given the Democratic Party a lot of leverage against the Republicans in the next election cycle. I live in California and know this can work since after deadlock of many years and seeing Republican opposition, California kicked the Republican party to the curb and we have a much stronger state. It took many years and we had set backs like Arnold and a budget crisis. However our victory over the Republicans was actually a victory.

He fought for it, and he lost the fight, and then he decided to pass the bill without the public option. The other argument we are having -- whether it's better to pass ACA without public option or nothing at all -- is a valid one, but that doesn't change the fact that Obama did in fact fight for the public option up until the point where it was dead, due to Baucus and Lieberman.

The argument that it's a sacrifice assumes that passing ACA without the public option somehow precluded a future bill with a public option. I think the opposite is true. A public option without the rest of ACA wouldn't work. You'd end up with all the high-risk people who can't get private insurance signing up for the public option, which would drive the cost up, basically making it a high-risk pool. With ACA, community rating, individual mandate, and subsidies are already in place, it would be simple, if congress wanted, to tack on the public option.

It's true that Obama could have chosen to fight differently, and that different tactics might have been more effective. I would agree that, while Obama is a brilliant campaigner, he's not as skilled at political maneuvering in office. But it's pure speculation that different tactical decisions might have been more (or less) effective, and the fact is, he did fight for the public option, and he lost that fight.

For the larger question, first of all, again it's a question of strategy and not a question of policy or whether Obama is "progressive" vs "neoliberal" or whatever. The question is, is it better in the long run to pass an imperfect bill, which without doubt is a big improvement over the status quo, or to wait, possibly forever, for something better, in the meantime letting people suffer. And, yeah, I'm in favor of making imperfect improvements.

Obama fought for insurance reform. He did not fight for the public option although as I have said he ran on a plan and early in the legislative process he said he wanted one. I can believe that if he had total control, he would want a public option in his health insurance plan. That is different than fighting for one.

Here is a link that describes it best. A CNN article from Sept 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/29/senate.public.option

It includes the following quote "The White House responded to Tuesday's actions with spokesman Reid Cherlin repeating both President Barack Obama's support for a public option -- and also his willingness to consider other proposals."

I believe you may be a lawyer. If you go into a negotiation and say I want X amount but "have a willingness to consider other proposals" it means absolutely that you will not fight for X but will accept some lesser amount.

Here is another from the article.

Obama "has said he is open to other constructive ideas of increasing choice and competition," Cherlin said. "He will work with Congress to ensure that under health insurance reform, Americans who cannot find affordable coverage will always have a choice."

However, once again, you want to look at him through your prism rather than take him at his word. His early speeches said that he would like a public option but it was "just a sliver" or not an essential part of his reform. He denied that he had campaigned on a public option. This is exactly what one does when you want to make public your position to appease a group of supporters but also want to signal that you are sacrificing a position and not going to fight for it.

As to more direct actions. As I said, Pelosi passed an ACA with a public option through the house which Obama did not trumpet to the press and public building pressure. He also did not actually have the administration draft the bill to present to congress as what he wanted.

The great thing about speculation is that there is no way to prove what is right. However, we do know that it is fact that republicans are now in charge of every branch of government all the way down to the local level and are close in states to being able to change the constitution if they wanted to and voted in lock step at the state house. We further know that the ACA has mixed public opinions. The left and right do not like it and the middle tolerates it as a lukewarm compromise.

So my speculation that the Democratic party would be in better shape if they just fought for a bill that energized the base totally and really restructured the way we deliver health care might be a fact since it is somewhat impossible for it to be worse than losing every race and then losing the bill that one sets up as a step towards something good. Would other tactics be better, its purely speculative but when the Republicans get rid of Obamacare we will know that it was impossible for another strategy to do worse.

He fought for a while, and then when he saw it wasn't happening, he made sure the bill got passed without it.

I agree with you, the language in that article is not fighting, it is looking to compromise. But that was written in late September, pretty far along in the process.

And, yeah, maybe if Obama fought harder or longer or differently, he could have gotten a better outcome. Then again, he might have gotten a worse outcome. I don't see anything that would have brought Lieberman or Baucus onboard, but who knows.

As far as the other speculation, yeah I see your argument. And a point in favor of that argument is that the Dems could hardly be in worse shape right now, though it's questionable whether taking a harder line and refusing to pass compromise bills would improve their situation. And, truthfully, things could be worse: we could have lost in 2012, the GOP could have a filibuster-proof senate, etc.

Also, if the GOP does get rid of ACA, they will be taking away insurance from millions of people, which is a substantial political risk. If ACA never passed, then the GOP wouldn't have to do that. They could just proceed with their race-to-the-bottom plan without ripping people away from their healthcare coverage first.

Overall, I think Obama's flaw wasn't being too compromising, it was messaging. He was great at messaging when he was a candidate, but then in office he was aloof and professional, and kind of assumed that his aloof professionalism was going to get the country on board with his policies. But it didn't, and it especially didn't help downballot. As far healthcare, people by and large like the benefits ACA provides, but they don't like "Obamacare". You read anecdotes of people trying to get people signed up for Obamacare in certain states avoiding the term "Obamacare" because if you just explain to people how it works, they like it even though they "don't want Obamacare". That's a marketing problem, not a problem with the law.

Not sure it was deserved.

But you gave it an honest shot.

Good for you.

Case in point, from a couple years ago...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024659149


I agree with some of your points, but not with a bunch of others.

You're just further right than I am, economically.
My economic views are basically the same as in the 60s.

It is The Party that has changed, not me so much, and I have seen the changes, all the way.
Feel free to write me off as old-fashioned leftist.


You probably dislike Ralph Nader too, right?

http://www.inquisitr.com/3311843/ralph-nader-calls-hillary-clinton-a-deeply-rooted-corporatist-praises-bernie-sanders/

The GOP is ofcourse more blatantly and openly Corporatist than the Democrats,
who have been more stealthy about it.

As it is generally understood, Corporatism refers to a corporate/Banking/big-money dominated society,
along the lines of Mussolini's government in Italy in the 30s/early 40s, with gov't and big business
working in close association to control most aspects of the society, including media.
Some have credited Mussolini with inventing the term, Corporatism. It has strong military leanings,
as military might is seen as a way to to prop up big business interests.

It is not Democratic.
It is associated with Fascism.

The term has older origins and variations on meaning, but has evolved into this general meaning today, in our age, as used by renowned (in the opinions of many, but not Corporatists/Neoliberals) voices like Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky.

Neoliberalism is close in meaning, and bears many likenesses.

Unequivocally, the following Pre-2000 laws are victories for Corporatism/Neoliberalism, and I have watched all of them come to pass down through the years under different presidents:

Pres. Carter--De-regulation of airlines

Reagan--Big tax cuts, huge military budget, Union-busting (starting with air-traffic controllers),
elimination of Fairness Doctrine, huge deficits taking money away from social programs,
stripped regulations wherever possible, preached "free-market" ideology from his bully-pulpit,
and pushed much of the country in that direction , including the Clintons.

Clinton--NAFTA, GATT, 1996 Telecomunications Act, elimination of Glass-Steagall Act (1999).

BOTH parties have gotten us to where we are.

OK OK, OK, I totally agree the GOP is still much worse.
There is no home there for the likes of me there, for certain.

But oldtime New Deal Democrats like me think the Democratic Party can do better -- for The People.

Not questioning, or allowing not questioning will not strengthen the Party.
Imposed conformity is not unity.

JMO.
As always.

Here's a blog post Ive done recently, which shows you an honest glimpse of my own Progressivism,
in the age of Trump.
I doubt you'll agree with me on all the issues, but probably still will, on many.

http://thesuspicionis
t.blogspot.com/2016/12/how-can-progressives-evaluate-trumps.html

No, corporatism is not generally understood to mean a "corporate/Banking/big-money dominated society." You might understand it to mean that, but other people don't. The term "corporate" that is the root of "corporatism" doesn't refer to a company but more like a guild. Read that wiki article or use google to learn more.

But whatever, let's for now accept your incorrect definition of the term. The point is, like I illustrated in my last post, Obama is not "corporatist". Obama is not Bill Clinton so, obviously, listing things Clinton did that you don't like says absolutely nothing about Obama.

Also, attacking Democrats for not being far enough left is nothing new. In fact, ironically, FDR and the New Deal were attacked from both the left and the right as being "corporatist". Bernie Sanders infamously said that JFK made him "physically nauseated" based on his opposition to the Cuban Revolution. And so on.

And Ralph Nader, the guy who put W in the White House? No, I don't like him. Whatever good he did previous to that is totally outweighed by his destructive 2000 campaign. He's been one of the leading proponents of the "Democrats and Republicans are the same" lie, a lie that has now brought us two right-wing presidents in the last 16 years.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

I've also seen some deny that there is a "progressive" wing of the Party: we're all progressive, they say--and then a few will even try to "smear" us by calling us "socialists" instead.

It's not just on DU where people misuse the term progressive. It's also the Center for American Progress (a center-left think tank) and the Progressive Policy Institute (a think tank of the New Democrats).

I don't know whether it is a genuine misunderstanding of the term or whether it is a purposeful attempt to take away any meaning of the term, or an attempt to co-opt what is a popular term by pretending it applies to them, or some combination of all three, but there it is.

I get it, and I understand as a Clinton voter what that means, and I get it because I'm an internet nerd. But every single time Sec Clinton said "Go to my website.." in response to questions, I honestly cringed. A better response would have been here's where I stand and if you'd like more details then check out my website. Still, encouraging voters to make two steps to a website instead of one in hearing what positions she actually stood for, that was one of the many flaws in the clinton campaign, at least in my mind. The message must be clear and succinct and many times the Clinton campaign was too quick to say "well, check out our website." Most people will not make that effort. The details on the website should have been laid out daily...again and again. Sadly, even if Sec Clinton had done that, the free press that Trump received on a daily basis by calling in to the various morning shows and other means of exposure would likely have given us the same results.

The trouble is, her policies were on the website, but not actually in her value-system,
and folks could sense that.

Sure, we agree on a number of issues.

Your idea of progressive is to the right of mine, plain and simple.
You see the Party as more Progressive than I see it, plain and simple.

Color me Bernie-type, and if you wish,
write me off.

Kline's ideological analysis sounds like Trump's claim of a "landslide victory."

extreme right in power all the way down to congress. The answer that so many Democrats won't admit is to go to the left way past center. In crisis times like this when the alternative is fascism, we better fight with REAL left ideals, or fascism wins. We can't keep doing the same thing and keep moving right unless fascism is what we are willing to settle for.

That is our choices, move left to answer the people's suffering or we let fascism answer their suffering, that it our directional choices.

that's really Klein's message.

It IS about policy..

It IS about inequality...

You nailed it.

There is no evidence that a leftist candidate can win...populism is a different thing than liberalism.

That knife cuts both ways.

The one thing Bernie's campaign did prove was that you can raise large sums of money without a SuperPac.

Thus he could not win...populism is quite different.

If populism did not work, then we wouldn't be stuck with Trump.

It was suppose to be Hillary and the Republican candidate and that is what they pushed.

It is really pretty simple stuff. The neo-liberal plan was never going to work, but worse, only the problem making portions of the plan were ever implemented.

Deregulating trade caused accelerated economic restructuring. Manufacturing jobs turned into service sector jobs.

Deregulating banks caused massive fraud, asset bubbles, and financial collapse.

Some of these impacts could have been minimized, but this required the NeoLibs to keep control of congress, which they promptly lost to the conservatives.

Bill Clinton raised the minimum wage once, then congress was gone. Had they been able to keep raising the minimum then the transition to the service sector would have had smaller socioeconomic impacts.

The plan to educate and train our way out of free trade impacts was a pipe dream in essence. However this was made far worse by the Republican education deform initiatives, which simply cut funds and pushed the non-performing "for profit" model.

Sensible regulations could have been enacted after the tech bubble, but with GWB in the WH and reps controlling Capitol Hill, we got less than nothing.

24 years on, Hillary ends up trying to sell a plan that is in fact a massive failure on many dimensions. Was it the neo-lib plan or the failure to implement it? I think it was both. Had it been implemented, it still would have failed, just far less badly.

Nail. On. Head.

I don't like the term neo-liberalism as it taints liberalism

Why isn't it neoconservatism?

Neoconservatism is primarily focused on foreign policy (albeit including the monetary benefits of regime change and invading other countries).

Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism)[1] refers primarily to the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2] These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy.

The definition of the word is quite plain.

Yet again and again, the Conservative Dem responders keep mechanically repeating,
"that word doesn't mean what you think it means", blah blah blah.

These are folks who probably HATE Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Ray McGovern, Matt Taibbi,
Brad Friedman, Greg Palast, Thomas Frank, etc----who have the gall to criticize the DEmocratic Party.
These are voices Democrats should be HEEDING,
because they describe so vividly what too
many Dems are falling-for lately: Neoliberalism and mindless loyalty to Party, instead of internalized humanistic values.


These are the same folks who have faith-based belief that the Russians hacked the election,
even though actual evidentiary proof is still lacking at this time.
Just like WMDs in the early 2000s with the GOPers.
Same damn obstinate attitude.
Yes--The SAME.


These people cannot see themselves objectively.

If they could, they'd throw-up.
But they can't.

They are becoming what they hate (neocons, corporate apologists and faith-based in foreign policy)
and they don't even know it.

We'll just have to take it issue-by-issue as we fight Trump.

But I wonder about these hyper-sensitive Conservative-leaning Hillary-Democrats.

If Trump wants to, say, oppose the AT&T merger with Time-Warner, or support paid maternity leave, are these Democrats
gonna' SUPPORT the merger, and OPPOSE paid maternity leave, in order to oppose Trump?

Issues like that will tell the tale on how far the virus of Neoliberalism has spread in our party.

Ofcourse, Trump may never come thru on any of the populist policies he got
so many cheers from during the campaign.

There's a good chance he lied about every one of them.
But we don't know for sure, yet.

But if he does actually come thru on a few of them, it will provide a real test for Democrats.

If that moment ever arrives, we are going to learn a lot about our fellow-Dems, for sure.

We will know who's-who.
Kinda' like this:

The real problem IMHO is conservatism, which inevitably grabs too much power in the hands of too few, uses endless demagoguery and makes liberalism politically weak.

which now is far to the right of New Deal Democrats...and all because of fealty to big donors.

Exactly right.

president in the modern era.

There's a reason the Dems went to a more corporate slant.

It just isn't a good one. The pukes and illiberal democrats have had the past 36 years to try their great new ideas. Has anything improved for anyone, other than their owners?

And the New Deal didn't "die" with Raygun--the policies endured, most importantly Social Security and bank regulation...until Bill Clinton killed the latter and targeted the former (as did Obama--fortunately the pukes said "no.". I disagree with your "track record" analysis as well: Bill Clinton ran as a progressive but that is not how he governed; the same is true of Obama. And now, because our Democratic leaders triangulated and grandly bargained with our votes and our lives, we have Trump.

Let's just keep doing this shit, shall we? It will put us out of our misery by hastening the end.

(and wasn't that the general aim?) In the year of the outsider she was insiderist insider possible.

Could have beaten a GOP that had the voter disenfranchisement/voter suppression train rolling along as it's had. Those 800 polling stations would have been closed down in North Carolina for ANY Dem/Indy, not just for Hillary Clinton. You had cross-checking & major purging from voter rolls going on in several key states done by the GOP. That would have affected ANY Dem or Indy running. You had a surge in racism, sexism and pure ignorance in understanding what tRump was about as a candidate, that crawled out from under their rock to vote. Did those folks who took a chance to vote for tRumputin NOT hear him saying that he thought the federal minimum-wage was too high @ $7.25 or that maybe we should just eliminate it all together? That Obamacare needed to be done away with in total and replaced with--well, tRumputin never said with what, nor has the GOP and now in increasing numbers, those who voted for him in states like WV and KY are scared to death that tRumputin and the GOP will take away their health care, Medicare and privatize their Social Security. I mean, voting in ones own worst interest (Like many seniors did) is fine if that's what they wanted for themselves, but their vote will affect the rest of us who knew better--we'll have to suffer right along with them. I don't see ANY Dem or Indy who could have beaten the "putin machine/interference," or the propaganda and fake news that was out there everywhere that too many low-info voters believed.

I didn't mention the media (Who GAVE tRumputin $2 billion in free air time), because most in the media no longer care about truth or fact checking. I don't remember which media person said it, but he/she said something to the effect that they couldn't/didn't bother checking to see if what tRumputin was saying was true or not, because there's WAY too much to check. Wow. Most in the press/media especially are more interested in ratings numbers and ad dollars from people watching the product they're selling (Moonves said tRumputin may be bad for the country but he's great for CBS's ratings, or something of that nature). Most in the "media" are falling in line with the media caste system and behind their president, Donald tRumputin Trump, because they don't want to endure his tweeting rampages, or his wrath against them. NO Dem or Indy has ever faced what Hillary Clinton has ever faced.

things that were done actually hurt the public. Obama, too, seemed to do little beyond continue the policies of Bush, whether from agreement or because he was stymied in the Congress. Are we so delusional that we think Hillary could have done any better with the Congress than Obama did? Why would we think that? The best we could have hoped for is another 4 or 8 years of "nothing's happening, but at least we aren't being eaten by giant radioactive cockroaches."

Certainly I think it's crazy that anyone would vote for Trump, but remember, his first-grade-level and propagandistic approach to campaigning actually swayed lots of people. If the public is truly this simple, we have to proceed with this in mind. And find a Democrat with some fire in him/her, and a natural ability to lead, and lead firmly.

Holy shit.

that progressivism is the way to go. If that means that the democrat has to speak to the public in words it can understand and be excited about, well, so be it. Bernie managed it without being a fascist.

with Fox News and the righty media...and we don't have time to convince people...run candidates that can get elected in the near term and work on putting infrastructure in place to convince people. Any Dem is better than any GOP...and I would remind you that Bernie Sanders voted for the crime bill...hindsight is 20-20.

blah," because you are correct when you say we don't have time to convince people. However, we DO have to convince a good number of people to vote for Dems, and if that's not possible, we're cooked. It may be time to do some short-term thinking, like nominating a very charismatic Dem. If there is one.

the census is in 20, if we don't get some governorships and legislature seats...the gerrymander will continue for ten more long years.

It is definitely confusing to have so many words around that mean nearly the same thing.

Personally, instead of Neoliberalism, I prefer the term, Corporatism.

Much clearer, IMO.

Neoliberalism actually does have a real meaning, and this isn't it. In the US the way Klein and various others use it, its a trite, superficial, and as you note, trendy term meaning "This is someone I don't like because they aren't left enough for me."

NeoLiberals don't give a hoot about ideology on social issues, and are fine with gay marriage, women's choice, etc, as long as nobody messes with the free market and corporate profits.

Those folks who actually are laissez faire-ists.

That word has an actual meaning.

Neoliberal is someone I don't like because they aren't left enough for me.

Kline nails it. I'm an old-style FDR Democrat and she echos what I've been feeling for the past two decades.

We old-time Democrats can see the hypocrisy of the mainstream Party a mile away.

Some of the mainstream responses to the words, Corporatism and Neoliberalism, are tragically hilarious.
Overflowing with denial.
Real psychological stuff, and embarrassing for them, IMO.

Can't these folks see themselves?

Maybe we could try being Democrats and focus on policy for a change.

only way forward...we will get no policy in the next four to eight years and will lose most of what we have achieved. Those of you who think Bill Clinton was so bad...he stopped Bush I cold and saved the courts...a liberal could not win in 92 or 96...we only got Clinton in because of Perot splitting the vote...until many face the reality that a super liberal can not win a national election in this center-left country, we will continue to lose. I am way more liberal than most of my fellow Americans...but until we have a media like the rightwing media devoted to getting our message out and changing the hearts and minds of American voters, we will not elect someone like me or you.

The way to move forward is to have all of these separate progressive movements come together and fight together for ALL of their causes. Imagine Black Lives Matter, environmental activists, minimum wage activists, gay rights groups, etc. coming together to organize their separate coalitions to build a larger coalition/movement to fight back against Trump.

Also, I feel like our party folds too easily instead of truly fighting for progressive policies. When we have a group of effective/honest/consistent/trustworthy messengers explaining how progressive policies benefit the average Joe, we will win.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

It's also the reason far right groups are gaining ground in the UK and Europe.

Hillary Clinton is a Nazi?

un-fucking-believable!

And racism and sexism mere afterthoughts. Disgusting.

Neoliberal "let them eat austerity" policies have led to economic insecurity across the board, and far right groups are exploiting this to get votes.

"It's also the reason far right groups are gaining ground in the UK and Europe."

Sorry, but when we're faced with actual fucking Nazis in charge, the Democrat haters and the Clinton haters protestations that "The Dems are no better than the GOP" ring hollow & meaningless.

And haven't hurt regular working people across the board because the Republicans are worse.

Especially when we have ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS coming out of the woodwork.

No one is comparing NeoLiberals to Nazi's; the fact is that neoliberal policies have worsened economic inequality, and that has led to the political opportunity exploited by the far/alt-right. Desperate, scared, suffering people are more easily manipulated by faux-populist demagogues.

Designed by RW propagandists to sap support of Democrats and the Democratic Party.

Republicans don't even believe this shit. Why do you?

getting. Applying negative labels to Democrats and equating Democrats to Republicans is tired nonsense.

Glad you noticed, the extra words added into the conversation that were added by the other poster. Same shit, different day with them. Thankfully they are few and considered radicals by most.

Republicans don't believe their own "Democrats same as Republicans" RW bullshit. Why do you?

The policies of either Clinton bear no resemblance to that of Pinochets or of Hayek or Friedman.

The laughable section in that wikipedia entry on The United States, particularly the last two paragraphs which are the ones that refer to Democrats, cite two books as their source and those books are written by no name people whose opinions I have no reason why are more valid as to the use of that word than anyone else.

In the US when it is used as you and Kline are using it, that word is used by people to simply mean someone isnt as left as they would like. It has lost all other meaning and thus is trite and superficial.

While NeoCons proudly trumpeted their ideology with no apologies, NeoLiberals shied away from too much exposure for fear of giving the game away. In addition, NeoCon ideology is a more easily understood, shock and awe kind of ideology, whereas Neoliberalism is more complex and nuanced, and because it sounds liberal, but acts conservative, often confusing to uninformed laypersons. That's why you rarely, if ever heard the corporate pundits discussing it.

Why don't you go there and set the record straight, with your own evidence?

An afternoon kick.

Another Democrat-bashing OP with a side of Hillary Disarragment Syndrome. The first fucking paragraph fucking dismisses racism, sexism and voter suppression. What the actual fuck. I quit reading Klein a while back but this is shit even for her.

differently, but they are all persistent systems of a long effective divide-and-conquer upper class strategy, and no establishment party is actually taking them to task for their influence. For instance, take their entire ownership of the message through privately owned media. Do the Democrats ever address this as a unit?

We can thank corporations and their media for embarrassingly ridiculous gerrymandering and voter suppression and voter machines and poorer and poorer education in this country, and since we keep trying to court these big moneyed interests instead of fighting them, we can thank our Party Leadership as well, for not being the true vocal opposition to this continued erosion of Democracy.

or FDR social democratic liberals are not compatible in basic philosophy; eg a liberal market best determines social justice and allotment of wealth and resources while the social democrats recognize that there are items left out of the neoliberal economic equation as far as social and economic justice and basic needs of individuals lives.

Those that claim that the pitfalls of neoliberalism are fiction are liars or deluded.

The neoliberals deliberately had a plan that was then implemented to repurpose the Democratic party away from the New Deal and Great Society ideals.

How much do the neoliberals have to fail before they look to themselves for blame?

Well said, PufPuf23.

This isn't borne out by voting patterns. Trump's base were comfortable suburbanites.

by rigging the system...redistribution will never win in this country...never.

But the Democrats refuse to say so! They don't really fight the corporate media and its corporate agenda! You can have your own interpretation for why that is, but you've got to admit it's kind of infuriating.

As to "redistribution will never win in this country....never." According to what? According to why? Free college tuition was a fantasy before it was proposed as part of a platform. But then it became part of the DNC platform and Now New York is rolling it out for real. There are a lot of things that would never win in this country that have won as times change.

and I have no doubt stole the election.

in the bucket compared to our own fake news.

I don't know if they hacked the machine only or a combination of stealing the votes in rural areas and hacking the machines...no way there were above 90% of people voting...in the GOP places...and no way the cities in the states he won...the minority voters left of the presidency...this election was stolen...carefull planned for a narrow electoral college win.

and the media helps them do it by not reporting adequately or at all on voter suppression, embarrassingly silly gerrymandering and hackable voting machines, not to mention ridiculous arbitrary policies like changing costs of vote recounts...etc. Where is the media?That's right, they're too busy catering to the interests of their parent companies and their advertisers, most of which are entirely fine with a broken election system that goes to the highest bidder.

Comey helped a bit, too.

The Russians?

Perhaps.

But evidence is still not public.
And that is empirical.

Maybe it's just me, but I find it especialy tragic when DEMOCRATS are at odds with empiricism.

Usually, it's GOPers and right-wingers who are.

But Neolib Dems, in a weird way, have joined their own parallel mirror-image club.

So depressing to see this happen to The Party.

Had enough of it I. The primary.

candidate who could stop Trump...while waiting for a' liberal' (or your definition of one) messiah. Too bad, Hillary would have made a great president. We would have gotten some progressive policy...now we face losing policy in place since Roosevelt and the courts...and you want to give us advice! No thanks, and sorry I won't read your crappy article either Naomi...no clicks from me.

There will never be a shortage of people telling me who to blame. Regardless of whether it's a overweight guy yelling on the AM radio, or a Canadian magazine editorialist, there's some pretty good money in telling us which way to point our fingers.

For pissing off all the right people! Neoliberals need to fuck right off and join the Republican party. Just get it over with already.

Hear! Hear!

Democrats will continue to lose unless the party changes.

Some of us are old enough to see a pattern. The Democratic base was working class. Republicans were business class(employers) and money. Clinton changed that. It was good in the short run and with the dot.com bubble but it's over. Neoliberalism is over if we can take back our country. I hope we can. I thought Bernie was our last hope. Maybe not. Time will tell.

The writing has been on the wall for a long, long time. Why are we paying attention only now? Maybe Trump's victory will wake up enough people that the wheels of change will be set in motion.