An election year is the absolute worst time to advance your pet cause.

[rucky]

That's what the other three years are for.

So let's pull together, because the best chance of having equal rights, justice, protect the constitution, or whatever your pet cause is is to GET A DEM IN THE WHITE HOUSE. Even if Obama hasn't expressly shown the same level of commitment to your pet cause, quit asking him to pander to you. He's our nominee - let him do what he thinks he needs to do to win, and let's just trust and support him until November because that's who we've picked to represent us. Just until November. trust the guy. or at least give him a chance to lead before you freak out.

Then in January, we can resume giving him hell.

[EFerrari]

1. What is this in response to, rucky?

It doesn't seem prudent to me to wait until Obama is in office to ask him to commit to X because once in office, he won't need the same level of support.

But, I don't know what you are really referring to in your OP.

Oh, and I don't trust politicians just out of general principle. lol :)

[Edweird]

2. What, exactly, are you going to DO if he doesn't "commit to X"? You gonna vote for McLame in

retaliation? Not vote at all? I doubt it. He's the (presumptive) nominee. It's a little late for platform analysis.

[EFerrari]

5. It's not too late to exact a statement until the results are in. N/T

[Vincardog]

14. Now is the time to elect a progressive populist Congress to send him the laws we want enacted.

[Selatius]

20. We're more likely to elect a bunch of right wing Blue Dog Democrats than FDR/Truman-style populists.

Those kinds of Democrats are pretty rare nowadays. The corporate press shies away from economic leftism in general. The conventional wisdom is you run a conservative Democrat in Republican districts, but that kind of thinking doesn't really make sense when the district is of lower middle class and the working poor.

If you ran someone who is left wing in terms of fighting for worker rights and of championing poverty relief programs and of supporting opportunities for the poor, you're more likely to blow out the Republican in that district as opposed to ordinary 51-49 victories.

[Vincardog]

24. Bingo fight the power. IF give a choice between a REAL liberal and a fake republican they will choos

the REAL liberal.

[MaraJade]

30. His first term can be made miserable. . .

and he can go out in total disgrace in 2012. Furthermore, I guarantee that
his place in the history books will stink as well.

[truedelphi]

3. Also there is nothing in the Constitution that won't allow this lame duck

President to declare all out war in Iran.

Impeachment may be the necessary activity to prevent this calamity. The Kyle Lieberman amendment gives Bush far too much leeway.

At this point, to get their little war with Iran started, all they have to do is prove that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad caused Russert's heart attack!!

[Vincardog]

15. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war not the (p)Resident

[truedelphi]

26. But our Congress signing off on Kyle Lieberman paves the way

It allows the President to take any funding needed should he decide that there is a rational (in
his opinion) cause for a military action against Iran.

[rucky]

10. It just seems that we haven't gotten a break between the Hillary-holdouts

and the people who actually expect Obama to come out in support of impeachment.

I didn't want to go there in the OP, because every time I do, people think it means there are actually Dems who want to give Bush a pass. There aren't, but we can't seem to elevate that discussion here.

[EFerrari]

32. Now I get it. Thank you. n/t

[texasleo]

4. Agreed. Let's not hurt our own guy like in 2004.

[EFerrari]

6. Who hurt Kerry in 2004?

A whole coalition of progressives held together on the left to work for him. :shrug:

[Selatius]

21. The ones who hurt Kerry were the ones who didn't want to fight too hard to have the votes counted.

[KT2000]

7. Timing is everything

We have our nominee and our job has turned to getting him elected. We have been pretty good at whacking our candidates in the knees over individual issues that prove to weaken the candidate in the general election.
You are so right - we have 3 years for that.

[bean fidhleir]

8. To some people, apparently, "we ratified one of the choices forced on us by them"

and "we picked someone to represent us" are the same thing.

I wonder whether that could have some significance for why we're always up to our chins in Sh*t Creek.

[rucky]

11. We work with what we've got.

He wasn't my first choice either.

[MaraJade]

29. All the more reason for Obama to BE OUR MAN

and not he pawn of any special interest group. If that happens, he's toast, and
he will be ridden out of DC on a rail in 2012.

[Greyhound]

17. The illusion of choice must be maintained. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

9. I agree. Even if the 'pet cause' is rather important.

This is not the time.

[MedleyMisty]

12. You know, I remember after 9/11

when I tried to point out what was wrong with Bush, people said "Now is not the time."

It's always the time for people to say what they want. You don't have to agree with it or listen to it, but they can say it whenever.

[Runcible Spoon]

22. of COURSE it's the time to expect a candidate to take a STAND on important issues!

I think it's SOOOO pathetic to expect so little from a candidate that we are all sitting around telling each other, "hey, he might not want to do anything about "pet causes" (WTF IS THIS?! This is everything from: healthcare to the environment to education to abortion rights to the economy!), so let's just get him elected and hope he does something".

This attitude will do nothing but ensure that Obama takes the safe middle path on any policy decisions. I'm not by any means saying that Obama and McCain would be the same thing. What I AM asking, however, is how Obama will be different from Clinton.

Listen, I'd rather have a candidate who stood strong on his principles even if I didn't agree 100% over a candidate who refuses to promise action on my "pet causes". Obama, BE that candidate!

For the rest of you, SHAME SHAME SHAME on telling others to just put your time, effort, and money into a candidate without asking him to deliver!

*anticipating flames: no I am not an ideological purist, no I don't expect one candidate to fulfill all of my wildest dreams

[cascadiance]

31. I still expect an effort to impeachment though...

Some may call it a "pet cause", but I expect our government to do that as part of doing their jobs of keeping this country's system and constitution alive!

I know it's not specifically Barack's job to lead this now, but I expect it not to get ignored, even though we need to do everything to help him win.

[loyalsister]

13. He says it himself

We should hold him accountable once he is elected.
As a matter of fact, I think it is our responsibility.
Pressure from the bottom up is what will keep him in line.

Lyndon Johnson didn't sign civil rights act because he thought it was the right thing to do.
He knew he was making a political sacrifice.
But he had a constiuency holding him accountable.

Women finally won support from Pres. Wilson for the 19th Amendment by demonstrating for suffrage at the White House during a time of war. The history books don't accurately document what they went through. Watch "Iron Jawed Angels" for an account.

Change comes from the bottom up.

[SoCalDem]

16. It's ALWAYS an "election year" or a lead-up year to an election

These days there is a perpetual campaign mode in force.. Congress runs every 2 years, and begins the next-campaign on the afternoon of their most recent victory.. The senate has the capability to change hands every 2 years, due to the staggering of their 6 year terms..

Special interest groups need to trust in the people they support, and to believe that the people they support, will also support them. Republicans have mastered (in the past at least) the art of "laying-low" until the election is secured, and at the same time, putting controversial things on the ballots, specifically designed to bring out their base AGAINST democrats..

Because we have a diverse group of people in our tent, it's hard to coaslesce around a few salient issues that everyone can get behind.. republicans have mastered the art because they are mostly AGAINST things, and we are mostly in FAVOR of things.

It's easier to get people riled up to vote against things, than it is to get masses of people to rally FOR things they want/need, since most groups want different things..

Republicans use fear to get their folks to rally around issues that they think will take something away from them. People always fear losing something...

Threaten to take something away, and people will riot...but try to get those same people out in the streets to gain something for someone else..

That's the difference

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Runcible Spoon]

19. I'm giving him a chance to prove himself, but I will continue to discuss his proposed policies....

and I think calling things like civil rights (abortion rights, gay marriage etc) or the environemnt or education or whatever as "pet causes" absolutely bullshit, sorry. I'm not accusing the OP necessarily since there's not enough to go off, but the term "pet causes" has been used to downplay the importance of progressive values in order to get another business as usual DLC moderate elected.

Right now what worries me the most is the same old neoliberal economic crap we've been saying through the last few decades, as well as a wishy washy dedication to protecting the environment. I think he will come up fairly solid on most social policies.

[bean fidhleir]

23. One EASILY-solved problem is to call the DLC what they are: rightwingers

indistinguishable from the GOP in their motives and actions.

They're NOT "moderates". *I'm* a "moderate": I don't advocate taking them all out to a wall somewhere, shooting them dead, and then hanging their corpses to convenient lampposts. That's pretty damned moderate of me, everything considered.

[MaraJade]

28. Amen!

These are not "pet causes".

Somehow, I think we are being coerced to get ready for more of the same old shit with the
same old idiots getting everything while the people get nothing.

:grr:

[LWolf]

25. Causes aren't "pets."

Issues are the whole reason why we vote.

The candidates in any given election are secondary to the point: to work to affect the issues that drive our lives.

There's always an election coming up. Using elections as a reason not to advance the issues is counterproductive.

Support and defense of the Constitution of the U.S. is the job of all those who have been elected. They aren't on vacation during election cycles.

[MaraJade]

27. He is SUPPOSED TO PANDER TO ME!

He is running for President, for goodness sake! He wants my support, he'd damn well better
pander to ME! He'd better pander to ALL Americans! He is supposed to support OUR AGENDA, not
his own. I don't support anyone who doesn't support ME! I don't trust him and will never trust
him unless I am pandered to. I damn well hope he doesn't pander to special interest groups, Wall
Street and Big Business! He'd better not be pandering to elites in the educational establishment
and policy wonks! We've had enough of that crap! It's the people's turn to be pandered to--
ESPECIALLY WORKING CLASS PEOPLE!

:eyes:

Sheesh!

[bean fidhleir]

33. Isn't it strange that someone actually has to *say* what you just said here?

In a healthy country that sort of "pandering" would rightly be taken for granted.

Which should tell us most of what we need to know about the health of the USA.

[orleans]

34. i remember the "gays/guns/god" "wedge" issues in 2004.

remember the hysteria: kerry would let gays get married, he had to go on a hunting trip to "prove" how much he liked guns, and of course, the FEAR of taking "under god" out of the pledge!

kill me!

i know what you mean.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. It's the BEST time to advance issues. Politicians listen then.

With the threat of losing an election, they tend to pay attention to the citizenry.

The vote is the only real weapon we have against the bosses.

[mitchtv]

36. They tell Gays that every year

why should this year be any different? I always ignore that advice.

[rucky]

37. My argument is purely strategic. Here's the current pattern:

Relative silence & weaker support within the activist organization for three years, then making some noise in the election year because a) activist groups think have the best chance of being listened to (read upthread), and b) more media coverage

Then the group gets increasingly frustrated because the candidate does not want to risk a loss on your behalf.

That has not been working well.

It should be happening the opposite way, when they're worried about holding their office and more time can be devoted to a single-issue cause. That's ALL I'm saying. Sorry about the dismissive tone in the OP, but it's frustrating to watch our party shoot ourselves in the foot election after election.

[mitchtv]

38. Not half as frustrating

as having your full citizenship being denied, then being blamed on costing the election. I will wait no longer , for nobody.They don't like it? tough, give me a reason to stay home. I am so sick of "ypu have no where else to go" It means nothing anymore

[yardwork]

39. If this is in reference to withholding human rights, forget it.

This better not be about gay rights. Gay rights are human rights. If the Democrats tolerate denial of human rights, then we're no better than Republicans.